[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Issue]
[Pages 33577-33769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 33577]]
SENATE--Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Sheldon Whitehouse, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, you are our fortress. You know everything we do and
desire justice and humility. You have ordained human government for the
good of humanity.
Guide our Senators by the wisdom of Your Word. Deliver them from the
pride that leads to shame as they make obeying You their top priority.
Remind them of Proverbs 29:2, that ``when the righteous are in
authority the people rejoice. But when the wicked rule, the people
groan.'' Help our Senators also to remember Your wisdom in Proverbs
29:7, ``a righteous person knows the rights of the poor; a wicked
person does not understand such knowledge.''
May the business done in this place conform to Your justice and
equity. We ask this in Your Name and for Your glory. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, December 11, 2007.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Sheldon Whitehouse, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE 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. 2436, S. 2440, S. 2441
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk due for a
second reading en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bills by
title for the second time en bloc.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to clarify the term of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
A bill (S. 2440) to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the
provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.
A bill (S. 2441) to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the
provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with
respect to these bills.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bills will
be placed on the calendar.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will be in a period of morning business
for 1 hour, with the time equally divided as usual, with the
Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the
final half.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of
the farm bill. There has been tremendously good movement on that. All
the Republican amendments have been offered. Five Democratic amendments
have been offered. We are going to set up a program for voting on
these.
For example, some of the most controversial, the one we thought would
be controversial that Senator Domenici has offered regarding the
renewable fuel program, I think probably we can take that. So I think
progress can be made.
We have Senator Coburn who has offered a number of amendments.
Senator Gregg has offered a number of amendments. But we can set up a
voting schedule for those. I think we have every indication that we can
complete this bill before we leave and hopefully have it go to
conference.
I have spoken to the Republican leader about the conference. We have
an idea of how we can do a conference in this instance. While in some
others it could not be done, I think in this instance there is a way we
can have a real conference. I hope that is the case.
Under an order entered last night, the Senate will debate the Lugar-
Lautenberg amendment for 3 hours. The vote in relation to that will
occur sometime after the Senate returns from the caucus recess period
today. That will be the first vote today. There could be other votes
this afternoon. I will talk to the Republican leader about that. If we
cannot schedule more votes this afternoon, we will schedule a load of
them in the morning.
A lot of work remains to be done. Members can expect long days as we
continue to work toward Christmas, which is 2 weeks from today.
The Senate will recess for the caucus lunch period from 12:30 to 2:15
p.m.
During the next 10 days, we have a lot of work to do. As I have
indicated, we are going to try to finish the farm bill. We are going to
try to make a significant effort to try to complete our intelligence
legislation. We have the AMT which is still pending. Although we have
passed it here, we understand the House is going to give us something
dealing with that. We have to do our work on that.
We have energy legislation. We are trying to work through that, and
we also have our spending. I have had a conversation with the
Republican leader this morning on that, and while things do not appear
as hopeful as I wish, I am kind of reminded of President Lincoln. If
you go to the Lincoln Memorial, you see on the wall the carved words of
his second inaugural address, which is so prophetic and so strong,
where he talks about both sides are praying to the same God, praying
for different results.
You know, I, of course, am confident we are trying to do the right
thing on the farm bill, FISA, alternative minimum tax, our spending
programs, but I am realistic enough to know there is hopefully some way
in between to work all this out. Even though we are all hopeful that
our side is right, I have come over the years to learn there is usually
some way of working through these things, although this is pretty
difficult duty we have now to complete our work in the next few days. I
hope we can do that.
As the end of 2007 continues to draw near, we have, as I have
indicated, a tremendously busy work period ahead of us. We hope to
complete action on the appropriations process which will require the
White House, along with House and Senate Republicans, to be responsible
and reasonable in the pursuit of common ground.
We will work to complete the Energy bill with the bipartisan
compromise that will take our country toward lower energy prices for
consumers and a cleaner environment.
[[Page 33578]]
We will work to complete FISA legislation to ensure that we have the
tools to fight terrorism with fair and, yes, constitutional tools, and
pass legislation that will fund this Government. We know we are going
to have to do a very short CR, continuing resolution, to keep the
Government open. Hopefully that will be for a matter of days and
certainly not multiple weeks.
I look forward to some bipartisan progress. I hope that can be done.
____________________
DESTRUCTION OF CIA TORTURE TAPES
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to speak this morning about another
issue that concerns not just Democrats but members of both parties and
our entire country. It is often said that a man has nothing but his
reputation, his honor, and his integrity. I believe that to be the
case. This is true not just for men but for countries.
In a thousand years, in a hundred years, when historians write the
story of these early days of America, they will, of course, write about
our great cities, our military and, of course, our economy. But the
real story will be of a young Nation, unique among its global peers,
because it has stood for liberty and justice, not just with words but
with deeds. The true measure of America is our moral authority. Over
the past 7 years, that authority has been significantly damaged: the
war in Iraq that did not have to be waged; a CIA agent exposed to harm
for telling the truth, Valerie Plame; a Justice Department in shambles
with Attorney General Gonzales; the treatment of prisoners held up to
no standard except the daily whims of a few people, Abu Ghraib, water
torture. But now the word is that the CIA destroyed tapes from some of
these interrogations. It has been acknowledged that the interrogations
were by using water torture, something that originated in 1492 by Queen
Isabella and King Ferdinand in the Inquisition. Here it is hundreds and
hundreds of years later, and great America has reverted to what took
place in the Inquisition.
The damage to our moral authority will matter to history books, but,
more importantly, it matters right now. It puts our troops at greater
risk if captured, impairs our relationship with nations that ought to
be our allies, it impedes our ability to fight an effective war on
terror, it creates terrorists.
This latest news of destroyed tapes raises far more questions than we
have answers. For example, who is responsible for destroying these
tapes? Why? Was something being covered up? The possibility of
obstruction of justice is very real. The American people deserve a full
accounting for what took place and answers for all of these questions.
Will that eradicate what has gone on over the last 7 years? Of course
not. But it will help. Chairman Rockefeller has launched an
investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I am happy that the
Intelligence Committee has been working on a bipartisan basis. That is
good. Senator Bond has been working with Senator Rockefeller, and they
have done what has been good work. There has been very little
infighting between them.
The Attorney General of the United States, newly selected, has said
he will launch an inquiry. We will see what this inquiry will be. I
expect both the Intelligence Committee and the Attorney General of the
United States to investigate aggressively the answers to questions
regarding this coverup.
But the CIA, the Justice Department, the Bush White House, every
American should know that if these investigations encounter resistance
or are unable to find the truth, I will not hesitate to add my voice to
those calling for a special counsel. For example, this weekend, Joe
Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called for a
special prosecutor. He may be right. I am willing to wait and see what
develops before I join in that call.
We must take every step necessary to protect our country's integrity
and defend this country's great moral responsibility and authority that
we have.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
MOVING FORWARD
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say I share the view of the
majority leader that there is clearly a way forward on the farm bill.
We are now making substantial progress and should be able to complete
that bill in the near future.
Also I think there is a way to get a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act measure out of the Senate that could be signed by the
President.
With regard to the remaining efforts here on the spending issues, it
is, indeed, hard to understand the complaints we are hearing from the
other side on our supposed lack of compromise on spending. We have
sought actually compromises all year in dozens of appropriations
committee and subcommittee hearings, which is the normal process. But
we are now a quarter of the way into the fiscal year. Responsible
people understand the time to get the work done is now. As the majority
leader indicated, Christmas is 2 weeks from today. We can keep going
back and forth with the House maybe endlessly. But that would only
further delay our fundamental responsibility of getting these spending
bills signed into law.
So what is the way to do it? The way forward: Let's protect the
taxpayers' wallets, fund the troops, and end this otherwise
unproductive exercise.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period of morning business for 60 minutes with the time
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each,
with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority
controlling the final half.
The Senator from Texas.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe we have two speakers on our side
in morning business this morning. I would ask unanimous consent that I
be allotted 15 minutes of that, and Senator Graham from South Carolina
be allotted the second 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an
issue that should be the first priority of this Congress, and that is
to fund our troops during a time of war, to make sure they have the
funds they need, to have the equipment, to have logistical support and
other support they need in order to fight this global war on terrorism.
There have been a lot of rumors circulating around Congress about
what the way forward is going to be on the appropriations--I can only
call it a mess--that confronts us when only 1 appropriations out of 12
bills has been signed by the President.
Yesterday I heard the reports for the chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, David Obey, which said he was pulling the
proposed omnibus appropriations bill because he was upset with
negotiations on that.
He said this--and this is the one part I do agree with--
I want no linkage whatsoever between domestic [spending]
and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its
own. We shouldn't be trading off domestic priorities for the
war.
I would rephrase that that we should not be doing anything to tie the
fate of our troops to wasteful pork projects or excessive Washington
spending.
[[Page 33579]]
I am glad to see the distinguished majority whip on the floor because
I do have a unanimous consent request that I know he will be interested
in.
Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 2340
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 484, S. 2340. I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider
be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill
appear at this point in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent
that the remarks I am about to make not be taken from the time allotted
to the Senator from Texas in terms of morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object--and I will object to this
request--let me say at the outset that what the Senator has asked for
is to return to a bill which was considered by the Senate on November
16, 2007. There was a failure of a cloture vote, which is a vote
requiring 60 Senators to vote affirmatively before the bill goes
forward. The final vote was 45 to 53. In fact, three Republican
colleagues of the Senator from Texas joined in opposing that cloture
vote. This is a Senate appropriations bill. As the Senator from Texas
knows, the Constitution requires that spending bills originate in the
House. So the House would either object or ignore this bill or blue
slip the bill in a way that would mean that whatever we would do here
would not achieve the result asked for by the Senator from Texas.
As of today, we have lost 3,888 American lives in Iraq. The amount of
money which we have provided, according to the administration, would
allow them to continue the war at least to the end of March and perhaps
beyond. So the troops are not without the resources they need. What the
Senator from Texas has proposed is an approach which is on its face
unconstitutional and has been rejected by the Senate on November 16,
including three Republican Senators. For that reason, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CORNYN. I differ with the distinguished Senator from Illinois.
Obviously, the bill that was voted on earlier contained numerous
restrictions and deadlines on deployment of our troops in Iraq. For
that reason, cloture was denied. It is not that there wasn't support.
Indeed, I would hope there would be unanimous support to make sure our
troops get the emergency funding they need in order to continue
military operations until such time as Congress can appropriate the
remainder of the President's request of $196 billion.
It is important to note that this is emergency bridge funding for the
troops. While I don't disagree with the distinguished Senator from
Illinois that the military can borrow from Peter to pay Paul and move
funds around within their budget to avoid disaster up until about mid-
February, the fact is, the White House has now warned that 100,000
civilian jobs depend on this emergency funding.
Here is a story from the Army Times dated December 10, 2007, that
says the Department of Defense is sending notices of layoffs this
week--2 weeks before Christmas--to 100,000 civilian employees warning
them, unless Congress acts, they are going to be out of a job. This is
not the way to show our support for the troops. In fact, this is
nonsupport for the troops.
It is important to note what is included in this emergency funding
that should be voted on today and decoupled from the debate over the
Omnibus appropriations bill or any other continuing resolution. Here
are the most notable provisions: One, operation and maintenance
funding--this finances a broad range of activities, including combat
operations, transportation of personnel and equipment, fuel, equipment
maintenance, and general base support for our troops.
It also funds the Iraqi security forces and Afghanistan security
forces. If we have any hope of bringing our troops home sooner rather
than later, it is because we have succeeded in training the Iraqis to
take our place, to provide that security so we can bring our troops
home as soon as possible. By not providing the funding, we are delaying
that prospect, not advancing it.
The third general category is funding for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization--the Joint IED Defeat
Organization--which is dedicated to finding new ways to neutralize the
primary threat to our troops in Iraq, which is improvised explosive
devices. We ought to be providing the funding for this Joint IED Defeat
Organization so they can save the lives and limbs literally of American
troops.
This emergency funding being blocked by Senate Democrats would go to
repair, replace, and upgrade military equipment. It also provides for
military personnel funding, special pay and benefits, including
hazardous duty pay for our troops, as well as the Defense Health
Program. Those are the categories of items being blocked by today's
objection by the Democratic leadership.
I am disappointed by the decision to block this emergency funding for
our troops in Iraq. This is the material support we can provide to show
our troops we are behind them, regardless of our differences on the war
or how the war is being conducted. We see time and time again how this
Congress, egged on by special interest groups such as Moveon.org, has
been willing to use our troops as part of their political debate. This
is particularly appalling when we are the ones who first asked and
voted--by a vote of 77 to 21, I believe, 77 affirmatively--for the use
of force in Iraq. We are the ones who voted and have the responsibility
for authorizing that use of force. For us now to deny the funding they
need to foster a situation where money has to be moved around from
accounts just to get by and 100,000 civilian employees are being put on
notice that they are going to be out of a job unless Congress quits
playing a game is simply unsustainable.
Last January, of course, we unanimously confirmed GEN David Petraeus
to lead our forces in Iraq. As we all know, there was serious concern
about the way the military operations in Iraq were being conducted, and
many, if not all, of us called for a new way forward. We unanimously
agreed that General Petraeus was the right man for that job. In fact, I
am proud to say that vote to support General Petraeus's nomination and
that vote of confidence in the new strategy, the so-called surge of
forces in operations in Iraq, proved to be a correct one.
General Petraeus, with his counterinsurgency strategy and with the
hard work and dedication of our men and women in the military, has
brought us closer to a stable Iraq that many had simply given up and
thought not possible. Reports are appearing daily in the newspaper and
on the electronic media showing that violent attacks continue to
decline in Iraq and communities across that country. Reports show
people not only feel safer, they are safer. Refugees who have left Iraq
to go to Syria and other places to protect their lives and their
families are now returning to Iraq because Iraq is safer. Taxi drivers
have resumed their old routes in neighborhoods without regard for
whether predominantly Shiite or Sunni, and neighbors and families
previously separated by the war are reuniting as refugees are returning
by the busload.
My colleagues have had a chance to show their support for the troops.
Unfortunately, we see that support sorely lacking. The call of groups
such as Moveon.org seems to be so loud and has such command on the
other side of the aisle that it drowns out these positive reports about
the improved security situation in Iraq. It leads some, unfortunately,
to block emergency funding that our troops need in order to carry out
continued security operations and training for Iraqis to take our place
so we can bring our troops home. Unfortunately, they end up being part
of the partisan political games that tend to dominate Washington, DC.
My colleagues who continue to insist that
[[Page 33580]]
Iraq is lost and that the surge has failed or that Iraq is not making
political progress are not talking about the Iraq of today.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Betting against the
men and women of the U.S. military is always a bet you will lose. When
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that all is lost
even before the surge started, frankly, they have been proven wrong.
They lost that bet by betting against the men and women of the U.S.
military.
Michael Totten, a reporter embedded in the once volatile region of
Fallujah, wrote last week in the New York Daily News:
There's a gigantic perception lag in America these days.
The Iraq of the popular imagination and the Iraq of the real
world are not the same country.
Secretary of Defense Gates said on Saturday that:
Civilian deaths across Iraq are down about 60 percent.
Recently, there was the lowest number of single-day attacks
across the nation in three and a half years.
The progress is real. But it is also fragile.
Why in the world, given this progress and given the fragility of the
conditions in Iraq, would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
deny the emergency funding that our troops need? What possible
rationale could there be for making that part of the political games
and dysfunction that seems to dominate the Congress?
We have to make our policy decisions based not on the Iraq many have
remembered from the past but the situation on the ground today which is
improving, rebounding, and growing. Yet we still hear the doomsayers
and those admonishing General Petraeus and his strategy. I am reminded
of something a professor once told me when he said speaking louder
doesn't make you any more right. We need to listen to the facts and not
the loudest voices.
We all have an important question to ask ourselves. It is not about
should we have gone into Iraq or why we went into Iraq. Those questions
are now relegated to the history books. The fact is, we are there. The
question we must ask now is, Given the current situation in Iraq and
the Middle East, what is the best course of action for the United
States? We should ask ourselves, Will withdrawing troops from Iraq
before securing it make us any more or less secure at home? I have no
doubt--and history will agree--that the more stable we can make Iraq,
the better chance they have of becoming a fully functioning partner in
the Middle East, a democracy governed by Iraqis.
A precipitous withdrawal, whether caused by deadlines imposed by
Congress or by cutting off funding or by leaving funding in doubt, as
our Democratic colleagues have done by objecting to this unanimous
consent request today, would be detrimental to the security and
stability of Iraq and would endanger American lives at home.
How could that be? The intelligence community tells us that a power
vacuum in Iraq left by a rapid American withdrawal would create a
failed state and an opportunity for al-Qaida to reassemble and
reorganize.
It would create an opportunity for a training ground and an
organizing location for al-Qaida and Islamic extremists to launch
future terrorist attacks against the United States or our other allies
or American forces in the Middle East. Such action would also likely
necessitate future American military operations in the region that
would put us behind where we are today, not advance where we are today.
I think we can all agree that kind of scenario is completely
unacceptable and certainly not in the best interest of the United
States. The situation in Iraq, as it stands now, needs a continued
military presence with a force large enough to handle potential
problems until the Iraqis are able to govern and defend themselves. The
more capable the Iraq military and police forces become, the fewer of
our troops are necessary to assist them in that effort. But it does not
help them to cause them to question whether we are going to provide the
financial support for our troops and for the training of Iraqi military
and police forces. But that is exactly what the Senate is doing today
by blocking this unanimous consent request.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, still now, are
left to claim that the lack of Iraqi political reconciliation is the
reason they are dissatisfied with the outcome in Iraq, having lost the
argument by the improved security arrangements as a result of the surge
and the counterinsurgency strategy of General Petraeus.
I have to wonder whether we are holding the Iraqi Government--Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, by now moving the goalposts, saying first
the surge would not work to now having to declare the obvious, that the
surge is working and the military situation is better, our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle and the naysayers are saying: Well,
really the problem is a lack of political reconciliation. But I have to
ask whether we--a Congress that has proven itself to be dysfunctional
over the last 8 months or 11 months now--whether we are holding the
Iraqis to a different standard than we would actually hold ourselves
to. We have not exactly been a model for how Congresses should
function.
I think it is unfair for us to continue to move the goalposts and say
that the significant reconciliation efforts that are occurring in
tribal areas, in the provinces, and local areas do not count because
clearly they do count, with things like the Anbar awakening and the
work being done around Iraq now from the bottom up, as opposed to the
top down, which is helping to make for a more secure Iraq, and making
sure that Iraqis, rather than Americans, are principally responsible
for maintaining security and safety in Iraq, in conjunction with
American military troops.
I am discouraged and disappointed that our colleagues have blocked
this emergency funding for our troops, putting 100,000 civilian
employees of the Department of Defense in doubt during this Christmas
season as to whether they are actually going to have a job come
February and causing our troops to question our commitment to support
them during a time of war. That is not the message this Senate ought to
be sending, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, is it my understanding I am recognized for
15 minutes. Is that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifteen minutes, without objection.
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to start this discussion about what to do
in Iraq, I think we need to sort of take inventory of where we are,
what common ground we do have. I do believe there is a vast, wide, and
deep support for the men and women in the military by the average
Republican and Democrat and Independent citizen and Members of
Congress, and that is indeed good news for our country. It is not one
of those situations where people came back from Vietnam and were not
well received by their fellow citizens. For that, we should all be
grateful.
I would like to put this debate in a little different context. As my
colleague from Texas said, whether we should have gone into Iraq is
sort of a matter for historical discussion. The question for us as a
nation is winning and losing, and can you put Iraq in terms of winning
and losing? I think you have to because our enemy has. Our enemy, al-
Qaida and other extremists groups, looks at Iraq very much as a
battlefront and a battle they want to win and us to lose. That is why
bin Laden has rallied the jihadist and al-Qaida sympathizers to go to
Iraq and go to the Land of the Two Rivers and drive the infidel out,
because I think they understand pretty clearly that if Iraq can
reconcile itself, become a stable, functioning democracy, with an
[[Page 33581]]
Iraqi spin to it, where a woman can have a say about her children,
where the rule of law would reign over the rule of the gun, and be a
place that would absorb religious tolerance, it would be a nightmare
for their agenda. So our enemy is very certain in their own mind about
what would happen if we won in Iraq.
Again, winning to me would be a stable, functioning democracy,
tolerant of religious differences, where all groups would have a
political say, where a woman would have a meaningful role in society
regarding her children and their future. And it would contain Iran. It
would be a buffer to Iranian ambitions. It would deny extremist groups,
such as al-Qaida, safe haven. That, to me, is winning, and that, to me,
is very possible. The reason I say it is very possible is because it is
in the best interests of the Iraqi people themselves to achieve that
goal. There is a Shia majority in Iraq, but they are Iraqi Shia. They
are Arabs. The Persian Shia majority--there has been a war between
these two countries in the past decades and a lot of animosity. So the
general feeling on the streets that I have found from many visits to
Iraq is that, generally speaking, the Iraqi population does not want to
be dominated by anybody, including Iran.
Now, the biggest news of the surge that is not being reported enough,
in my opinion, is that given a choice and an opportunity, a Muslim
population, the Iraqi Sunni Arabs, rejected the al-Qaida agenda in
Anbar. The al-Qaida movement in Iraq was formulated and inspired by
outside forces. Leaders from al-Qaida internationally came into Iraq to
rally people to the al-Qaida cause. They played a very heavy hand in
Anbar, which was brutal--from the small things such as banning smoking
to burning children in front of their parents who did not cooperate.
They imposed a way of living on the Iraqis in Anbar Province for which
the Anbar Iraqi Sunni Arabs said: No, we don't want any more of this.
And the sheiks and all the tribes came to our side because al-Qaida
overplayed their hand. So the real good news for me is that given an
opportunity and being reinforced, the al-Qaida agenda will not sell,
and people within the region will turn it down and reject it. That
would not have happened without the surge.
I think most of us do not appreciate what life is like in a country
where if you raise your hand to be a judge, let's say, not only do you
become personally at risk, they try to kill your family--the forces
that do not want to reconcile Iraq.
Political debates and discourse in this country can be very
contentious, but on occasion we find that middle ground to solve our
problems. It is hard and difficult to compromise in an environment
where the people who want you to fail literally will kill your family.
So the lack of security in the past has been our biggest impediment to
reconciliation. Thank God for General Petraeus, General Odinero, and
all under their command. You have done a wonderful job.
This we should all agree upon: that the surge, as a military
operation, has been enormously successful and I think will be the gold
standard in military history for counterinsurgency operations. Instead
of bleeding it dry of funds and putting it at risk, we should reinforce
it politically, monetarily, and in every other way.
A political leader can reinforce a military leader. Our military,
because of our system of government, depends on us, those of us in
elected office, to give them the resources to execute the mission they
have been assigned. Who among us believes we understand Iraq better
than General Petraeus militarily? Who among us advocated the surge as
proposed by General Petraeus? Who among us understands
counterinsurgency operations better than the general and his staff?
None of us, if we would be honest with ourselves. He is the expert in
this area. He has been given an ability to engage in military
operations with a completely new theory, and it is working--undeniably
working.
Security in Iraq is better. Anbar has literally been liberated. If
you told me a year ago, this time last year, we would be moving marines
out of Anbar because the security environment would justify it, I would
have thought: That is optimism beyond what I can muster. But it has
happened. And all throughout this country called Iraq, people are
beginning to reconcile themselves because of better security. Quite
frankly, they are war weary.
But I am not going to reinvent history. The blame is across the board
and across the aisle. How many times did Republicans go to Iraq after
the fall of Baghdad, for maybe 3 years, and say: It is really going
well, it is just the media's fault. It was not going well, and it was
not the media's fault. The strategy was failing. So people on my side
of the aisle were cheerleading for a strategy that, if we followed it,
we would have been hopelessly lost in Iraq. So there is plenty of blame
to go around. Finally, we now have adjusted. We have a new general with
a new strategy. It is a lot more complicated than just 30,000 new
troops. We are deploying them differently. We are going after the
insurgency in a different way.
The biggest nightmare for al-Qaida has been the surge. If you ask to
pick winners and losers of the surge, it would be extremist groups. At
the top of the list would be al-Qaida, and it is soon going to be the
Shia militia aligned with Iran. There is an offensive about to take
place in Iraq that is going to put the nail in the coffin of extremist
groups. They are not defeated yet, but they are greatly diminished.
Now is not the time, colleagues, for us to put this surge in
jeopardy. Our troops are in a political crossfire here at home. They
are not in the middle of a heated sectarian war. Security does exist in
Iraq now to get business done. There are extremist groups, and it is
still dangerous, but the military has done its part to allow the Iraqi
people to reconcile themselves.
We have not done our part. We are still fighting a battle as if
nothing new has happened. We are still holding on to positions stated
in April and May as if nothing has changed, and that is not fair to
those who sacrificed to make it change. I took this floor for a very
long time with Senator McCain and a handful of others arguing that the
Department of Defense had a strategy doomed to fail. Thank God the
President changed course. Thank God for General Petraeus and all under
his command.
Now, to my colleagues on the other side, please let us allow General
Petraeus to finish the job he started. Within a few months, the troops
begin to come home based on the surge being successful. They will
return with victory at hand. Victory is not yet achieved, but it is
possible. The only way to roll back the security gains is to change the
mission and have the Congress start running the war.
The political crossfire I speak of is that some people want to give
the money to support the surge only if they get $11 billion of domestic
spending unrelated to the military. Some people will not give any money
for the surge, continued operations in Iraq, unless we change the
mission and withdraw troops by the end of the next year. That is a
crossfire politically that is doing more harm than good that should
end.
Beginning in March, General Petraeus will come back. He will tell us
the situation as it exists on the ground. I am here to tell you, in
December, that I am disappointed in the progress at the central
government level in Baghdad. They have passed a budget in Iraq--$48
billion. All revenue being shared among all groups is a great step
forward, but it is not a permanent solution to the problem.
We need a permanent law, a national law, that will tell every group
in Iraq: As to the wealth of the country, part of it will come to your
area, and you do not have to worry about it budget by budget. Political
reconciliation in Iraq has to happen for the surge to be successful. I
have said on numerous occasions that if there is not some major
breakthrough on the benchmarks by January, I will look at reconfiguring
the aid we give to the Iraqi Government, not changing the troop
missions or the troop numbers. I am going to leave that up to the
military. It is in our national security interest to maintain the gains
we have achieved on the ground to keep Iraq from going into
[[Page 33582]]
chaos. But we are giving this Government hundreds of millions of
dollars of aid, and if they cannot reconcile themselves, we may find
other places to spend that money and other ways to spend that money.
So I urge my colleagues to allow the troop funding that is required
to complete the surge, to allow it to go forward. Stop this political
crossfire of trying to extract from this necessary funding event more
money to spend domestically here at home or trying to take the mission
away from the military commanders. That is not where our troops need to
find themselves in this crucial moment in time.
I can promise you, as we go into next year, if the central government
in Baghdad has not done a better job reconciling themselves, I will sit
down with anyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to find a way to put
political pressure, economic pressure, on this government.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
____________________
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who
have been helping on S. 2045. These are in alphabetical order, not in
the order of work done. Everybody has worked a lot on different parts
of this bill. They are Senators Brown, Casey, Durbin, Harkin, Inouye,
Klobuchar, Menendez, Bill Nelson, and Schumer. They have all helped
craft this legislation relating to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
Because we are now in the holiday season, naturally, public attention
is focused on consumer product safety. I had come today prepared to ask
unanimous consent to try to move to this legislation. However, last
week, Thursday, I met with Al Hubbard at the White House in a very
constructive meeting to talk about some of the areas of disagreement on
the legislation, as it came out of the Senate Commerce Committee. It
was a very constructive meeting, very frankly. I hope, in the end, we
will consider that a very productive meeting. We don't know yet if
there is a meeting of the minds, but I am cautiously optimistic that
the White House is starting to engage in this very important issue to
this country and to the families of America.
Let's talk for a moment about the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
For a lot of people, the CPSC is just one of these ``alphabet soup''
agencies, and they don't know what the CPSC does. But I will tell you,
it touches every American's life every day. It is in the small things
that we use, such as batteries, coffeemakers, lawnmowers, toys, and
baby cribs.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is there to make sure these
products are safe for people in my State of Arkansas to buy and for
people all over this country to buy and use. One of the things the
Consumer Product Safety Commission should do is give people in this
country--including parents, when it comes to toys--peace of mind to
know the toys they purchase and other products they purchase meet
American safety standards.
This bill we are talking about today, S. 2045, was called recently by
the Wall Street Journal ``the most significant consumer safety
legislation in a generation.'' I think that accurately sums up the
nature of our legislation. It is consumer safety reform legislation. It
is very significant, very comprehensive.
Our efforts in reforming the CPSC predate a lot of the recalls we
heard about this summer. We have been working on this all year in the
subcommittee. Basically, the CPSC now looks after 15,000 separate
consumer products. Every year, there are about, roughly, 27,000 deaths
in this country caused by consumer products that are faulty. There are
33.1 million people injured every year through consumer products that
the CPSC regulates. So this is an agency that is a public safety
agency, a good Government agency.
Unfortunately, the CSPC is completely overwhelmed today. I believe
the Senate, the House, and the President should all work together to
reauthorize this agency and put it back together again.
Let me give some examples from this year alone. This year there have
been 37 million products recalled. Some people may say: Gosh, it is
working because all these products have been recalled. First, a lot of
those products should never have been imported in the first place. A
lot of them were recalled by the manufacturers, not the Government. In
any event, we have seen stories about lead-coated Big Bird, Elmo, and
Barbie accessories, and we have seen collapsing cribs and kerosene-
filled toy eyeballs. We have seen building toys with small, very
powerful, magnets that, when kids ingest them, cause problems. We have
seen craft toys that contain the date rape drug. That is unbelievable,
but we have seen in this country a craft set, or a craft toy, that
contains the date rape drug. These products should never be in the
marketplace to begin with.
Let me talk about the status quo for a moment. The status quo today,
with this flood of imports coming into this country, is completely
unacceptable. We should not stand idly by and allow these products to
saturate our markets. There have been stories in the last few days
about charities and charitable giving. One of the great organizations
during this time of year is the U.S. Marine Corps. They do the Toys for
Tots Program. They have been doing it for many years. Even when I was a
kid, it was a big deal because there were always kids in the community
less fortunate than I was. We would gather our toys around our house
and take them down to a drop station, wherever it may be, and the
Marines would sort them out and deliver them to kids who needed toys on
Christmas morning or during the holiday season.
One of my staff members, Jason Smedley, is a marine. Yesterday, he
went to DC to volunteer on the Marine Corps Toys for Tots, the big
disbursing office. Unfortunately, what he found was that the donations
to Toys for Tots are way down this year because parents and other
donors don't have confidence in the toys they are giving because there
might be something wrong with them.
Also, you find, as Jason told me, at the Toys for Tots location in
Washington, DC, they have three-ring binders with all kinds of toy
recall information in them. Every toy that comes in, they go through
that book to make sure that toy hasn't been recalled. Does that sound
efficient to anyone? No. That means the CPSC has not been able to do
its job and protect our marketplace from these dangerous toys.
There was another story in our local paper, the Arkansas Democratic
Gazette, yesterday where toy recalls have hurt instate charities, the
locally based charities. You see the same story there, where donations
are down. It has been a very hard season for those people who are in
that toy distribution operation during the holiday season.
There is a great leader in Arkansas, Hezekiah Steward. He is a
reverend, and he runs something called the Watershed Human Development
Center. People in our State call it the Watershed Project. He tries to
meet the needs of the most needy in the Little Rock area. He does a
great job. When I was Attorney General, we had a program and we tried
to donate as many toys as we could to Watershed and also to Toys for
Tots. We tried to help the Watershed because they are touching people
in the community that a lot of times fall through the cracks. Again,
Hezekiah Steward is in that article yesterday in the Arkansas
Democratic Gazette, saying the donations were down and they are having
to screen the toys. It is basically a big mess.
In addition to that, I have talked to parents and grandparents in
Arkansas, and they are telling me the same thing. They are saying: This
holiday season, when we want to buy toys, we don't know what to trust
anymore. If it says ``made in China,'' we don't buy it. That is not a
good screening process. Hopefully, most of the toys in the marketplace
are safe today, but the public has lost confidence in the system we
have now, and we in the Senate, in the U.S.
[[Page 33583]]
House, and also in the White House need to do a much better job of
giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission the tools it needs.
Let me talk a little bit about the Consumer Product Safety Commission
and help lay out the problem. Here on this chart we see something that
is very revealing. We see on the top chart the imports coming into this
country. What we see on the bottom chart is the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's staffing level year by year. One thing you will notice--
this is very clear, and the numbers are unmistakable--is that starting
in 1974, you see the general trend; it goes up and down a little bit,
but the general trend is for imports to increase coming into this
country. We all know that. Everybody in this body knows we have seen
imports increase dramatically in the United States in the last few
years. This is borne out on the chart.
Unfortunately, as the imports are going up, the staff at the CPSC is
going down. You can see these numbers. Again, they are unmistakable.
This is an agency in distress. If you look at what it was at its high
versus what it is today, the numbers are unmistakable. The problem with
the numbers is, when you see the low numbers like this on the staffing
level, when you understand the situation their lab is in, where it is
dilapidated and antiquated, and they are losing many people through
attrition, you understand all the problems the agency has and that it
is totally overwhelmed. When you look at this number, which is at an
all-time low, and imports are at an all-time high, you know we have a
problem.
In this body, we need to address that problem. There is no better
time to address it than right now. Let me talk for a moment about what
I think we need at the CPSC. We need a robust and proactive watchdog
agency. We need to prevent toxic toys from ever landing on our shores
and on our shelves. We need to be able to respond very quickly when
there is a problem. We need to have a system in place where we can
punish the bad actors and punish the repeat offenders.
Again, I have been talking to the White House, and I want to be
cautiously optimistic about what the White House told me on the phone
and in meetings, but we all need to work together to try to get this
done.
Let me run through some of the things that S. 2045 does. Basically,
what we are doing is taking this agency that needs an overhaul, and we
are overhauling it. What we are trying to do is increase the staff by
nearly 20 percent over time. We are trying to upgrade their testing
labs. We are trying to increase their agents at ports of entry, again,
so the dangerous products never enter this country. We are trying to
allow the States' attorneys general to be more like cops on the beat
and help the CPSC enforce the laws in all 50 States, not just in one
centralized location at the CPSC itself. We want to increase the civil
fines and the criminal penalties. Also, as part of this, we want to do
our dead level best to streamline the recall process. It takes too
long, it is too secretive, and there are many examples of people dying
as discussions are going on between the manufacturers and the CPSC on
how a recall will be conducted. This is very important.
This bill bans lead in children's products. I think that is very
important for the American public to understand. Right now, there is
not a ban on lead in children's products. We know it is dangerous, and
that is well documented. Our doctors, medical researchers, and
scientists have told us that. So we need to ban lead in children's
products.
This bill also allows the CPSC to select recall remedies. It doesn't
leave it up to the manufacture or the bad actors. Not all manufacturers
or retailers are bad. In fact, the supermajority of them are not. They
are trying to do what is right.
At the end of the day, the CPSC needs to make decisions that are in
the public interest--not some of these manufacturers and retailers and
distributors, et cetera, and what is in their own corporate interests.
We need a watchdog agency that will be there to protect the public
interest.
This bill increases public disclosure. That is important because most
parents have heard something on the news or read a little something in
the paper, but they really don't have an easy way to know what is being
recalled or exactly when it gets recalled. We want more public
disclosure, and we want it to happen quicker.
Also, regarding children's products, we want a third party process,
where a third party will certify that those products meet U.S. safety
standards. We have that in a lot of other areas, such as electronics.
There are a lot of third-party certification processes that exist in
the marketplace. We need that for children's products.
The last two or three things the bill does is it improves the
tracking labels on children's products. When we get a toy, and they say
there is a recall, say, on a certain kind of doll, there may be 10
varieties of that doll. We may have bought a doll made a year ago and
it has been in a warehouse. We don't know. We want a better labeling
and tracking system.
We want to provide whistleblower protections. If there are people out
there who know there is wrongdoing and somebody is covering it up--we
see this in other contexts--we want to allow that whistleblower to come
forward and not be punished for doing what is right.
The last point I wish to mention is the bill prohibits the sale of
recalled products. Again, a lot of people in this country may be
shocked to know that in many circumstances--not all--but in many
circumstances, we see recalled products still for sale on the open
market. Parents would be shocked to know that fact, but it is true.
We are trying to do our best, give our best effort to have a serious
and fundamental reform of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
One more point in closing, and that is, there are two major goals we
are trying to accomplish with this legislation. First, we are trying to
rebuild the agency. That is very important for the functioning of that
agency. As I said before, it is overwhelmed. I showed some charts.
There are many others I can point out to show how overwhelmed this
agency is. First and foremost, we want to rebuild the agency. And
second--and this point flows from the first point--we want to restore
public confidence in the marketplace. We don't want to be at the next
holiday season and moms and dads are coming up to me in Arkansas and
coming up to my colleagues all over the country saying: Should I buy
toys for my children and grandchildren this year? That is what I hear
when I go back home.
People are concerned, they are scared, they are uncertain about the
American marketplace, and that is too bad. We do not need that to
happen. We need our people to have confidence in the marketplace in
this country.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the House as
well and in the White House, I ask everyone to give this legislation a
serious look. We would like to move it forward this month, before the
end of this year, during this holiday season. I know there are some
folks who expressed interest in trying to help get that done. I am
available any day, any night. My staff is available. We definitely want
to work with whomever is willing to work to get the Consumer Product
Safety Commission reauthorization done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is before the
Senate at this moment?
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further morning business,
morning business is closed.
Mr. HARKIN. Morning business is closed and the Senate is back on the
farm bill?
____________________
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.
[[Page 33584]]
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs for fiscal year 2012, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.
Harkin (for Dorgan-Grassley) amendment No. 3695 (to
amendment No. 3500), to strengthen payment limitations and
direct the savings to increase funding for certain programs.
Brown amendment No. 3819 (to amendment No. 3500), to
increase funding for critical farm bill programs and improve
crop insurance.
Klobuchar amendment No. 3810 (to amendment No. 3500), to
improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the
savings to provide additional funding for certain programs
and reduce the Federal deficit.
Chambliss (for Lugar) amendment No. 3711 (to amendment No.
3500), relative to traditional payments and loans.
Chambliss (for Cornyn) amendment No. 3687 (to amendment No.
3500), to prevent duplicative payments for agricultural
disaster assistance already covered by the Agricultural
Disaster Relief Trust Fund.
Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3807 (to amendment No.
3500), to ensure the priority of the farm bill remains
farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture
spending on casinos, golf courses, junkets, cheese centers,
and aging barns.
Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3530 (to amendment No.
3500), to limit the distribution to deceased individuals, and
estates of those individuals, of certain agricultural
payments.
Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3632 (to amendment No.
3500), to modify a provision relating to the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program.
Salazar amendment No. 3616 (to amendment No. 3500), to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives
for the production of all cellulosic biofuels.
Thune (for McConnell) amendment No. 3821 (to amendment No.
3500), to promote the nutritional health of school children,
with an offset.
Craig amendment No. 3640 (to amendment No. 3500), to
prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland and grazing
land by Federal, State, and local governments for parks, open
space, or similar purposes.
Thune (for Roberts-Brownback) amendment No. 3549 (to
amendment No. 3500), to modify a provision relating to
regulations.
Domenici amendment No. 3614 (to amendment No. 3500), to
reduce our Nation's dependency foreign oil by investing in
clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3674 (to amendment No.
3500), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross
income.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3673 (to amendment No.
3500), to improve women's access to health care services in
rural areas and provide improved medical care by reducing the
excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery
of obstetrical and gynecological services.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3671 (to amendment No.
3500), to strike the section requiring the establishment of a
Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3672 (to amendment No.
3500), to strike a provision relating to market loss
assistance for asparagus producers.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3822 (to amendment No.
3500), to provide nearly $1,000,000,000 in critical home
heating assistance to low-income families and senior citizens
for the 2007-2008 winter season, and reduce the Federal
deficit by eliminating wasteful farm subsidies.
Thune (for Grassley/Kohl) amendment No. 3823 (to amendment
No. 3500), to provide for the review of agricultural mergers
and acquisitions by the Department of Justice.
Thune (for Sessions) amendment No. 3596 (to amendment No.
3500), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
establish a pilot program under which agricultural producers
may establish and contribute to tax-exempt farm savings
accounts in lieu of obtaining federally subsidized crop
insurance or noninsured crop assistance, to provide for
contributions to such accounts by the Secretary of
Agriculture, to specify the situations in which amounts may
be paid to producers from such accounts, and to limit the
total amount of such distributions to a producer during a
taxable year.
Thune (for Stevens) amendment No. 3569 (to amendment No.
3500), to make commercial fishermen eligible for certain
operating loans.
Thune (for Alexander) amendment No. 3551 (to amendment No.
3500), to increase funding for the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems, with an offset.
Thune (for Alexander) amendment No. 3553 (to amendment No.
3500), to limit the tax credit for small wind energy property
expenditures to property placed in service in connection with
a farm or rural small business.
Thune (for Bond) amendment No. 3771 (to amendment No.
3500), to amend title 7, United States Code, to include
provisions relating to rulemaking.
Salazar (for Durbin) amendment No. 3539 (to amendment No.
3500), to provide a termination date for the conduct of
certain inspections and the issuance of certain regulations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as Senators are well aware, we are now
back on the farm bill. I again thank both leaders, Senator Reid and
Senator McConnell, for last week working together to reach an agreement
whereby we will have 20 amendments, a maximum of 20 amendments. We
don't have to have 20 amendments but a maximum of 20 amendments on each
side. We now have a list, and we do have the amendments in order on the
Republican side. There are 20 listed. I hope that maybe not all of them
will require a vote. Maybe we can work some of those out so we will not
require votes or much time on any of those amendments. Senator
Chambliss and I are working together to try to get some hard-and-fast
time agreements on these amendments so we can move ahead expeditiously.
Right now we have seven amendments listed on the Democratic side, and
I hope that might be the limit of those amendments. Republicans have
about 20, and we have about 7 amendments that I know of right now.
Also, we know yesterday the Senate entered into a unanimous consent
agreement that beginning at 11 a.m., the Senate will begin 3 hours of
debate on the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment No. 3711 and the time is to be
equally divided, so an hour and a half on each side. Of course, we will
break at 12:30 p.m. for our respective weekly party conferences. We
will resume at 2:15 p.m. and will resume debate on amendment No. 3711,
the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment, and that when all time is used or
yielded back, we will vote on or in relation to that amendment.
Senators should be aware the first vote that will occur on an
amendment to the farm bill will be on the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment at
some point this afternoon, and then hopefully we will move ahead after
that on other amendments. I don't know exactly what the next amendment
will be. We will work that out.
Hopefully, we can work out some more votes today. I don't know how
late the leader wants to keep us in tonight. I am prepared to stay here
very late tonight--very late tonight--to move these amendments forward.
We are reaching a point where I know everyone wants to get out of here
for the holiday season, for Christmas and New Year. We are approaching
the end of Hanukkah. I know people would like to leave and get together
with their families. I think if we put in a couple long days, we can
reach pretty good agreements on these amendments to the farm bill.
I hope we will have a long day today and get some amendments offered
and debated and disposed of, one way or another. I wished to lay that
out. I see my colleague and good friend, the former chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, is on the floor.
So I will at this time yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 3711
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment No. 3711 is pending
under a 3-hour time limit.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, is it appropriate to commence the debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman
of the committee.
Mr. President, let me start by thanking Senator Tom Harkin, the
distinguished chairman of our committee, and the ranking Republican
leader, Saxby Chambliss, for their leadership. It is not an easy task
to be chairman or ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee
during the farm bill. Having served in both capacities, I know well of
the challenges that both have faced in putting together a bill.
Let me point out, as I have during the debate in committee, some
achievements have occurred. Both the
[[Page 33585]]
chairman and ranking member have outlined a number of these in the
areas of conservation, rural development, research, nutrition, and
energy.
I am also pleased by the effort to provide interested farmers with
the revenue-based program which should be an improvement over the
status quo.
However, the farm bill before us does not provide meaningful reform.
Our current farm policies, sold to the American public as a safety net,
actually hurt the family farmer. In the name of maintaining the family
farm and preserving rural communities, today's farm programs have
benefited a select few, while leaving the majority of farmers without
support or a safety net.
Let me review the history of these farm bills.
The genesis of our current farm policy began during the Great
Depression as an effort to help alleviate poverty among farmers and
rural communities. At that time, one in four Americans lived on a farm
and the rural economy's vitality was largely dependent upon farmers.
Farm programs were instituted that stifled agricultural productivity in
order to raise commodity prices through a federally administered
supply-and-demand program. Supply-control programs cost U.S. taxpayers
handsomely in higher food costs and job loss, and now about half of the
Nation's farmers are essentially prevented from growing other crops,
such as fruits and vegetables.
To date, this same antiquated idea is promoted even though farm
income is higher on average than other industries. Times have changed
dramatically since then. Today, 1 in 75 Americans lives on a farm, and
only 1 in 750 lives on a full-time commercial farm. Furthermore, nearly
90 percent of total farm household income comes from off-farm sources--
90 percent.
In response to these ongoing changes, in 1996, Congress finally
recognized farmers, not the Government, could best ascertain what crops
are profitable and granted roughly half our farmers flexibility in
planting choices, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, and began to
transition away from federally controlled agriculture programs.
But in 2002, Congress and the Bush administration reversed these
reforms and created the so-called three-legged stool which, in addition
to other farm programs, has helped to place us in violation of our WTO
commitments.
The Senate Agriculture Committee farm bill before us today
perpetuates and even expands these defective policies without regard
for the fact that the majority of farmers do not have a safety net.
The first leg of this so-called three-legged stool is direct payment
subsidies to specific farmers who grow certain crops. Direct payments
are fixed annual taxpayer-funded subsidies that are based on a farm's
historic production and a federally set payment rate. For the five
major subsidized crops, the average payment rate is roughly $15 per
acre for wheat, $24 per acre for corn, $33 per acre for cotton, $11 per
acre for soybeans, and $94 per acre for rice.
These subsidies were originally called transition payments. They were
meant to be a temporary bridge from supply management-based subsidies
to free market-based agriculture. They were never intended to be a
continuing entitlement.
Direct payment policies are particularly irresponsible because the
taxpayer-funded subsidies go out to farmers regardless of whether cash
is flowing in or out of their farms or whether they farm at all.
Although many subsidized farmers are projected to receive record crop
prices and earn record farm incomes over the next 5 years, the Senate
farm bill, as agreed to by the Senate Agriculture Committee, doles out
up to $26 billion in direct payments from taxpayers, much of which will
go to some of the largest and wealthiest farming operations in America.
In fact, over 50 percent of these subsidies will continue to go to
farmers in seven States, for a grand total of $13.1 billion.
Some may find these statistics surprising, but this is simply a
continuation of ``business as usual'' when it comes to farm subsidies.
Keep in mind, in the years 2000 to 2005, the farm sector received $112
billion in taxpayer subsidies, but only 43 percent of all farms
received payments. This is because the majority of the payments go to
just five row crops--corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. The
largest 8 percent of these farms receives 58 percent of these payments.
In fact, the top 1 percent of the highest earning farmers claimed 17
percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005.
Smaller farms that qualify in the current system and that could
benefit from additional support did not do as well. Two-thirds of
recipient farms received less than $10,000, accounting for only 7
percent of their gross cash farm income. Minority farmers fared even
worse, with only 8 percent of minority farmers even receiving Federal
farm subsidies. Furthermore, half of the Federal crop subsidies paid
between 2003 and 2005 went to only 19 congressional districts out of
435.
Each one of these statistics illustrates that our direct payment
system is inequitable and in conflict with claims we hear on the Senate
floor that our current farm policies are a safety net for the family
farmer.
The second leg of the stool is ``countercyclical payments,'' or
having the taxpayer pay farmers when prices fall below a
congressionally set price. The third leg is a marketing loan program
that allows farmers to put their crops up as collateral to receive
operating capital. However, provisions allow farmers to go ahead and
sell the crop and repay the Government at a lower rate, leaving
taxpayers to make up the difference.
Because these two programs do not appropriately correspond with
market forces, they have the effect of creating artificial markets for
crops, even when markets do not exist. Yet neither program provides any
help to farmers when they arguably need it most--during disasters, such
as drought. Of greater concern, these programs have been ruled to
violate our trade agreements. But this new farm bill actually increases
target prices for at least five crops, loan rates for seven crops, and
adds a number of new subsidized crops.
Now, some Senators may wonder why we should be concerned that we are
in violation of our World Trade Organization--or WTO--commitments. They
might think this situation is simply limited to agriculture, or
specific crops, with little impact on our overall economy. Others might
even suggest we are better off building more barriers to trade; that
this farm bill is about American farmers and not farmers in Brazil or
elsewhere. However, if Senators look further down the line, they will
see that our WTO violations could cost the United States billions in
revenue, intellectual property, and lost trade opportunities. And
failure to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that
legally can be redirected at any U.S. industry.
In fact, as is happening now, Brazil will soon have the authority to
retaliate in kind against United States products, whether they be
agricultural products or intellectual property, due to our
unwillingness to fix our farm policies. It is unclear if Brazil will
follow through with these threats, but what is clear is that the WTO
has repeatedly found the United States cotton program to be in
violation of our commitments. As a result, a host of challenges to
other agricultural commodities has ensued, including a case brought
forth by Brazil and Canada in November that targets all of our
commodity programs.
Upon the initial findings of the WTO, Congress did repeal some
cotton-related programs found to violate these agreements, namely, the
so-called Step 2 Program, which was a program that used taxpayer money
to pay companies to use U.S. cotton. However, the farm bill we are
currently considering makes virtually no attempt to bring the rest of
the cotton program into compliance.
The administration earlier this year put forth a number of policy
changes that they argued would have fixed our trade problems with the
WTO, including a revenue-based countercyclical program, marketing loans
that respond to market prices, and eliminating
[[Page 33586]]
planting restrictions for fruits and vegetables. None of these
proposals were incorporated into either the House bill or the Senate
farm bill before us today. In fact, this farm bill significantly
increases the likelihood that other programs will be further challenged
by the World Trade Organization.
Specifically, the WTO found that countercyclical payments and
marketing loans are trade distorting, and the direct payments argued to
be trade neutral are a trade violation as long as planting restrictions
are retained. Astonishingly, the farm bill increases payments made
under these trade-distorting programs almost across the board, further
exacerbating our trade situation.
In the midst of all of this, the chief economist for the Department
of Agriculture projects that exports of agricultural products for this
year are likely to reach $79 billion, nearly 30 percent of all farm
cash receipts in 2007. Nearly 40 percent of soybeans, half of our
wheat, and over 90 percent of our cotton produced in the United States
this year will be exported.
Clearly, trade and our trading partners are important to American
farmers now and will continue to be in the future. U.S. action to
comply with WTO rulings against cotton subsidies as well as U.S. policy
regarding subsidies in general will be closely monitored by the world's
exporters. Should the WTO determine that other United States farm
subsidy programs, as challenged by Brazil and Canada, do not comply
with WTO rules, the potential for retaliation by other countries is
immeasurable.
The farm bill before us today establishes a new permanent disaster
trust fund at the Department of the Treasury to provide an additional
$5 billion in spending for commodity crop farmers. Our amendment does
not touch this provision nor any of the other provisions related to the
Finance Committee package. Of this $5 billion, it is estimated that
nearly half of the money will be given to farmers in counties
designated as disaster counties by the President and the other half
will go to crop insurance companies as a subsidy to administer higher
levels of crop insurance coverage.
The idea of a permanent disaster program may have merit, especially
when you consider that Congress has passed legislation to fund ad hoc
disaster payment assistance nearly every year for the last 20 years,
but we should ask ourselves, if the current expensive farm bill is
failing to provide a safety net to farmers when these devastating
events do happen, then what is the purpose of the farm bill? Why do we
need a new program administered by a separate Federal agency to fulfill
what most Americans believe is the core purpose of the legislation
before us? We should fix the root problem, namely that the current
subsidy system does not work and wastes taxpayer dollars.
If you are now a farmland owner in America, it is highly probable
your land will increase in value. Why? Because a land-owning farmer or
agricultural business can count upon receiving substantially more money
through subsidies. As a result, you are able to leverage your land and
crops to expand. If you are one of hundreds of thousands of farmers in
this country who rents land as opposed to owning land, you face a very
tough set of circumstances. Your rents are likely to go up each year as
the value of the land goes up. Worse still, if you are a young farmer
who hopes someday to own land, then your prospects diminish year by
year.
As a result, there are young members of farm families who are hopeful
that with the reduction or repeal of Federal estate taxes that they
might inherit the land. Other young people who are interested in
farming are simply out of luck, as it is too difficult to get into the
business. As a result, it is predictable that the average age of
farmers in this country will continue to increase, as it has been
increasing in recent decades. Consider the fact that 6 percent of
farmers are younger than 35, while 26 percent are over 65 years of age.
Furthermore, elderly farmers who may be land rich but cash poor will
be more inclined to sell their farms as their retirement nest egg. The
most likely buyer of that farm is an owner of a larger farm who is in a
position to expand, thanks to Government subsidies.
In spite of all the rhetoric and all of the attempts to talk about
perpetuating the small family farm or even the medium-sized farm, the
facts are that consolidation is increasing, and this bill will
perpetuate that cycle. I want to emphasize this point because it
reflects the inequity of this entire bill. Our farm policies transfer a
great deal of money from ordinary taxpayers to a few farmers. If this
transfer from the many to the few produced a stable farm economy, with
prospects for greater trade success, perhaps one could argue this
approach is more justified. Further, these policies could be justified
if they truly did support the lower to middle-class farmer and reduce
the number of farm consolidations. I am arguing that our policies
promote the exact opposite.
For all of these reasons, Senator Frank Lautenberg and I, along with
Senators Hatch, Reed, Menendez, Cardin, Collins, Domenici, McCain, and
Whitehouse are introducing an amendment today that would provide a true
safety net for all farmers regardless of what they grow or where they
live. For the first time, each farmer would receive, at no cost, either
expanded county-based crop insurance policies that would cover 85
percent of expected crop revenue, or 80 percent of a farm's 5-year
average adjusted gross revenue.
These subsidized insurance tools already exist, but our reforms would
make them more effective and universally used while controlling
administrative costs. Farmers would be able to purchase insurance to
cover the remainder of their revenue and yields. The 85 percent county
level-based policy simply looks at the expected revenue annually in
each county in the United States for crops such as corn, soybeans,
wheat, cotton, and rice, but it can be expanded under this bill to any
commodity so long as adequate market information is available to
satisfy actuarial concerns.
The USDA uses prices from the futures market in late February and
multiplies them by past county average crop yields collected by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service, which keeps detailed data on
virtually every agricultural product produced in the United States.
This creates a target price that adjusts either up or down each year to
market conditions and yield trends. Farmers receive a safety net
payment when the actual county revenue for a crop they are growing
falls below 85 percent of the target revenue.
This program ensures that the only incentive to grow a crop is the
market, not federally set prices under the farm policies before the
Senate today.
For example, in Marion County, IN, where my farm is located, expected
yields for corn in 2006 were 146 bushels an acre; the future price for
corn in late February 2006 was $2.59 a bushel. So target revenue for
corn was $378 an acre. After the harvest, USDA found that actual corn
yields in Marion County were 140 bushels an acre and that harvest
prices were $3.03 a bushel, producing average revenue of $424 an acre.
Actual revenue exceeded target revenue so that no additional subsidies
were paid to corn farmers in Marion County in 2006.
By contrast, corn farmers in Baca County, CO, experienced poor
weather. Expected yields were 161 bushels an acre and the future price
for corn was $2.59 a bushel, so expected revenue was $418 an acre.
After the harvest, USDA found that actual yields were much lower at 116
bushels an acre and even though the harvest prices of $3.03 a bushel
were higher than expected, the actual average revenue was $350 an acre.
Since actual revenue was 83 percent of target revenue, corn farmers in
Baca County would have received $5.30 per acre under the safety net, or
the difference between actual revenue in that county and the 85 percent
guarantee.
The other choice would allow farmers to protect against adverse
change in their own historic average revenues. This program looks at
the whole farm, recognizing the same risks exist for an
[[Page 33587]]
apple orchard as the soybean field on the same farm. A farm's 5-year
average adjusted revenue is calculated using annual tax forms. The
adjusted revenue is essentially a farm's overall revenue minus expenses
as indicated on their tax forms. When a farm's adjusted revenue falls
below 80 percent of that 5-year average, a safety-net payment makes up
the difference. This program is currently operating as a pilot program
in a number of States but has been limited to the amount of revenue
that can be covered for some agricultural products such as livestock
and forest products. Our bill expands the program nationwide and allows
the USDA to include more agricultural products. It also requires the
USDA to minimize double payments under situations where farmers may
also have products covered by remaining farm support programs, namely
the sugar program and the Milk Income Loss Program.
In addition, this bill creates optional risk management accounts that
would be available to every farmer and rancher and would work in
concert with crop and revenue insurance. Producers who are eligible for
direct payments would receive transition payments, phased out over the
next 5 years, which would be deposited into their accounts. They would
then be eligible to withdraw from their available balance to supplement
their income in years when their gross revenue falls below 95 percent
of their rolling 5-year average gross revenue. They could invest in a
rural enterprise, purchase additional revenue or crop insurance, or
upon retirement, utilize it as a farmer retirement account. These
accounts provide farmers who are generally asset rich and cash poor
greater incentive to save for the future, and will help maintain family
farms by providing retirement benefits without forcing a liquidation of
farm assets.
The FRESH Act amendment is important because savings from these
reforms will allow us to provide an additional $6.1 billion more than
the underlying bill in new investments to assist farmers with
conservation practices, encourage rural development, develop renewable
energy, expand access to healthy foods for children and consumers, and
assist more hungry Americans.
Our amendment provides an additional $1 billion for important
environmental and conservation programs. I am pleased that we were able
to expand and improve USDA's voluntary conservation incentives
programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to farmers,
ranchers and forest landowners who offer to take steps to prevent soil
erosion and improve water quality, air quality and wildlife habitat.
Since 2003, roughly two-thirds of farmers seeking assistance through
USDA conservation programs have been rejected due to insufficient
funding. Most of these conservation programs are cost-share programs.
That means that farmers are offering to put their own money into
environmental improvements from which the public benefits. We are
missing an opportunity to utilize private dollars to produce
environmental benefits such as cleaner water and cleaner air when we
underfund cost-share conservation programs.
One of the most popular of these programs, the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, EQIP, has had an application backlog that has
averaged $1.6 billion a year over the past 4 years. Yet the farm bill
before us provides no increase in funding for this popular conservation
program.
The current farm bill also provides no increase in funding for the
Farmland Protection Program. This program is critical because in many
areas our working farms and ranches are under tremendous development
pressures. From 1992 to 1997, this country lost more than 6 million
acres of agricultural land--an area the size of Maryland--to
development. And yet this bill doesn't provide the funding needed to
assist State and local governments and private land trusts in the
important work they do to conserve our Nation's farmland.
Increasing funding for the farm bill's conservation programs also
provides another way to make our farm policies more equitable. All
producers can be eligible to participate in conservation programs,
regardless of what they grow or where they grow it. By contrast, only
producers of a handful of commodity crops can participate in commodity
programs.
While discussion of commodity policy dominates much of the farm bill
debate and discretionary funding, production agriculture remains a
comparatively small and shrinking part of the rural economy.
Farm employment has fallen from just over 14 percent of total
employment in 1969 to 6 percent in 2005. The number of counties with
farm employment accounting for 20 percent or more of total employment
has shrunk dramatically from 1,148 in 1969 to 348 in 2005. Furthermore,
only 1 in 75 Americans lives on a farm today, and nearly 90 percent of
total farm household income comes from off-farm sources.
Despite this fundamental shift, the 2002 farm bill committed 69
percent of total spending to commodity payments, plus another 13
percent to conservation payments. In all, four-fifths of total funding
went to a select few farmers, while only 0.7 percent went to rural
development initiatives aimed at boosting rural economies.
We now have evidence which suggests that direct payments to farmers
have little positive impact on rural economies. A recent study revealed
that most payment-dependent counties did not even match the national
average in terms of job growth from 1992 to 2002. In fact, many
experienced losses during that time.
Furthermore, most of these payment-dependent counties experienced
population losses during that same 10-year period. Such job and
population loss figures suggest that our current system of support for
rural communities, which relies on subsidies like direct payments, does
not work.
I am also pleased that the amendment we are offering expands
agricultural markets and decreases oil dependency by dramatically
increasing research and development efforts for cellulosic ethanol and
other renewable fuels, and expanding clean renewable energy
opportunities to all of our rural areas. This is an area of
considerable interest to the chairman who has been a stalwart
supporter.
Today's growth in ethanol production is creating jobs and bringing
new sources of revenue into our communities. Because of our energy
demands, we are witness to a palpable sense of optimism in rural
communities for economic growth in areas that have stagnated under the
current farm bill. Failure to give clear and strong Government
commitment in the farm bill to developing biofuels from diverse
feedstocks has unnecessarily confined new markets to midwestern States
rich in corn. Spreading the economic benefits of biofuels nationwide
will require breakthroughs in technologies and agricultural techniques
to make more fuels from farm, municipal, and industrial wastes
available from coast to coast. Strong support in the farm bill will
help galvanize private investment and bring jobs across the country.
Yet the opportunity before us involves more than economic growth.
Dramatic advancements in biofuels will help build a more secure and
self-reliant America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Global
competition for oil continues to grow as demand soars and oil-rich
States tighten their control over supplies. Already, we have witnessed
Russia cut its exports to selected countries for political gain, and
the Governments of Iran and Venezuela have threatened to do the same.
Each year, Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars to import
oil. Some of that money enriches authoritarian governments that
suppress their own people and work against the United States.
Meanwhile, oil infrastructure is being targeted by terrorists. In
today's tight oil market even a small disruption in oil supplies could
cause shortages and send prices much higher than the $90-plus per
barrel prices Americans have paid in recent weeks.
Biofuels will not make America completely independent of energy
imports,
[[Page 33588]]
but they can strengthen our leverage over oil-rich regimes hostile to
the United States, give greater freedom to our policy options in the
Middle East, help protect our economy, and foster rural development.
Reaping the economic and energy security benefits of biofuels and
other rural, renewable energy requires breakthroughs in research and
incentives for infrastructure development. Our amendment provides an
additional half billion dollars to transform renewable energy's
opportunity into reality.
During the markup in the Agriculture Committee, I offered an
amendment to increase nutrition funding in the farm bill by about $1.6
billion through cuts to direct payments.
Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated 17-4. However, the amendment
sparked constructive, bipartisan debate on the importance of strong
funding for the nutrition programs that provide a safety net for people
across our country who are on the cusp of poverty. I am thankful to
Senators Harkin and Chambliss for taking that discussion seriously, and
as a result, using the savings generated from a committee change to the
underlying bill to provide additional funding for the nutrition title
of this farm bill.
But even as I applaud the efforts of Agriculture Committee members
for their attention to nutrition programs, I have serious concerns that
the nutrition program in this bill is essentially only authorized for 5
years. At the end of the 5 years, funding for nutrition programs drops
dramatically. In 2012, we would then be faced with having to manipulate
the budget to find additional funding for these programs or vulnerable
Americans would lose this much-needed assistance. This is because the
agriculture bill before us is ``front-loading'' spending during the
first 5 years and then virtually zeroing out nutrition spending for
years 6 through 10 so that the bill will come out budget neutral, on
paper, but will cost taxpayers handsomely in reality. This is just one
of many budgetary tricks performed so that the scoring works out
favorably without regard to the practical application of such
maneuvers.
In our amendment, nutrition programs would not end. In fact, we
increase funding for these important programs by $2 billion over the
underlying farm bill and make these funding increases permanent. We
cannot and should not build a safety net with holes.
This leads me to another benefit of our reform proposal. Our
amendment provides critical funding for each of these priorities and
yet pays for itself from the existing agricultural budget passed by
Congress without employing deceptive budgetary maneuvers. In fact, our
bill will save taxpayers $4 billion.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with the underlying bill, and if
you take a thorough look, you realize just how precarious that bill's
budget situation truly is. In fact, the Bush administration's Statement
of Administrative Policy highlighted a number of budget gimmicks used
to make the farm bill pay-go compliant, at least on paper.
The FRESH Act amendment is fully paid for, fiscally responsible and
provides a framework for growth for farmers and rural communities.
Furthermore, the long-term budgetary savings from our proposal will
allow for us to make considerable investments in key priority areas.
There is an inappropriate political assumption that agriculture
policy is impenetrable for consumers, taxpayers, the poor, and the vast
majority of Americans who are being asked to pay for subsidies, while
getting little in return. Even if only a small number of farmers in a
State raise a program crop or one of the protected specialty crops like
milk, sugar, or peanuts, their focused advocacy somehow has more
political influence than the broader well-being of consumers and
taxpayers. In short, those who benefit from current agriculture
programs are virtually the only participants in the debate.
This fact is probably best illustrated by the fact that one of the
most contentious debates on this bill has been whether farmers with
income of over $1 million, after farm expenses have been paid, should
continue to receive subsidies. I have even seen media reports that
indicate that if a payment limitation amendment were passed, the farm
bill could be filibustered. Keep in mind that the median household
income for Americans for 2006 was $48,200 and the average income of a
food stamp recipient is less than $10,000.
There is also an ongoing reluctance to consider change. Members will
say, ``Farming is conservative by nature. You can't demand too much
change.'' In 2002, I offered a similar type of reform proposal and
opponents argued that the proposal was ``too new, too radical, and
required too much change.''
You will hear that same baseless argument today. Mr. President and
Members of the Senate, when is the time for reform? When will we fix
this broken system? When will we act on the clear evidence before us?
As Senators, we clearly must understand our responsibility. Whether
we understand all the complexities of our current farm programs, we
know where the money goes. The bulk of the money in the underlying farm
bill goes to a very few farmers, a very few. That has been clear
throughout. This is not a great humanitarian effort. This does not save
the family farmer, the low-income farmer, or even the middle-income
farmer.
This bill is about making choices. And it is incredible to me that
with all of the budgetary pressures that we are facing to fund critical
needs such as providing better health insurance coverage for Americans,
protecting Social Security and pension savings, improving education,
increasing border security, and providing our men and women in the
Armed Forces with appropriate pay and equipment that we would consider
a bill which enriches so few individuals.
I believe that this year's farm bill debate is a good time to begin
changing these dynamics.
This year an unconventional alliance of conservation, humanitarian,
business and taxpayer advocate groups has entered the fray with success
in framing the issue and building support for the FRESH Act. They
represent the broadest ever political support for change.
Newspapers in at least 41 States have written editorials in support
of changing our farm programs to a fair, trade compliant and fiscally
responsible system. I have distributed these articles to my colleagues.
Perhaps more importantly, there has never been a better time for
farmers to change. Thanks to strong foreign and domestic demand for
energy crops, net farm income is forecast to be $87 billion, up $28
billion from 2006 and $30 billion above the average for the previous 10
years and setting a new record for new farm income.
As a result, average farm household income is projected to be almost
$87,000 in 2007, up 8 percent from 2006, 15 percent above the 5-year
average between 2002 and 2006, and well above median U.S. household
income. Farm revenue may be high today but this will not always be the
case. It is critical that we have an appropriate safety net in place to
assist these farmers during times of need.
Agriculture policy is too important for rural America and the
economic and budgetary health of our country to continue the current
misguided path. Our amendment provides a much more equitable approach,
produces higher net farm income for farmers, increases farm exports,
avoids stimulating overproduction, and gives more emphasis to
environmental, nutritional, energy security and research concerns. More
importantly, this proposal will protect the family farmer through a
strong safety net and encourage rural development in a fiscally
responsible and trade compliant manner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 3666 to Amendment No. 3500
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set
aside amendment 3711 and call up amendment No. 3666, and further ask
unanimous consent that the time not be charged against the time
allocated for amendment 3711.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 33589]]
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester], for himself, Mr.
Grassley and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3666
to amendment No. 3500.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to unlawful practices under
the Packers and Stockyards Act)
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)''.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921
prohibits meatpackers from engaging in any course of business or doing
any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or
controlling prices. This act was passed in Congress way back when it
was determined that the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act
were insufficient to promote competitive markets.
Unfortunately, back in 2005, three judges decided to rewrite the
Packers and Stockyards Act instead of interpreting this statute. What
this amendment will do is reinstate the Packers and Stockyards Act, and
with that reinstate free market competition in the marketplace.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I am
talking not be charged against the time for debate with respect to the
Lugar-Lautenberg amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3660 to Amendment No. 3500
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3660, and ask
unanimous consent that once the amendment is reported by number, I be
recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that at the conclusion of
my statement, the amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object----
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator mind
amending his unanimous consent request to provide for Senator Nelson to
speak for 5 minutes and Senator Martinez to speak for up to 5 minutes?
Mr. BAUCUS. That is fine as long as the time is not being charged.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection as long as this time is not
charged against the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself and Mr.
Crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 3660 to amendment No.
3500.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the trade title)
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:
``(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
[[Page 33590]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, more than 200 years ago, Richard Whately,
an English logician, said:
A man is called selfish not for pursuing his own good, but
for neglecting his neighbor's.
Not only does our current Cuba policy make it difficult to pursue our
own good, we are also guilty of neglecting the good of one of our
closest neighbors.
Today I am offering an amendment to enable America's farmers and
ranchers to sell their wheat, potatoes, and dairy products to a
neighbor only 90 miles away and a market of 11 million consumers. That
market, of course, is Cuba.
In the year 2000, Congress authorized limited sales of food and
medical goods to Cuba under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act, otherwise known as TSREEA. That law permitted United
States farmers and ranchers to engage in cash-based sales of their
goods to Cuban buyers.
Under this new law, our agricultural trade with Cuba prospered. At
its peak, American farmers and ranchers, including those from Montana,
sold over $400 million worth of peas, beef, and wheat to Cuba in 1
year. In fact, in the year 2003, I led a trade mission to Cuba and
walked away with a $10.4 million deal for Montana. Cuba bought $10.4
million of Montana wheat, beans, and peas. I went back a year later for
$15 million worth of Montana goods. But then things changed. In 2005
the Treasury Department issued rules to stymie such sales. Under the
guise of clarifying the intent of Congress, the Treasury Department
instead undermined the express will of Congress by restricting the
ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to engage in cash-basis sales.
Specifically, the new Treasury rule requires Cuban buyers to pay for
their goods before they leave U.S. ports. What is the effect of that?
That converts the goods to Cuban assets, which makes them vulnerable to
seizure in American ports to satisfy unrelated American claims against
the Cuban Government.
In order for American farmers and ranchers to sell their wheat, beef,
and pork to Cuba, they must work with foreign banks, and surrender a
portion of their profits to costly fees. Not surprisingly, since
Treasury's rule, cash-basis sales of agricultural products to Cuba have
slowed to a trickle. It made implementation of Montana's 2004 agreement
with Cuba virtually impossible.
I think I know the intent of Congress. I was here when that act was
passed. I can assure you that we do not need Treasury's
``clarification.'' Congress did not approve legislation to expand trade
with Cuba with the expectation that the administration would seek to
restrict it. Congress does not approve legislation to enable the sales
of products by our farmers and ranchers, while at the same time making
it impossible, by the Treasury Department, for them to receive payment.
These rules have continued to stifle the ability of farmers to sell
their products to Cubans on a cash basis. They have encouraged foreign
banks to take a cut of every United States ag deal with Cuba. They have
required farmers and ranchers to wait weeks and months to get a license
to travel to Cuba to meet potential buyers. They prevent Cuban buyers,
who want to come to this country to meet with producers, who are going
to buy the American products, from entering our country.
This amendment would change that. It restores the true intent of
Congress. It simplifies the cash transactions, and expands
opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers. It enables direct
transfers from American banks to Cuban banks. It allows American
farmers and ranchers to travel to Cuba to sell their products, and it
encourages Cuban buyers to come to the United States to see our first-
class products for themselves.
These provisions are plain, simple, common sense. These provisions
are sound policy. I had hoped we could have a discussion and a vote on
this amendment. But, unfortunately, some Members of this body have
threatened to hold up the farm bill if we include, or even vote on,
these important provisions.
Amendment No. 3660 to Amendment No. 3500 Withdrawn.
In the interest of moving the farm bill forward, it is with deep
regret that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of FLORIDA. Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I see eye to
eye on about 95 percent of the issues in front of the Senate. This is
one we do not agree on.
I thank Senator Baucus for withdrawing his amendment. He has been an
outspoken and very articulate spokesman for his point of view of
wanting agricultural products to go to Cuba. And coming from his State
of Montana, I certainly understand that.
There is a greater issue here, in this Senator's opinion, and that is
the issue of the foreign policy of the United States.
This Senator believes this issue ought to be a foreign policy debate
on the future of the relationship of the United States with Cuba. There
will be an appropriate forum in which we can engage in that debate. I
believe that debate will come sooner than later because there is change
in the air and change on the island of Cuba. Fidel is transitioning
out. Raul is transitioning in. There is a great deal of unrest among
the people, increasingly in a police state that has been so effective
in tamping down any dissent over the course of the last four decades.
Increasingly we are seeing the people of Cuba start to resist, to
dissent, and to do it openly. We are right on the cusp of the Castro
government starting to disintegrate and being unable to cow the people
by imprisoning them as they have in the past.
What, therefore, should be the foreign policy of the United States
when we are right at this moment of change? I think we ought to have a
deliberative discussion about that issue, instead of on the farm bill.
That is why I am thanking the Senator from Montana for withdrawing the
amendment. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to this
extraordinary change that is occurring on the island of Cuba so that
ultimately those people will be able to break the shackles of bondage
they have been in, and we can have a normal relationship between the
Government of Cuba and the Government of the United States when that
country finally does become free. That is our hope, our prayer. That
should be the goal of the foreign policy of the United States. It is
within our grasp shortly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I join with my senior colleague in
thanking the distinguished Senator from Montana for withdrawing this
amendment which was ill-timed on this farm bill. Much important farm
legislation and related items are in this bill. To now inject into it
the very difficult issue, as my senior colleague well described, of a
very fine-tuned policy, a foreign policy issue with Cuba into this bill
would be a grave mistake.
I want to speak in a little broader context about the relationship
between the United States and Cuba. It is one that is rooted--and the
reason this proposed amendment would be so wrong--in the steps the
Castro government took against U.S. economic interests on the island
almost a half century ago, all uncompensated, never accounted for, and
never taken care of. It is a debt that still exists. Legitimate
business interests had their property
[[Page 33591]]
taken from them without just compensation. That is why we have the
policy we have today.
The question is, how can we influence events, how can we better help
the Cuban people to overthrow the shackles that have held them in
prison for 47 years?
The fact is, there is an awful lot happening on the island. People
are increasingly saying enough is enough. It is time for change.
Cimbio, the Spanish word for change, on this little bracelet that the
people around the island are wearing increasingly represents the desire
of the Cuban people. The Cuban regime, true to its nature, continues to
repress the people. Here is why we should not reward the Cuban
Government with a change in U.S. policy.
Yesterday, Human Rights Day around the world was celebrated in Cuba
by a small group of people seeking to simply peacefully march to Ghandi
Park, a park where Ghandi, that peaceful icon of the world, is
represented. On their way there, Government thugs beat and arrested
them, took them into unmarked sedans, and removed them from the area.
So threatened is that Government that they also arrested 70 young
people a month or so ago for wearing this simple bracelet. But that is
not all. The most unheard of human rights abuse has taken place in
recent days. In addition to the illegitimate detention of political
prisoners in the most unspeakable conditions is the fact that the Cuban
Government thugs entered a Catholic Church just a few days ago and
arrested 18 young people who were there exercising the very limited
right they have to at least attend church and to hear a sermon and to
maybe have conversations about their hopes and dreams. The Cuban
Government invaded that sacred space, took the people and arrested
them. These are just a few examples of why this Government so
illegitimately each day loses a little more of its grip on the people.
I believe the time will come when we can trade with Cuba, when we can
have open relationships, and when we can see the fruits of that
relationship benefit the people of Cuba, not just the Government
structure with which America's farmers are dealing. We should not give
credit to the Cuban Government. We know these cash sales are the only
way we can be sure our people will be paid, and we should not enhance
or increase the opportunity for the Cuban Government, which is the only
owner of anything in Cuba. No one owns any property in Cuba but the
Cuban Government. To trade with Cuba does not mean trading with Cuban
farmers. It means trading with the Cuban Government apparatus. The
Cuban people only see the meager droppings from the table of the
tourists who go to Cuba with whom they are not allowed to even have a
conversation.
Oftentimes people say: If we only opened the opportunity for people
to freely travel, if we only allowed for the contact Americans would
have with ordinary Cubans, everything would change. There are Canadian
tourists, British, Italian. Their impact upon the Cuban people has not
changed a thing because the tourists are prohibited from interacting
with the people themselves. The people are just their servants. The
people are the people who facilitate a fun time in the sun, but they
are not allowed to have any political influence upon the people of
Cuba.
I know there was a hearing this morning. I would love to comment
further on that because much was said there which I believe to be
completely wrong. But I thank the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning,
who, in this hearing this morning, spoke about his 5 months in Cuba. I
saw Senator Bunning when he was in Cuba during that time as a young
boy. I had the pleasure of going to a stadium and watching him pitch,
which was a thrill to me. Little did I know I would have the honor of
serving with him in the Senate. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for
his very good words and his clear understanding of the Cuban situation
as it is today.
I thank the Senator from Montana for withdrawing an ill-timed and
ill-advised amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that whatever time is used
during the quorum be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3720 to Amendment No. 3500
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I may call up my amendment and that the time
I use to describe my amendment not be charged against the time for the
Senators from New Jersey and Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 3720 to amendment No. 3500.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve crop insurance and use resulting savings to
increase funding for certain conservation programs)
On page 272, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 19__ SHARE OF RISK; REIMBURSEMENT RATE; FUNDING AND
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Share of Risk.--
(1) In general.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``require the reinsured'' and inserting the
following: ``require--
``(A) the reinsured'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) 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).''.
(2) 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).''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on June 30, 2008.
(b) Reimbursement Rate.--Notwithstanding section 1911,
section 508(k)(4) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(k)(4)) (as amended by section 1906(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Except as provided
in subparagraph (B)'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Reimbursement rate reduction.--For each of the 2009
and subsequent reinsurance years, the reimbursement rates for
administrative and operating costs shall be 4.0 percentage
points below the rates in effect as of the date of enactment
of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 for all crop
insurance policies used to define loss ratio, except that the
reduction shall not apply in a reinsurance year to the total
premium written in a State in which the State loss ratio is
greater than 1.2.
``(F) Reimbursement rate for area policies and plans of
insurance.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) through (E),
for each of the 2009 and subsequent reinsurance years, the
reimbursement rate for area policies and plans of insurance
shall be 17 percent of the premium used to define loss ratio
for that reinsurance year.''.
[[Page 33592]]
(c) Funding and Administration.--Notwithstanding section
2401, section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``2007'' and inserting ``2012''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) through (7) and inserting
the following:
``(3) The conservation security program under subchapter A
of chapter 2, using $2,317,000,000 to administer contracts
entered into as of the day before the date of enactment of
the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, to remain available
until expended.
``(4) The conservation stewardship program under subchapter
B of chapter 6.
``(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.''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
Senator Harkin's substitute amendment to the farm bill. I commend
Chairman Harkin, Senator Chambliss, and all the members of the
Agriculture Committee for their hard work during the drafting of this
farm bill.
I particularly thank the committee for its commitment to making this
bill the most fair in our country's history. The committee's farm bill
includes all agricultural producers, not just growers of commodity
crops. With new programs for specialty growers and expanded protections
for dairy and livestock producers, this bill is truly a winner for all
parts of the country.
I thank my colleague from Iowa once again, now that he is in the
Chamber, for his great work and for being inclusive as he always is.
I am here this morning offering an amendment I believe builds on the
spirit of the committee's bill. This amendment increases funding for
vital conservation programs that are important to all working farmers.
It provides an additional $480 million over 5 years to the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP; an additional $65
million over 5 years to the Farmland Protection Program; and an
additional $60 million to the Grassland Reserve Program.
To offset these increased payments, the amendment makes small
reductions in the Federal subsidies of crop insurance. It increases the
cut in administration and operations payments to 4 percent, above the
committee's 2 percent, and retains the important snap-back provision
Senator Roberts introduced.
The amendment also raises the underwriting gain share to 12.5
percent. That is the level to which the House raised it.
Working farmers are the most important stewards of our natural
resources. Farmers and ranchers own 70 percent of the land in the
country. They deserve help from the Government preserving these
resources because all Americans benefit from them.
I would also like to add, I am in full support of the amendment--I am
a cosponsor, in fact, of the amendment--the Senator from Ohio, Mr.
Brown, has offered. This amendment is along the same lines, and I will
not ask for a vote on it if his amendment succeeds because I think it
is an outstanding amendment.
With that, I yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now recess until 2:15 p.m.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:26 p.m., recessed until
2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer
(Mr. Carper).
____________________
FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 41 minutes on the Republican side and
84 minutes on the majority side.
Mr. CONRAD. I wish to be alerted by the Chair when I have consumed 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be happy to do that.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to respond to the proposal by
Senator Lugar and Senator Lautenberg to substitute the Food and Energy
Security Act of 2007 with the so-called FRESH Act.
Senator Lugar and Senator Lautenberg are senior Members of this body,
very much respected by Members on both sides. I have enormous respect
and admiration, and I even have affection for both of them. But I must
say, when it comes to farm policy, we have a stark disagreement.
Senator Lugar believes we would be better off if we simply disposed of
the current farm safety net in favor of a revenue program with no price
floor. Savings would be invested in conservation, nutrition, and
specialty crop agriculture. I believe those are good priorities, in
terms of where the money would go, but I remind Members of the Senate
that the work of the committee--by the way, the bill came out of
committee without a single dissenting vote. It is true we didn't have a
rollcall, so I don't know how members might have expressed themselves,
but nobody asked for a rollcall or asked to be recorded in the
negative.
The fact is we increased each of those areas that is addressed in the
FRESH Act. We increased conservation over the baseline by $4.5 billion.
We increased nutrition by $5.3 billion over the baseline. We increased
specialty crop resources by $2.5 billion. Those are all very large
increases. The biggest percentage increase went for conservation.
When it comes to investing in the things Senators Lugar and
Lautenberg care about, the committee did a good job. So if this is not
about investments in those areas, what is the real difference? I don't
think this bill is about resources for other areas; I think it is
largely about finding a way to gut existing commodity programs.
I have heard statements in support of the FRESH Act that amount to
broadsides against existing policy. So let me respond to some of the
arguments we have heard from the other side. Let's examine the attacks
on the distribution of farm program benefits.
The critics say only 43 percent of all farms received payments. The
critics say that 57 percent of farms unfairly operate without a safety
net. The critics say the largest 8 percent of all farms receive 58
percent of the farm program benefits. All of those statements have some
element of truth, but they don't tell the whole story. They don't come
close to telling the whole story. In fact, taken alone, I think they
completely misrepresent the reality of the farm program. Let's look at
each of these claims in turn.
According to the Economic Research Service, farming operations
receiving no Government payments had an average household income of
over $77,000 per year. But the farm income portion of that was only
$1,000. So when the assertion is made that almost half of the farms get
no farm program benefits, guess what. Those people are not farmers.
They have an average income of $77,000, and only a thousand of it comes
from farming operations. Those people are not engaged in farming in any
meaningful way. What this tells me about the 57 percent of farms
operating without a safety net is that a big chunk of them aren't much
into farming at all. The largest portion of them farmed only
marginally, or do so as a hobby.
Our own son is in that category. They have a little farm, with over
[[Page 33593]]
$1,000 in receipts. So they are counted in all of the statistics as
being a farmer, because that is all it takes--$1,000 of receipts--and
you are counted as a farmer. But he has a job in town, a full-time job.
He is basically a hobby farmer. Yet they are saying he should be
getting farm program benefits; that it is unfair because he is not
getting farm program benefits. No. That applies to the first argument.
The absurdity of trying to claim that these producers are terribly
mistreated is the fact that the FRESH Act's own risk management
accounts would not allow them to participate either. So I guess what is
good for the goose is good for the gander. That is because the eligible
participant is someone with an AGI from farm operations of $10,000 or
more. They would not count them as farmers at all. If the proponents do
not call the majority receiving Government payments farmers, why should
they be clamoring to find support for them in the commodity support
provisions?
Part of the problem is the way farmers are defined for statistical
purposes. To quote from the Economic Research Service:
Most establishments classified as farms are too small to
support a household because the official U.S. farm definition
requires only $1,000 of sales to qualify as a farm.
So the first criticism we hear is without merit. I would like to
think of farm households as those that actually obtain a significant
portion of their income from a farming operation. When you look at
those households, you get a completely different picture.
This chart shows where Government program payments go when compared
to gross receipts of farming operations. You see a very different
reality. If you look at all of the farms with gross farm receipts above
$50,000, you will see that only 23 percent of roughly 2 million total
farms are responsible for 90 percent of farm receipts. But their share
of Government payments is actually somewhat less, totaling just over 81
percent.
So here is the reality. Those with receipts of over $50,000 account
for only 23 percent of farms, but they do 90 percent of the business
and they get 81 percent of farm program payments. Actually, it is
somewhat less than their percentage of actual production.
The group signified on the left, with sales less than $50,000,
constitutes nearly 77 percent of farms, but produces about 10 percent
of gross farm receipts. Yet their share of Government payments is
nearly double their percentage of those gross receipts. Let me
emphasize that: 77 percent of farms, as tallied by the USDA, are below
$50,000 in receipts. They do about 10 percent of the production and get
a disproportionate share of the benefits.
It is amazing what different conclusion one reaches when one actually
researches the underlying facts.
I will repeat that first statistic again. Farms with gross receipts
of over $50,000 account for only 23 percent of our farms, but they
produce 90 percent of the foodstuffs we consume, and they receive 81
percent of Government payments.
When you drill deeper into the data, farms with receipts of less than
$10,000 constitute 58 percent of total farm numbers. Yet they produce
less than 4 percent of total farm production and still receive 7
percent of Government payments.
So the conclusion one reaches, if one actually examines these data,
is totally different than the story being told by the critics. These
statistics from USDA's Economic Research Service clearly show how
Government payments go to those actually producing the food. That is
what is happening. You get farm program benefits roughly in
relationship to your share of production. That is the way it is
designed to be. That is the way it is. Don't let anyone try to tell you
something different.
To the extent there are farming operations that don't participate and
yet provide a great deal of sales, this farm bill seeks to help them
through investments in specialty crop agriculture and a broad-based
disaster assistance program. But to suggest that the vast majority of
farms is being mistreated by the farm program is simply false. It is
not true; it is not fair; it is not accurate. In fact, the smallest
producers get a bigger share of Government payments relative to
receipts than do the largest producers.
Also, I seriously question how replacing the marketing loan,
countercyclical, and direct payment programs with area and farm revenue
programs would change how payments are distributed.
In fact, these free ``revenue'' programs would almost certainly
follow production, and they don't have any internal payment limitations
or adjusted gross income limitations provided in the titles being
eliminated. They would concentrate payments even more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 11 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask to be alerted when I have taken another 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. CONRAD. The FRESH program would actually concentrate payments
even more. Wouldn't that be ironic? The proponents of the bill are
trying to make the case that the policy contained in the committee bill
violates our trade commitments. All of this talk of trade violations or
potential actions against the United States on trade can be a bit
confusing for Members. Let me attempt to reduce the confusion.
First, the current WTO rules limit our trade-distorting domestic
support to $19 billion a year. The Congressional Budget Office says
payments under this farm bill will be less than that. When it comes to
potential actions against the United States by countries such as Brazil
and Canada, it appears they are throwing the kitchen sink at us, hoping
to make something stick. It has gotten so ridiculous that Brazil even
claims that excise tax exemptions on off-road fuel are a trade
violation. You have to admire them for their creativity. We cannot
write a farm bill based on some agreement that has yet to be written.
Sometimes we do a pretty good job of predicting the future here, but I
don't know how we can direct what a future trade agreement might look
like. To say we are violating an agreement that has not been written,
made, or passed is an empty exercise. It is our responsibility to write
a policy for agriculture that is in the best interests of America, not
in the best interests of those who want to be critics.
The reductions in support to crop insurance that are contained in
this alternative proposal could destroy the program. Cutting $25
billion from the crop insurance program will lead to companies simply
walking away and crop insurance not being available when it is
desperately needed.
I believe crop insurance needs a serious look, needs reform, but
taking an axe to it is simply, I believe, simplistic and
counterproductive. I would rather we do a serious study on how to
reform crop insurance and follow those results, rather than an ad hoc
vote here on the floor.
I want to direct colleagues' attention to the potential catastrophic
impacts this bill would have on farm income if this amendment were
adopted.
Texas A&M did an analysis by actually going to farms across America
and looking at their books and records and determining the effect of
this amendment on those farms and their incomes.
Twenty-four of the twenty-five representative crop farms would see
more than a 25-percent reduction in their cash income. Seventeen of the
representative crop farms would experience more than a 25-percent
decline in ending net worth by the end of the period.
With lower commodity prices the ``provisions do not come close to
providing the same amount of support as the programs in the 2002 farm
bill, and should such a low price scenario occur in the future, most of
the farmers and ranchers would not be able to survive the erosion in
farm income without some additional Government support.''
This is a bankruptcy proposal for rural America if prices turn down.
Let's be clear about the consequences of this amendment. It can be
summed up in two words: mass bankruptcy. That will be the result if a
proposal such as this is adopted and, God forbid,
[[Page 33594]]
prices decline, and decline sharply, and we have seen that repeatedly
in agriculture.
Essentially, what this study says from Texas A&M is, if prices remain
high, the impacts of this bill would be substantial, but when low
prices return--and they have a bad habit of returning in agriculture--
proposals such as the FRESH Act would pull the rug out from under our
producers and result in financial ruin for them. That is what the
experts at Texas A&M have concluded.
I don't think the American people are interested in mass bankruptcy
in rural America. For those who would like you to believe that our farm
policy has not benefited the people of our country and, indeed, the
people of the world, I will leave my colleagues with the words of a
recent Wall Street Journal article.
I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. This is what the Wall Street Journal said:
The prospect for a long boom is riveting economists because
the declining real price of grain has long been one of the
unsung forces behind the development of the global economy.
Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizer and
more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in
the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population
growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation,
had dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since
1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more
affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the
percentage of the world's population that is malnourished.''
We never hear it from the critics, but the Wall Street Journal is
reporting that one of the key reasons for the economic boom in the
world is the increase in productivity in agriculture led by the West,
led by our country. That amazing increase in productivity has in real
terms dramatically reduced the cost of corn and wheat by 75 percent and
69 percent since 1974. I think those words should be taken to heart.
U.S. agricultural policy has provided enormous advantages to all of
our citizens and to the world. I cannot imagine what would happen
without it.
I conclude by reviewing the distribution of funding for this package
and the investments made in nutrition and conservation.
Under the bill proposed by the Senate Agriculture Committee, the
amount for commodity programs is reduced more than 11 percent, to 13.6
percent of total outlays, while establishing many new programs to
benefit speciality crop producers.
Spending for nutrition programs remains at about two-thirds of total
outlays. Let me repeat that. Where is most of the money going in this
bill? Where is most of the money going? It is going to nutrition. That
is the bill that came out of the committee. Sixty-six percent of the
money is going for nutrition. We don't hear that from the critics, but
that is a fact. Less than 14 percent is going for commodity programs,
and that is an 11-percent reduction from the previous bill.
This bill, the bill out of committee, represents a significant
redirection of resources in areas we all know is necessary. And we
didn't need to gut farm programs to make these investments.
I hope my colleagues will reject this proposal and support the
committee package that is before us. It is responsible, it is good for
taxpayers, it is good for farmers and ranchers, it is good for the
economy, it is good for nutrition, it is good for conservation. It
deserves our support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to propose a unanimous consent
request. First, I wish to let everybody know where we are. A vote was
originally scheduled for sometime around 3:45 p.m. It is likely to be a
little bit before that. My understanding is that Senator Lautenberg has
some comments he wants to make on this amendment. I will make some
comments. Senator Lugar may have additional comments he wishes to make
before the vote.
Following the vote on the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment, I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Gregg be allowed 1 hour equally divided on his
amendments Nos. 3671, 3673, and 3674; that following Senator Gregg,
Senator Alexander have 1 hour equally divided on his amendments Nos.
3551 and 3552; that following Senator Alexander, Senator Coburn have 90
minutes equally divided on his amendments Nos. 3530, 3632, and 3807.
Senator Harkin may have some Democratic amendments that we may place
among those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I discussed this with my colleague
earlier, but we are also working on a unanimous consent request. There
is another amendment we might want to insert. If my friend will
withhold, I think we can work this out in a discussion, and then we can
propound the unanimous consent request.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is fine. I withdraw my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have 41
minutes remaining, and for the opponents of the amendment, there is 62
minutes remaining.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent that
following the vote, which I understand is going to be at approximately
3:30 p.m., the following amendments be called up in this order: Senator
Gregg's amendments Nos. 3671, 3673, and 3674; that debate be 1 hour
equally divided; then following that debate, Senator Alexander on
amendments Nos. 3551 and 3553 for 1 hour equally divided; and Senator
Coburn on amendments Nos. 3530, 3632, and 3807, with 90 minutes equally
divided; and that these votes will be stacked for sometime tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. Again, reserving the right to object, I, first of all,
thank my colleague for working out this agreement. This is great
progress. We have great time agreements. I appreciate his work in that
regard.
I wish to make it clear, was it the intention of my friend to have
them all in that order? Can they be in a different order when they come
up or when people are here?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The request does not pretend to set the order, the
vote of the respective amendments.
Mr. HARKIN. Further reserving the right to object, I ask my friend,
he said earlier if, in fact, a Democrat comes with an amendment on this
side--I don't have one right now--that they could at that time work it
in. We have at least one I know we might want to call up later today.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Sure. We will be happy to amend it.
Mr. HARKIN. With that, I have no objections.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois will state his
reservation.
Mr. DURBIN. Do I understand the unanimous consent request calls for
specific amendments after the pending amendment is voted on?
Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
Mr. DURBIN. I followed this in my office. May I ask the Senator from
Georgia if he would be kind enough to tell me, I understand amendment
No. 3671 is on his list, Senator Gregg's amendment.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. What are those amendments?
[[Page 33595]]
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Amendment No. 3671 is striking the farm stress
program, and amendment No. 3673 is the OB/GYN liability reform.
Mr. DURBIN. Is there another request?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Amendment No. 3674, the mortgage forgiveness
amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. In the Senator's unanimous consent request, is there any
time limit on the amendments?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, 1 hour equally divided for all three.
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in
relation to amendment No. 3711 occur at 3:50 p.m., with the time
divided 45 minutes for Senators Lugar and Lautenberg and 15 minutes in
opposition, with the remaining provisions of the previous order
remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before I speak to the amendment
Senator Lugar and I have offered, I wish to express my thanks to
Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and the entire Agriculture
Committee for the weeks of work that represent the foundation of this
legislation.
I also particularly thank Senator Lugar for bringing his experience
and knowledge to the development of our amendment. His background
carries the tradition of generations of family farming in Indiana,
where over 600 acres of theirs are still under production, and he calls
for farming to be continued as a significant part of America's culture.
He understands how critical it is to our national well-being that
family farms exist independently to produce the nutritious foods that
help America maintain a healthy population.
Although I didn't grow up on a farm, I do have experience in the
business world, and our alliance on this issue brings together two
views on the farm bill and what we ought to do in the interest of our
country. That business experience I had matches up well with Senator
Lugar's experience in this amendment because I learned in my business
experience that fair and balanced competition for all products will
result in quality products at low prices, and we ought not to be
subsidizing the extremely well-off producers at the expense of family
farmers who need help to continue to be able to offer their produce in
the marketplace.
Writing a law such as the farm bill is no simple task, with the
varied views on how we put nutritious food on family tables at costs
that are affordable. I believe the bill on the floor helps farmers and
millions of Americans in several ways that fulfill our responsibility
as public servants. For example, it imposes limits on the amount of
taxpayer money that can be used to subsidize our already profitable
farms. It offers opportunities to produce more renewable fuels to
conserve energy and conservation to keep farmlands in existence.
Despite these improvements, we need more changes for serious reform.
I know many of my colleagues agree with Senator Lugar and me on the
need to do more to encourage all farmers to continue to produce food
and nourishment at the best quality and lowest possible price while
they earn a livelihood.
America grows thousands of crops, but the bill before us includes $42
billion in subsidies for only five--corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and
wheat. Most of that money goes not to struggling farmers who are
spending long hours in the fields away from their families toiling to
bring enough crops to market to merely get by and resisting the
seduction of selling their land at high prices to developers for
commercial purposes, but the money is going to those who are already
raking in record profits, and I want to demonstrate what I mean.
This chart says it all: 10 percent of farms receive nearly 75 percent
of the subsidies. Think of it--10 percent receive nearly 75 percent of
the subsidies. The 10 percent of the farms we talk about from this
chart are those well-off farmers and agribusinesses--the ones that are
bringing in giant profits. As a matter of fact, they received $120
billion in subsidies in the last 10 years. In fact, our current farm
policy funnels subsidy checks into the mailboxes of millionaire
landowners and agribusinesses across the country. Even someone who
might have just become familiar with this situation in front of us
would tell you that it doesn't make sense to fund huge farms and
businesses while failing to help farmers continue producing crops
essential to our national well-being on smaller farms that preserve the
traditions that made America strong and independent.
We all recognize that the Agriculture Committee wants America's farms
to thrive, our economy to be strong, and Americans to eat healthy
foods, but I ask, if every farmer is helping to feed America, shouldn't
America be helping every farmer? The answer is, without question, of
course. We need a farm bill that helps farmers across the country
regardless of where they farm or what they grow. We need a farm bill
that invests in more than just crops. It must invest in nutrition and
in healthier foods, such as fruits and vegetables, so that our children
are not burdened with obesity, diabetes, and other serious illnesses
that are the side effects of poor nutrition. It must provide more in
food stamps so that modest, hard-working parents who face tough times
can still prepare quality, nutritious foods for their families to eat.
And it must invest in conservation so that our green spaces do not fall
victim to highrises and commercial buildings and so that we don't
destroy the Earth that our children and grandchildren call home by
turning it into concrete highways and buildings.
The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and I have offered a plan for
reform. We are from different States and different experiences. My
colleague, Senator Lugar, grew up on a farm, whereas I grew up in the
city, but when it comes to the farm bill, Senator Lugar and I see eye
to eye on the challenges America and its lands face, and we have a
shared vision for the path forward. We see that our subsidies are for
only a handful of crops in our country and are going to the giant
agribusinesses instead of smaller farms. The taxpayer-funded handouts
we turned over to those businesses in the last 5 years totaled $72
billion. We gave them $72 billion. Think about that. The profits of
four out of the five largest crops that get subsidies will set alltime
records this year.
This has been a prosperous year for a lot of people who run the large
agribusinesses and the large profit-making farms. As I said, alltime
records are being set this year, according to the Department of
Agriculture. At the same time, crops such as fruits and vegetables and
other nutritious foods we want to see on American tables do not get the
same kind of help. My State of New Jersey, for example, has many farms
in our densely populated State. We are called the Garden State for a
reason. We have major growers of blueberries, cranberries, and lettuce,
for example, near the marketplace. Those nutritious fruits and
vegetables go directly from our farms to markets in the cities, saving
unnecessary fuel and transportation costs while improving the health of
our residents at the same time. But the current farm bill fails to aid
and encourage these farmers across the country, and that is why the
Lugar-Lautenberg amendment makes so much sense.
Our plan for reform will help every farmer in America grow their
crops and feed the Nation. I demonstrate here what I mean.
As we refer to here, our amendment provides for free crop insurance
to protect all farmers from major losses. Our
[[Page 33596]]
plan replaces the current system of subsidies with smart and free
insurance programs to protect all farmers from catastrophes such as
drought or pest infestation. Whether farmers grows corn or cranberries,
soybeans or squash, their livelihoods are protected so they can
continue to provide nutritious meals that are essential for the health
of children and families across the country.
Our plan guarantees that the income of farmers will not fall so
severely that they stop farming. It protects all farmers, most of whom
will be covered against losses of 15 percent or more in any year
whether they grow and harvest 20 acres or 2,000 acres.
This approach is not only more equitable for every farmer, but it is
far less expensive--for them and for every American taxpayer. With the
money we save, we are going to be able to invest $2.5 billion more in
nutrition programs, food stamps, and specialty crops such as potatoes,
tomatoes, and oranges. With more support for nutritional foods such as
fruits and vegetables, Americans can provide healthier meals and fight
health problems such as diabetes and obesity, and more money for food
stamps will help the 26 million Americans who rely on food stamps to
stay alive and keep their heads above water, to feed themselves and
their families.
It is shocking to note that some of the food stamp recipients are
expected to survive on $10 a month--think about that, $10 a month. It
is a paltry sum by any standard. We checked prices at a local
supermarket recently, and if you add up the cost of a loaf of bread, a
gallon of milk, a pound of cheese, and a dozen eggs, you are already
over $10. How is it possible for people to sustain themselves with that
small amount of funds at their disposal? Helping those with the least
is exactly what America is about. By increasing money for food stamps,
our amendment goes in the right direction.
Our plan invests $1 billion more than does the bill on the floor in
conservation programs that assure farmers they can protect their land
from pollution and urban sprawl. All of us see what is happening now to
farmland, to the green areas. They are falling prey to development at
paces that frighten us. Cities across the country are beginning to say
no more development here. And the best way to stem the tide is to give
farmers the ability to preserve and conserve their land. Right now our
farmers who want to participate in these programs are limited because
they do not have the funds.
Our plan invests a half billion dollars more into alternative
energies. With oil prices and concerns about global warming on the
rise, this investment addresses both of these urgent problems.
Finally, our reform plan does what the public wants us to do: to be
good stewards of the taxpayers' money by putting $4 billion toward
paying down the Federal deficit. Think about it, our national debt is
growing out of control, our deficits are growing, and we are constantly
looking for ways to fund domestic programs. At least we will begin to
arrest in significant part the growth of the annual deficit with $4
billion at the same time we accomplish the goal of helping those who do
farming, those who have modest pieces of land and have businesses that
are difficult to maintain in this day of competition.
Every State in America has agriculture, so we need a farm policy that
helps every State. The plan that Senator Lugar and I have offered is in
the best interests of every American farmer and thus every American
family. The men and women whose labor, sweat, and toil feed the Nation
deserve nothing less, and we hope it will be recognized on the floor of
this Chamber that we want to encourage farmers to stay on the farms;
that we want to encourage the availability of products that are
nutritional and will aid the health of our population.
I yield the floor and ask the remainder of my time be reserved for
Senator Lugar as he indicated he desired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill) The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my good friends, Senator Lugar and Senator Lautenberg.
The purpose of this amendment is supposedly to ``serve more farmers
more fairly and be responsive to regional and national crises that
endanger the continuing success of America's farmers.''
For farmers in my region and in my State, this amendment does the
opposite of that: if enacted, it would seriously endanger the success
of my farmers.
This amendment removes the safety net that producers support, most of
it immediately and the rest over a period of time. Here is what it
does:
phases out nontrade distorting direct payments that are critical for
farmer financing and support;
removes the availability of a nonrecourse marketing loan that
producers rely upon to market their crops;
removes countercyclical support that is necessary in times of low
prices;
allows, without the limitation contained in the committee-approved
bill, production of fruits and vegetables for processing on any base
acreage, which is a serious concern to the specialty crop industry.
Madam President, 26 agricultural organizations have signed a letter
urging Senators not to support this amendment because it eliminates the
safety net provided to producers and shifts significantly more funding
out of the commodity title.
I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2007.
Dear Senator: We are writing to urge you NOT to co-sponsor
or support S. 2228, the Farm, Ranch, Equity, Stewardship and
Health (FRESH) Act, as either a stand-alone bill or as an
amendment to the Farm Bill.
The FRESH Act eliminates the current safety net provided to
U.S. producers and shifts considerable funding to
conservation, nutrition, energy and other programs. It is
easy to look at current high prices for most agricultural
commodities and assume it is a ``good time'' to lower
government supports. It is critical to remember that farm
bills are written for the long-term rather than short-term
and that there is no assurance high prices will continue over
the next 5-10 years.
Additionally, the commodity title of the farm bill has
already taken a $57 billion cut. In 2002 Congress committed
$98.9 billion to commodity programs. According to the March
2007 CBO baseline, commodity title outlays are projected at
only $42 billion over the life of the new farm bill. All
told, the commodity programs are projected to be about 10% of
total farm bill spending, while more than 80% of the farm
bill spending is already slated for nutrition and
conservation programs.
Our organizations support the safety net provided in the
bill which was unanimously approved by the Senate Agriculture
Committee. The stringent requirements placed on the risk
management accounts that replace this safety net in the FRESH
Act would not provide producers with the necessary
flexibility to effectively manage their operations. Aside
from crop losses, producers can face a wide range of
challenges, including dramatically increasing input prices.
Our organizations believe the farm bill can live up to our
current WTO obligations without gutting the critical safety
net needed by producers. U.S. farm policy should continue
toward a more level playing field in the global market by
providing assistance to America's farmers. However, this goal
is not achieved by writing a farm bill that complies with
what someone assumes will be the potential outcome of the WTO
negotiations.
Finally, while we support strong conservation, nutrition,
and energy programs, additional support for these programs
should not come at the expense of adequate funding for the
safety net for American farmers.
We ask that you do not sign on as a cosponsor or support S.
2228 as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment to the Farm
Bill.
Sincerely,
American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, National
Association of Wheat Growers, Southern Peanut Farmers
Federation, USA Rice Federation, American Soybean
Association, Peanut Growers Marketing Cooperative, North
Carolina Peanut Growers, Virginia Peanut Growers, American
Beekeeping Federation, Rice Belt Warehouses Inc., United
Dairymen of Arizona, American Association of Crop Insurers,
National Sorghum Producers.
US Rice Producers Association, Crop Insurance Professionals
Association, American Sheep Industry Association, National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Western Peanut Growers
Association, National Cotton Council, American Sugar
Alliance, National Barley Growers Association, National
Sunflower Association, USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council,
[[Page 33597]]
US Canola Association, and American Honey Producers
Association.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Senator Lugar's amendment replaces the current safety
net with several measures--two of which are related to crop insurance
and revenue protection.
I greatly appreciate Senator Lugar's interest in expanding crop
insurance coverage, because there are very few farmers in my State who
are even eligible to purchase the coverage Senator Lugar uses as a
component of his safety net. I appreciate his interest in expanding the
Group Risk Income Protection--GRIP--and Group Risk Protection--GRP--
which are county-level revenue plans of insurance, but I have serious
concerns about building the safety net around these programs as a
replacement to traditional commodity programs.
While GRIP and GRP may be popular, workable programs in Indiana, they
are not in Georgia. Of the 159 counties in my home State, these
policies are only offered in: for soybeans, 7 counties; for corn, 9
counties; for wheat, 4 counties; for cotton, 16 counties; for peanuts,
about 25 counties.
In Georgia in 2006, only 47 of these policies were sold and earned
premium; 47 for the whole State out of over 13,000 total policies sold
and earning premium. Only seven of those triggered indemnity payments.
One of those 47 producers called my office and said he wished he had
never taken it because it did not provide individualized coverage.
Let's look at participation in States in which this coverage is more
widely available. Nebraska in 2006 sold 576 GRIP and GRP policies of
the 90,896 total policies sold and earning premium. That is less than 1
percent of all policies. Kansas in 2006 sold 110 GRIP and GRP policies
out of a total of 117,984. Again, less than 1 percent of all policies.
South Dakota in 2006 sold 20 GRIP and GRP policies out of a total of
59,648 policies. Again, less than 1 percent of all policies. North
Dakota in 2006 sold 9 GRIP policies and 0 GRP policies out of a total
of 69,539 policies. Again, less than 1 percent of all policies.
Illinois and Indiana have a different experience: 20 percent in each of
these States were GRIP/GRP policies.
I am very glad these products are viable risk management tools in
Illinois and Indiana and possibly other States, and I want those folks
to continue to use them. But I wonder why producers in these other
States aren't purchasing these products. And I question how prudent it
is to include these products as a significant component of a
replacement so-called safety net when few producers are voluntarily
purchasing them in most places except Illinois and Indiana.
Again, while I appreciate Senator Lugar's interest in expanding this
coverage, I do not support it as a replacement to the safety net
provided in the committee-approved bill, which contains a safety net
that producers have voiced support for and works especially for my home
State.
Crop insurance has experienced tremendous growth and success since
the enactment of the 2000 reform bill. In 2007, farmers insured more
than 271 million acres, with an estimated crop loss liability of $67
billion. In my home State in 1994, only 38 percent of eligible acres
were insured; and in 2006, 89 percent of eligible acres were insured.
In the committee-approved farm bill, over $4.7 billion has been taken
out of the crop insurance program to fund other farm bill priorities.
These savings were achieved to answer criticisms of the program and
improve operational efficiency. We have tried to manage these funding
reductions in a way that will not unduly harm the program or the
delivery system.
Because crop insurance is a Federal program that is supported through
a blend of private and Federal reinsurance and delivered through
private insurance providers and a network of agents nationwide, we have
to be careful in making any changes to the program. There must be
sufficient financial incentives for providers and agents to provide
appropriate service to their customers yet not so lucrative as to waste
taxpayer dollars. The financial strength of the insurance providers is
critical to the reinsurance community providing financial and risk-
bearing support to the insurance providers. Commercial reinsurance
helps assure the economic stability and continuity of the insurance
providers in delivering and servicing the crop insurance policies.
By requiring a ceding of 30 percent of risk by companies to USDA and
a much deeper cut in the administrative and operating--A&O--expense
reimbursement to providers than the committee-approved bill and the
House-passed bill, Senator Lugar's amendment will have serious negative
effects on the delivery system that could impact service and the
availability of coverage in many States.
After the House passed its farm bill this summer, the reinsurance
community sent me a letter expressing concerns about significant cuts
the House made to the A&O expense reimbursement as well as the required
increased quota share by USDA. For reference, the House cuts were
greater than those in the committee-approved bill but less than what
Senator Lugar proposes.
Specifically, the letter signed by 13 reinsurers states that the
House's proposed reduction in A&O will further strain the insurance
providers' ability to properly deliver and service the crop insurance
program.
The letter notes that there is a justifiable and widespread concern
that even fewer insurance providers will exist in the future. There are
16 approved insurance providers nationwide. That does not mean 16
providers in every State--some States have as many as 16, others have
less. This issue raised by the reinsurance community should be
concerning, especially for those of us whose States have fewer
insurance providers than the current nationwide total.
The letter states that if reinsurers sense that insurance providers
will be unable to subsidize further the costs of processing and claims
settlements, reinsurers will likely exercise extreme caution in
providing private reinsurance. Creditworthiness is paramount for
reinsurers, which do not need and do not want to support thinly
capitalized and/or overleveraged insurers.
The letter also maintains that allegations about the insurance
providers earning excessive profits in recent years are unwarranted and
inaccurate.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Crop Insurance
Research Bureau, Inc.,
Overland Park, KS, September 18, 2007.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry,Washington, DC.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss: The
undersigned represent a cross section of the private
reinsurance community engaged in the Federal Crop Insurance
program. Private reinsurers are a critical element in a
successful program because they afford standard reinsurance
contract holders the ability to offer it on a truly national
basis. Our continued presence is predicated upon the overall
strength and viability of the program. The provisions in the
House version of the Farm Bill give us considerable pause for
concern.
The crop insurance program has enjoyed unqualified success
since the private sector was introduced in 1981. This success
is measured in terms of the percentage of eligible acres
insured today versus those acres insured in 1981. Today
roughly 80% of eligible crops are insured versus less than
20% in 1981. Furthermore, the numbers of crops that are
eligible for insurance coverage today have also increased
significantly since 1981. This success in insuring over 242
million acres has created an economical safety net for
America's farmers--and a safety net for the entire rural
community that depends upon a strong agricultural economy.
Discussions on the crop insurance program usually focus on
the farmers and those companies that deliver crop insurance--
the Approved Insurance Providers (AIP). However, a critical
component to an AIP's operation is the reinsurance, which the
AIP purchases from the private sector.
Many legislators seem to assume the only reinsurance that
is needed is that which is provided by the Standard
Reinsurance Agreement (SRA). The crop industry needs,
[[Page 33598]]
and relies upon, so-called commercial reinsurance to
supplement the reinsurance provided to the AIPs under the
SRA. Commercial reinsurance provides two essential benefits
to an AIP:
1. This reinsurance provides financial and risk-bearing
support to the AIP whereby the AIP can deliver crop insurance
over a greater geographic area and/or assist the AIP in
delivering a greater number of insurance policies than the
AIP could normally provide on their own.
2. This commercial reinsurance provides a vital economic
backstop to the AIP.
Therefore, the commercial reinsurance helps assure the
economic stability and continuity of the AIP in delivering
and servicing the crop insurance.
As Congress continues its review of various aspects of the
crop insurance program, the commercial reinsurance industry
has noted certain aspects that may have an undesirable impact
on the crop insurance industry if these various aspects are
implemented.
Reduction in Administrative and Operating expense (A&O):
The proposed reduction in A&O will reduce the income to the
AIPs and will further strain their ability to properly
deliver and service the crop insurance program. From a
reinsurer's perspective, there is a justifiable and
widespread concern even fewer AIPs will exist in the future.
There were some 55 AIPs in the late 1980s. Today there are
only 16 AIPs. The reduction in the number of AIPs is directly
attributable to the historical reduction in the A&O
percentage. Quality, accurate and timely service is of utmost
importance in order that policies are processed properly and
that insurance claims are settled properly. If reinsurers
sense that AIPs will be unable to subsidize further the costs
of processing and claims settlements, leading to a heightened
perception of their financial vulnerability, reinsurers will
likely exercise extreme caution in providing private
reinsurance. AIP creditworthiness is paramount for
reinsurers, which do not need and do not want to support
thinly capitalized and/or over leveraged insurers.
Increased quota share by FCIC:
Certain legislators have alleged that the crop industry
AIPs have made ``excessive'' profits in recent years. These
statements are simply unwarranted and inaccurate. The time
span used to support this allegation is too short in its
duration and simply ignores all statistical principles of
insurance. Because loss experience always reverts to the
mean, in the coming years droughts, excessive moisture,
disease, e.g. Asian soybean rust, and a multitude of other
perils will erode the profits that have been earned in recent
years. Profits are needed to balance the inevitable losses;
hopefully the resulting balance will result in, appropriate
long-term profits in order that the crop insurance industry
can continue to provide returns on equity adequate to
continue to attract the support of the reinsurance community.
The foremost consideration of the reinsurance community is
the financial viability of the AIPs. Erosion in the financial
strength of the AIPs will cause the reinsurance industry to
reconsider their support of the industry and will negatively
impact this vital aspect in the delivery of the crop
insurance program. Excessive budget balancing at the expense
of the crop insurance industry is short sighted. The crop
insurance program has provided--and must continue to
provide--farmers, lenders, and rural constituents a known,
predictable economic safety net.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts with
you and urge you to continue your support of the crop
insurance program.
Sincerely,
AON Re; Collins; Cooper Gay Intermediaries, LLC;
Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of America; Farmers
Mutual Hail Insurance Company; Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company.
Guy Carpenter & Co., LLC; Mapfre Reinsurance Corporation;
Munich Re Group; Partner Reinsurance Company of the
U.S.; Swiss Reinsurance Company; Totsch Enterprises
Inc.; Western Agricultural Insurance Company.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. An independent study was recently shared with my staff
about the profitability of the Federal crop insurance community.
National Crop Insurance Services, NCIS, is an international not-for-
profit organization representing the interests of more than 60 crop
insurance companies. Representatives of NCIS recently shared the
results of an independent study of the Federal crop insurance program
compared to the Property & Casualty, P&C, insurance industry for the
period of 1992-2006. Key findings include:
The Federal crop insurance program is not as profitable as
the P&C industry and writing Federal crop insurance entails
greater risk;
under the current standard reinsurance agreement, SRA,
which is the contractual agreement between USDA and approved
insurance providers for delivering the program, A&O
reimbursements continue to be below actual Federal crop
insurance expenses incurred by private insurers.
Although the latter finding indicates crop insurance companies' costs
are not fully covered by the Federal Government, the committee-approved
bill contains an A&O reduction of 2 percentage points below the rates
currently in effect for policies except in a State in a year in which
the loss ratio is above 1.2. The policy basis for this was to answer
criticisms concerning costs of A&O reimbursements while providing an
exception in cases where loss adjustments and claims processing will be
much greater. We believe this is a balanced approach to reducing A&O
expenditures.
The crop insurance industry and the crop insurance program make a
significant financial contribution in the committee-approved bill, but
not to the detriment of the delivery system as under Senator Lugar's
amendment.
While there are parallels between conservation provisions in this
bill and those in the committee bill, there are important differences.
The committee bill is more comprehensive and incorporates important
new emphases on forestry, specialty and organic production, wildlife,
and pollinators, among others.
The committee bill addresses the significant challenges in existing
programs that stakeholders have identified, such as the appraisal
process in WRP and FPP, CSP scope and delivery, third party eligibility
in GRP, and delivery of technical assistance.
The committee bill includes new flexibilities to improve and
accelerate program delivery through improvements to technical service
provider provisions, producer group participation, and partnerships and
cooperation.
For all the above reasons, I respectfully request that my colleagues
vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the importance of
the arguments that have been forwarded by my colleagues, especially
those comments most recently by the distinguished ranking member of the
Agriculture Committee and earlier by Senator Conrad, the Chairman of
the Budget Committee and also a very valued member for a long time of
the Agriculture Committee.
I think it is important in response, as the Senator from North Dakota
pointed out, as he described the situation, that we have to take his
common sense that farms that produce much more are likely, under the
current farm legislation, to receive more in subsidy and payments of
various sorts.
There have been certainly comments made on our side of the question
that a disproportionate amount of money goes to a very few farmers.
Senator Conrad attempted to rebut that by pointing out that these very
few farmers may very well produce, in some States, the bulk of all that
is produced.
So as a matter of common sense, if payments are being made, they
would receive a very large share of those payments. Certainly, that
logic is impeccable. The point the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment tries to
bring to the floor is that leaving aside specific farmers, we are
talking about the interests of all the American people, all the
taxpayers who make these payments, in fact, to a very few.
We are making the point that farmers who do produce a lot of corn or
wheat or soybeans or cotton are very likely to be more successful. I
pointed out in my opening statement how farms have grown, how
successful farmers have purchased the farms of those who were elderly
or from the estates or from young people who have moved away from the
States or from young people who do not have the wherewithal to buy
property.
In short, what I describe is the consolidation of agriculture in
America, which is a pretty strong trend and which I believe the
underlying farm bill we are discussing today would accelerate. I think
that would be regrettable. Therefore, the point I am making with our
amendment is not to discuss whether, proportionately, subsidies go to
those who are most successful and produce the most but, rather, to say
we should not have these payments at all.
[[Page 33599]]
What we should have is a safety net for all farmers, including large
and the wealthy as well as those who are not very wealthy and not very
large, an underlying safety net of crop insurance based upon each
county in America, so it is not a broad-gauge situation, it is a very
locally specific situation, taking into consideration presumably the
soil, the weather pattern, the history of crops in that particular
county in America, or the farmer could choose to take the last 5 years
of net farm income and have crop insurance based upon that farm
history, a whole farm history, not simply of a specific crop, although
the farmer would have the option under our plan of choosing a specific
crop.
The farmer could choose whole farm income across the board, including
a great number of items that are not now covered in these specific crop
situations. The bill we are talking about now provides that insurance.
It literally pays the premiums for all farmers, so in the event that in
any particular area of America, by county, by State or by region, there
is difficulty created by the weather or conceivably by world trade
distortions, elements that are well beyond the ability of any one
individual farmer's management to control, that farmer is going to
receive compensation that will keep that farmer in business.
Now, furthermore, the farmer would have the option of buying
additional crop insurance, as each of us as farmers now do, to cover
the other 15 or 20 percent, depending upon the plan chosen, so that, in
fact, you could ensure you were going to at least receive the same
income as you have received over the last 5 years, on average, or
receive at least the computed predictions of what the price ought to be
for soybeans or for corn.
Let me say, as a practical example, that I take our own experience on
the Lugar farm indicative of how this might work. We have had a profit
on our farm for the last 50 years. Every year. Now, one reason we have
had those profits is because we have had crop insurance and we have
bought the highest level of crop insurance that was possible. We paid
premiums for it. It was not given to us. We paid money for it.
A good many farmers who are neighbors said: I do not want to put that
expense into insurance. I will let the Lord provide, sort of hope it
will all work out. But it does not always work out, given the weather
patterns.
On our farm, in this soybean season, we had very adverse weather. We
had drought during many of the weeks of the summer coming up toward
harvest. Fortunately, it did not injure the crop totally. We had at
least a 41-bushel yield, and we could have anticipated normally more
like 51, about a 20-percent deficiency. But that is the way things move
in this world. We understand that.
The antidote has been crop insurance. So if you have a productive
farm operation, you are not penalized because of acts of God,
literally, through the weather.
Now, that is what we are proposing for all farmers in America and
covering all the crops that are associated with our amendment. I think
this is a very important discrepancy.
The distinguished ranking member of the Ag Committee, Senator
Chambliss, has described the current three-legged stool proposition I
discussed earlier today. Direct payments. Direct payments historically
on my farm, once again, we receive now under the bill that is being
produced, the underlying bill, direct payments whether we have the same
number of acres or even the same crops. It is a historical record from
which these payments come.
Furthermore, we could, under the so-called marketing loan situation,
try to game the system, trying to borrow money from the Federal
Government and pay it back in lesser amounts, depending upon the crop
moving upward, moving downward. We do not lose.
I would say this is not a fair system with regard either to
agricultural competition or with regard to the rest of the public. The
public, as a whole, wants to make certain farmers stay in business,
wants to make certain small farmers have a shot at it, wants to pay at
least for the insurance premiums so if there is an adverse situation,
it could not be controlled, the income will come in and the farm stays
alive. This is what the argument is about.
Now, let me simply indicate, as the distinguished ranking member has
pointed out, 26 farm groups have endorsed the underlying bill. I have
no doubt that is true. I would say there are a good number of
agricultural interests deeply involved in this bill, and that has
usually been the extent of the argument. Those are the groups that are
heard in the hearings, are heard sometimes by Senators.
But this time we have had a different situation. I have cited that
over 40 major newspapers in the United States of America have taken
time in their editorial policies, and furthermore in supporting
articles, to point out the deficiencies of farm legislation as it has
evolved.
But this represents, I would submit, a much larger group than 26
agricultural groups or even members of our committees who believe they
are advocates for specific groups in American agriculture. This time a
very broad number of Americans have spoken out in a humanitarian way,
as people who respect the Federal budget, as people who respect general
fairness, in terms of group and Federal support for those situations.
I think that is very healthy. I hope that will be reflected in the
vote we are about to have. I am convinced a large majority of
constituents in every State of our Union would favor the Lugar-
Lautenberg FRESH amendment if they had any idea of the argument that is
being presented today. Thank goodness through our newspapers and
editorials, a lot more people do have such an idea, and they are
expressing themselves.
Let me make a technical point, and that is that an argument has been
made that if we are so reliant, as I have pointed out, on crop
insurance, that the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment will hurt crop
insurance. I want to recite some specifics about the technicalities of
crop insurance. For the moment, crop insurance companies are reimbursed
by the Federal Government as a percentage of the cost of the policy. So
as commodity prices have increased, so has the reimbursement of private
companies, even though the workload has not changed. If, in fact, there
is huge demand now for corn, huge demand for soybeans, the prices have
gone up, in the case of soybeans, to record levels, exceeded only last
in 1973. The compensation to the crop insurance people moves right
along with it, without any of the risk involved changing. The GAO
described this as ``a kind of windfall.'' Our amendment reduces the
reimbursement to a rate that is still well above historical averages
and, furthermore, we create a safety net through crop insurance
programs dramatically increasing business opportunities for private
crop insurance companies.
As has been cited by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, many
crop insurance policies may not be available in certain counties in his
State and in others, but under our amendment, crop insurance is
available everywhere, every county, every State. That is a very
important consideration in terms of a national safety net as opposed to
a crop-specific or State-specific safety net.
The GAO has reported crop insurance underwriting profits of $2.8
billion over the last decade, three times the insurance industry
average. The amendment I am offering today with Senator Lautenberg also
reduces underwriting profits by requiring companies to share 30 percent
of their accumulative underwriting gain back with the taxpayers, back
with the Federal Government, so there is not an undisguised windfall.
We have estimated this will save taxpayers more than $1.4 billion and
reduce the outlays in the 10 years this bill covers.
I point this out because I think it is important to say our amendment
is going to be a remarkable boon for crop insurance. It is going to be
virtually universal. A lot of money is going to be made. But before we
get into that, we had better change the terms of reference with regard
to what taxpayers are paying for and the underwriting risks that are
involved.
[[Page 33600]]
I point out one further argument; that is, that we have been talking
about the relative merits of our amendment when it comes to
conservation. We have not discussed differences with regard to
research. We might have talked more about development in rural areas. I
tried to make the point in an earlier statement that only about 14
percent of the people now living in rural America live on farms. Only
about 1 out of 750 individuals actually does farm. The need for
development in our rural counties is obvious. The population flight
from so many counties is very apparent. If we are talking about rural
America, we have to be talking about ways in which new jobs will come
to counties in America, and that is not going to come through a normal
farm bill situation, rewarding specific farmers and specific crops and
not all of those. I point out that our amendment tries to focus on
rural America, on the opportunities for jobs for people in county seats
all over our country.
I also point out that we have tried to think through the problems of
the young. We have tried to talk about resisting the trend toward
consolidation of agriculture by truly providing support for the small
farmers who do not receive much support. And, as has been pointed out,
they don't produce as much, and they never will under the circumstances
currently in American agriculture. We think it is very important that
young people coming out of college have this choice and, furthermore,
that families who do have a tradition of farming not be entrapped by
current circumstances that are driving clearly toward much more
concentrated management and ownership of American agriculture.
I would say that the reason why a farm such as we have in the Lugar
family in Marion County, IN has great hopes for the future is that some
great things have occurred in agricultural research. It is a small
point in all of this debate, but I touched upon this a moment ago in
describing the soybean price. I could have discussed the evolution of
prices of corn in the last 3 or 4 years. The fact is corn and soybeans
are now being utilized for energy. The demand for these grains for
energy is controversial all by itself. There are some outside of this
Chamber as well as inside this body who would say there is a danger
that food supplies are going to be converted into energy. Some have
even theologically said this is not what God suggested. It should not
be energy, it should be food. Others have suggested that the price of
corn, because it is going up abnormally, some would say, to provide
ethanol is driving the rest of American food costs up. Ditto for
soybeans. Some even make the case that it is driving world food prices
upward, that residents of very poor countries are now forced to pay
more for food because of our policies of using food for fuel.
I appreciate this is an argument that will go on in many circles well
beyond this one for a long time. But I also point out that the
President of the United States and the leaders of both of our major
political parties have for some time said this Nation is now two-thirds
dependent upon foreign oil in terms of our petroleum needs. That
percentage is increasing. Those sources of supply are more and more
precarious and sometimes very unfriendly. The fact is, despite all of
our conservation efforts, we are still using more oil each year. If we
do not have a policy that even moves toward a slight bit of energy
independence--not total, which I would agree is not within the cards as
we now see life in our country--if we don't move at least to eliminate
a portion of that vulnerability, we are going to have very severe
consequences in terms of our own jobs, our competitive ability in the
world, quite apart from the ability to drive our cars and heat our
homes. We understand that.
I point out that the agricultural research that got ahead of the
curve here has made possible huge changes in agricultural income in
this year as well as in the last year, and will continue to do so, if
we continue our research on cellulosic ethanol, if we continue our
research on all of the ways in which agricultural food and fiber might
play a role in this and then how we increase the yields. To believe
that somehow because we have increased the acreage of corn this year
and we are running out of land, that that is the end of the story, is
to deny a fact I remember from boyhood onward. My dad was receiving
about one-third as much yield out of our cornfields as we are getting
now. I have seen that in the last 60 years of time. There are many who
would point out that on our farm we could do a whole lot better. I am
all ears for that, as are most productive farmers. In short, we are at
the threshold of potential for income. Therefore, to have a debate
mired in the thought that we must maintain all the subsidies and the
programs that as a matter of fact have been so expensive, have brought
about concentration, have led even to a loss of jobs in rural America
makes no sense at all, in my judgment. We have to talk about the
future.
I would say furthermore that, speaking about those abroad, 10 bishops
from a church in Africa came to visit with me and I suppose with others
in this body. They pointed out specifically that the cotton programs we
support debilitate their hopes of coming into self-support in many very
tough situations in their countries. They suggest, leaving aside the
World Trade Organization criticism of the cotton program specifically
and perhaps the opportunities Brazil may have to extract $4 billion out
of somewhere in our economy that may be hitting other crops under the
order they may receive, that we need to have reform, that the specific
policies that are now a part of that program for cotton, they could
apply it likewise to corn or to beans, are simply not going to work in
a world that also has a humanitarian focus on feeding people, on humane
results, on foreign policy that has at least some public diplomacy that
works.
I agree with them. I would say to cotton farmers or to soybean
farmers or corn farmers, let's make sure we do have an underlying
safety net. Let's make certain there cannot be catastrophe to hit any
of our groups. Let's do it by State, by county, by local circumstances,
by history. Let's do it right. But it is another thing to demand, as a
cotton farmer or a corn farmer or a soybean farmer, payments upfront,
regardless of what happens, and likewise the ability to game the
Government with regard to these marketing loans. I would say on the
face of it, taxpayers generally, persons of humane quality in our
country, are not going to like the looks of that kind of program. That
has been the nature of our program in the farm bill that we have been
experiencing and in the one that is about to continue.
I add finally the situation this year in this debate. I agree it is
always oversimplified, but let me try to tell it as I saw it. In the
House of Representatives, the farm groups, whether it was the 26
Senator Chambliss referenced or others, came in. They saw their
Members, and they said: We want every penny, every penny of what we got
in the past and more. We want those farm programs and we don't want
them touched. However, the Members also began to hear from humanitarian
groups, groups that wanted to feed Americans, interested in Food
Stamps. Oxfam came in. People in conservation came in in numbers.
People in energy research came in. And so pragmatically, the House
committee said: Fine, we will do more for each one of you, a whole lot
more, as a matter of fact. We are going to add to programs. And they
did. So they took the whole block of the farm subsidies as they were
and added on all of these additional programs. Then at the end of the
trail, they said: We have a pay-go system, and so they added a tax bill
offered by Representative Doggett who was outside the farm community
but at the same time had an idea over in Finance as to how some money
might be raised with regard to certain commercial foreign interests he
saw. So you pay for it that way and ship the whole thing along, hoping
that many constituencies will be pleased now and that the basic farm
subsidies will not be touched, might even be enhanced.
In our situation in this body, we had an even more curious situation.
The distinguished Senator from North Dakota who spoke earlier was a
proponent, along with others, of a disaster
[[Page 33601]]
relief program, a huge one. That went over to the Finance Committee,
had the Finance Committee discussing the farm bill; as a matter of
fact, making a huge contribution to the farm bill.
That particular disaster relief, as I can best fathom, would be run
by some bureaucrats in the Treasury Department, that somehow would be
signalled when there is a disaster and would send the money over by
electronic means.
It is an unusual situation in which we have no idea how much this
might cost, and actuarially I think the assumptions are not very sound.
But it was an interesting way of meeting at least one particular
objective and trying at least to find some other way of paying for it
through an unusual clause in tax law.
I mention all of this because this kind of legislation is not good,
is not necessary. I hope Members will, in fact, know there is a strong
alternative--the FRESH Act, the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment--that they
will vote for that, and they will make a sizable difference in the
history of farm legislation.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask that the vote originally set at
3:50 p.m. be moved to an immediate vote.
Have the yeas and nays been requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. LUGAR. I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3711.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 417 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Allard
Barrasso
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
DeMint
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lugar
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Sununu
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
NAYS--58
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Dorgan
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCaskill
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 3711) was rejected.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Amendment No. 3819
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Sununu, McCaskill,
Durbin, and Schumer, I am proud today to offer the reduction of excess
subsidies to crop underwriters rescue amendment to the farm bill.
The rescue amendment is based on a simple premise. When resources are
limited, we cannot afford to waste them. We cannot afford to overpay
crop insurance----
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Is the Senator talking about his amendment on crop
insurance, the one the Senator laid down the other day?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, it was laid down on Friday.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator if he would yield, without losing his
right to the floor, for Senator Chambliss to make a unanimous consent
request, at the end of which time the Senator would regain the floor.
Mr. BROWN. Of course.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I request of the Senator from Ohio,
how long does he intend to speak?
Mr. BROWN. Five minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
following the 5 minutes for the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, be recognized for 30 minutes, equally divided, on
three amendments: Nos. 3671, 3672, and 3674.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Madam President----
Mr. HARKIN. Does that include the medical?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. No.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wanted to ask the Senator for whom
the 30 minutes is being reserved, and the managers, if they would grant
me 6 minutes before they start to inform the Senate about the status of
a project that I think is vital and they should know about.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I have no objection. I want to make sure
we are working off the same page on amendments to be offered. I will
reserve the right to object to make sure we are on the same page.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, let me try this one more time. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio have 5 minutes to discuss
his amendment, the Senator from New Mexico be recognized for 6 minutes,
and then the Senator from New Hampshire be recognized for 30 minutes,
equally divided, to debate three amendments. The first is No. 3671, the
farm stress program; No. 3672, which is to strike the asparagus
provision; and No. 3674, which is the mortgage forgiveness amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I would be happy to do that approach. In
talking to the Senator from Michigan, who has an interest in the
asparagus program, if this is not a convenient time for her, I will
substitute the amendment on the emergency funding, which is No. 3822,
for the asparagus one, No. 3672, unless the Senator is ready to go.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I believe she said she is ready to go. So the Senator
from New Hampshire will be recognized for 30 minutes, equally divided,
on those three amendments.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just a minute. I have now been informed
there is objection on our side to including No. 3674, which has to do
with the mortgage crisis.
The Finance Committee has informed me they want to take a look at
this amendment on the mortgage crisis before we agree to a time.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I suggest I be recognized
to offer those three amendments and set a time limit at the convenience
of the managers. I am agreeable to a time limit. I can proceed to offer
them and my colleagues can work out the time agreements.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from New Hampshire, there is an
indication from some on our side that a couple of those amendments,
Nos. 3674 and 3673, I am now informed, will both perhaps require 60
votes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, let's try this one more way. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio be recognized for 5
minutes, the
[[Page 33602]]
Senator from New Mexico be recognized for 6 minutes, and then the
Senator from New Hampshire be recognized to discuss his amendments,
whatever they may be; that following him, the Senator from Tennessee,
Mr. Alexander, be recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I am wondering, does this
mean we are not going to have votes on the amendments I am offering?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. There will be no more votes today.
Mr. GREGG. No, but is it the understanding that at some point, we are
going to get to votes on the 5 amendments that are part of the original
20 amendments that were agreed to?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Amendment No. 3819
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, our bipartisan amendment, on behalf of
Senators Sununu, McCaskill, McCain, Durbin, and Schumer, takes dollars
from where they do not belong--that is, heavily subsidized crop
insurers--and invests them in priorities with a return to the United
States, as nutrition programs, conservation programs, and initiatives
that create sustainable economic development in other countries which,
after all, is the key to strong export markets.
Our amendment does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any
farmer. That is an important point. It merits repeating. Our amendment
does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any farmer. Instead,
it reduces the excessive taxpayer-funded fees that crop insurers
receive for servicing their customers.
The savings from this amendment will be invested in programs that
work--programs such as McGovern-Dole which provides school lunches to
the over 100 million children around the world who suffer from hunger.
There is a reason the House provides $800 million in mandatory
funding for this program; the Senate provided none. There is a reason
this program was developed by and is named after two of the most
notable Members of this body. The reason is this program stands out. It
melds compassion with common sense, feeding the hungry and building
sustainable economies in the developing countries, making our country
safer.
We responded 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 to people who desperately need
it.
This amendment is also about ensuring the appropriate funding levels
for conservation programs. We have done a good job with conservation in
the Senate farm bill and much of that credit goes to Chairman Harkin.
We can do better, and it will pay off for our Nation to do so.
The Farmland Protection Program received no increase in funding from
the committee-passed bill. Yet it is crucial to the protection of
family farms.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, protects water
quality and provides farmers and ranchers with the tools they need and
want to be good environmental stewards. Yet three out of four
applications go unfunded.
Our amendment invests in these resource conservation programs.
Importantly, it invests in human decency. It invests in preventing
Americans from going hungry. How, in the wealthiest country in the
world, can we let too many of our people be hungry? More Americans are
struggling to make ends meet, and with the savings from our amendment,
children who rely on food stamps will not have to go to bed hungry.
It is a smart amendment.
I know some of my colleagues are skeptical about the amendment's
``pay-for.'' Some of my colleagues don't want to take money from crop
insurers. That is why we must take a serious look at the excessive
subsidies in the Federal Crop Insurance Program.
Federal crop insurance is an essential part of the farm safety net
and will continue to be in the future. However, billions of dollars
that are intended to benefit farmers are instead siphoned off by large
crop insurance companies.
Since 2000, farmers have received $10.5 billion in benefits from crop
insurance, but it has cost taxpayers $19 billion: $10 billion in
benefits, it has cost taxpayers $19 billion to deliver those benefits.
Where does the difference go? According to a GAO report, crop
insurance companies take 40 cents out of every dollar that Congress
appropriates to help farmers manage the risk of agricultural
production. What kind of good business sense is that?
In the same report, GAO finds crop insurance company profits are more
than double industry averages. Private and casualty insurance has 8.3
percent; Federal crop insurance is literally more than double the rate
of profit.
Over the past 10 years, crop insurance companies have had an average
rate of return of 18 percent compared to just over 8 percent for the
comparable private property and casualty insurance companies.
Let me repeat, no farmer under the Brown-Durbin-McCaskill-McCain-
Sununu amendment, no farmer will pay more for crop insurance because of
this amendment. The Federal Government sets Federal crop insurance
premium rates. This amendment does not change any of that.
This amendment will require that crop insurance companies share a
greater portion of their underwriting gains with taxpayers. It is only
right in a true public-private partnership that both sides benefit
fairly.
This amendment also reduces the exorbitant--and I mean exorbitant--
administrative fees that crop insurers receive for each policy they
sell. A GAO report shows that per-policy subsidies to insurance
companies will be triple what they were less than 10 years ago.
This amendment will reduce administrative subsidies for each policy
to the national average from 2004 to 2006. It is not a huge cut. It
says to the crop insurance companies: Let's go back a couple years. You
were getting well compensated and well subsidized. Why should we do
more than that? With high commodity prices, this is still well above
every year prior to 2006.
This amendment provides commonsense reforms to a system of subsidies
that has simply spun out of control.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, first, I regret I had to ask for time
in the middle of debate on such a serious subject. I will talk about an
issue that is not related.
It looks to me as if the Senate, once again, will be forced to
consider a tax package we know is likely to be vetoed. We considered an
energy tax increase in June on the Senate floor, and the Senate
rejected it. We considered an energy tax increase on the Senate floor
last Friday, and the Senate rejected it. Now we will be forced again to
consider what I understand is a $21 billion tax increase that is likely
to be vetoed. I hope that, once again, the Senate will reject it.
But while we delay in playing these games, we jeopardize the passage
of the CAFE standards and a real increase in much-needed renewable fuel
standards should be able to be put to work, and we will be reshaping
the flawed amendment that was sent to us by the House on that score.
I urge the majority to reconsider this attempt to force another vote
on taxes, and that provision we have been told by the President will be
vetoed.
I cannot answer the question why is it going to be vetoed, why can't
we do it another way, why can't we negotiate, why can't we have part of
the taxes. All I know is the President says: If you send me this tax
bill, no matter how good it is, with $21 billion in taxes, it is dead;
I will veto it.
I wish to tell my colleagues, I have been in this Senate for 36
years, and for 20 years of it, we have been trying to change the CAFE
standards on automobile fleets in the United States. Increasing the
CAFE standards to 35 miles by 2020 will be the biggest conservation
initiative for transportation fuels in years.
Additionally, increasing the renewable fuel standard will bring
thousands
[[Page 33603]]
of jobs to rural America and help reduce our increasing dependence on
foreign oil.
All this good work will be put at risk by the inclusion of the $21
billion tax increase. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stand
back from this risky decision and let us pass a bill and send it to the
House that does not include these taxes, and we will get one of the
most important amendments we could ever do for saving transportation
fuel.
Let me start over: The most important area where we abuse the use of
fuel--that is, fuel that comes from crude oil--is in the transportation
system. What we are trying to do is to modify the CAFE standards to
force the production of higher mileage cars in the fleets of America.
We are told by the best expert in the world, who testified before one
of the committees, there is nothing else we can do that will increase
our savings of crude oil and diesel than this particular provision of
CAFE modification.
I say to everyone, the fact is, you think you need taxes, you know
you want taxes, you say when are you going to get these taxes, and you
say they ought to be on this bill. I say to you: If you put them on
this bill, you don't get the taxes and you don't get the big energy
savings part of this bill. What do you say? You are going to do it
anyway? What are you going to do it for? We might as well throw the
bill in the basket here. We don't have to fool around and waste time.
Put it in the basket and throw it away, because if you insist on
putting the $21 billion on and sending it back to the House so they can
play games, they will keep the $21 billion and then the President will
say: I told you not to do it. Here it is. Goodbye.
I urge that the best opportunity to get major energy-saving
legislation is with CAFE standards modification, and with it this other
provision which will give us ethanol 2, which will be for rural America
to begin producing not by corn but other than corn, producing ethanol
for transportation fuel.
I believe I cannot say it any better. It is wasted time and effort to
pass a bill with $21 billion worth of taxes. We will not get either the
taxes, which will lose, and we will not get the energy savings portion.
I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to speak to the
Senate. I hope those proposing this legislation will understand it
cannot be done. I cannot fix it. I cannot help it. It is the President.
Who will get him to change his mind? He will not do it. I have asked
him. He will not do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 3671, 3672, and 3674
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to speak about amendments which I
have pending to the agriculture bill. I hoped they would be voted on
today. I guess there is a fundraiser this evening on the Democratic
side of the aisle which allows us to not have any more votes.
Certainly, I hope most will be voted on tomorrow.
There are five amendments which I have proposed to the bill to try to
make it a better bill, although it is a bill that has very serious
problems. Let me talk about that quickly.
This agriculture bill comes forward every 5 years. It is a
reauthorization of the farm programs. The practical effect is every
year consumers get sort of taken to the woodshed behind the barn and
get fleeced. This is no change from that historic activity under the
farm bill. Only this time the fleecing is happening by the use of
jiggling numbers and gamesmanship of numbers.
There is $34 billion of spending in this bill which is done through
gimmicks--gimmicks to avoid what is euphemistically called pay-go
around here, gimmicks to avoid budget points of order, gimmicks to make
this bill cost less than it actually costs--$34 billion, with date
changes and things such as that.
Then there is another game that is played, which is money which has
historically been spent by direct mandatory spending is taken from the
mandatory spending accounts and moved over to the tax accounts.
Basically, in the conservation area, where we used to have, I think, $5
billion or $3 billion of mandatory accounts spending, we now have $5
billion or $3 billion of what is known as tax credits.
What is the practical effect of that? What it does by moving that
spending over to the tax side is you free up that amount of money on
the spending side, on the mandatory side to be spent, with the
practical implication that the bill jumps in its cost by that amount of
money. So you have a fairly significant increase by doing that. In the
end, that adds to the deficit, of course, because you have ended up
increasing spending by that amount of money.
In addition, the bill adds a large number of new programmatic
activities through the subsidy realm. We already subsidize a lot of
farm products around here in a questionable way. Sugar is a good
example of that. We basically subsidize sugar so that the price of
sugar in this country is about 75 percent higher than it is on the
world market. That has an effect not only on the cost of sugar but it
also has an effect on things such as the production of ethanol, because
ethanol can be produced from sugarcane.
In addition, we subsidize all sorts of different commodities. As we
know, the farm bill is the classic example of what you learned in
school called log rolling. That is where you say, if you will vote for
my subsidy, I will vote for yours, and down the road we go. You vote
for wheat, I will vote for corn, corn will vote for soybeans, soybeans
will vote for peanuts, peanuts will vote for cotton, and so forth and
so on. So although none of these subsidies could stand on their own,
when they get in this sequential support effort, they build a very
solid wall of support for a lot of programs which are of questionable
need, and certainly of questionable value when you look at a market
economy, and we are supposedly a market economy. Of course, in the farm
area we are not a market economy, we are a throwback to a commissar
economy.
Well, in this bill they add a number of new programs. They add an
asparagus payment, they add a chickpea payment, they add a camellia
subsidy, and they create new programs in the area of a national sheep
and goat industry. They create a new program to look at the stress
farmers are under. So they add a panoply of new programmatic activity
in this bill, most of which is of questionable value, but it obviously
has some interest group which promoted it and, therefore, it gets put
in the bill.
What I have done is I have lined up five amendments here which I
think are fairly reasonable and address a number of issues--policywise
big issues, and from a farm standpoint some of them address fairly
narrow and concise issues.
The first amendment which I have offered--which has been offered on
my behalf by Senator Thune, but which I will call up and ask for a vote
on as soon as we can get to it, as soon as we can get people to give us
votes around here--is the mortgage forgiveness amendment. What we are
seeing in America today, whether it is in farm America, rural America,
or in urban America, is obviously a huge meltdown in the subprime
lending markets. The effect of that meltdown is that many people are
finding their mortgages foreclosed on, which is obviously an extremely
traumatic event, to have your house taken in a mortgage foreclosure. I
can't think of too many more traumatic physical events than that.
Obviously, there are more traumatic health events, but not too many
more physical events or economic events.
Well, when you have a mortgage foreclosed on, you have a second
totally incomprehensible event. The IRS assesses you a tax on the
amount of the money which you owed to the bank, or to the lender, which
you couldn't repay and which was wiped out in the foreclosure.
For example, if you have an obligation to a bank of $150,000 and your
home is foreclosed on, and it is sold for something that recovers
$100,000 of that, then that $50,000 difference becomes personal income
to you and the IRS sends you a tax bill for it, even though you got
foreclosed on. Well, can
[[Page 33604]]
you think of anything worse than that? I can't, from the standpoint of
economics happening on a daily basis--a person loses their home and
then the IRS collection agents come by and say you owe us X number of
dollars because your home was foreclosed on.
Well, this amendment would put an end to that. It would say that will
not be deemed income to the taxpayer, so that a taxpayer whose home is
foreclosed on does not receive the double whammy of having a tax bill
sent to them. It seems pretty reasonable to me. I can't imagine anybody
is going to oppose this amendment. I would hope it would get a very
large vote. It is not subject to a point of order, because the cost of
it is within what is left on the pay-go scorecard, to the extent there
is anything left on the pay-go scorecard, it having been shredded. But
Senator Conrad said last week there was $670 million left on the pay-go
scorecard, which my staff confirms, as ranking member of the Budget
Committee, and this amendment costs less than that. So it is in order,
and I hope it will be supported. I think it is only the fair and right
thing to do. I mean, this is a quirk of tax policy which,
unfortunately, if you are caught in it as a citizen of America it is
not a quirk, it is a devastation, and it is not right. Nobody, because
their home gets foreclosed on, should suddenly get a tax bill for the
amount the bank didn't recover from the home they sold.
The second amendment I am going to call up, and hope I can call it up
very soon and get a vote on it, is already pending, and it is what I
call the ``baby doctors for farm families'' amendment. Today, in rural
America, there is a crisis in the area of health care. There are a lot
of problems in health care across this country, but especially in rural
America there is a significant crisis. The crisis is this: If you are a
woman of childbearing age, or a woman, period, you are going to have a
lot of trouble finding an OB-GYN. Why is that? Because baby doctors are
being sued out of existence in rural America. As a result of the
avariciousness of the trial lawyers in this country, and their constant
attack especially on the practice of obstetrics and delivering babies,
it is virtually impossible, it is extremely difficult for OB-GYNs to
practice in rural communities, whether they are farm communities or
rural communities.
Why is that? Because the base of practice, the number of people they
can see, the number of babies they deliver never creates enough revenue
to simply pay the cost of their malpractice insurance. And it is a
crisis.
If you are a woman in a farm community and you have to drive 2, 3, 4
hours to see a doctor when you are having a baby, that can be a serious
problem, obviously. It can be a serious problem on the face of it, but
it is especially a serious problem in a place such as New Hampshire,
where you are probably driving in a snowstorm or sleet or something
else that is not very easy to drive in, and you shouldn't have to go
that sort of distance.
We have suggested that simply in the area of baby doctors in rural
America that we put in place something to support the women in those
communities and make sure they have proper access to those doctors.
Essentially, we are following the Texas and the California proposal,
where we limit pain and suffering liability in a manner which allows
these doctors to have affordable malpractice premiums. It doesn't mean
somebody who gets injured doesn't get recovery. They do. They get full
and total recovery in the area of economics. They get significant
recovery in the area of pain and suffering. But what we do not have are
these explosively large verdicts which essentially make it impossible
for someone to pay the cost of the premium to support an obstetrics
practice in a rural area.
This proposal, which is very narrow and very reasonable, will serve a
very large need in our country. It is to make sure that women get
proper health care, and especially during their childbearing years, in
rural America. Again, I can't imagine this being opposed, but actually
this one is being opposed aggressively by the trial lawyer lobby. They
are opposed to anything that limits their income in any way, even when
it is something as reasonable as saying in an area where we have a
clearly underserved population, which is rural America and doctors
serving women in rural America, doctors who deliver babies. They are
going to stop any sort of reform that tries to make it possible to
improve that situation.
We know this reform works. Why do we know it works? Because Texas has
tried it. The language here mirrors Texas. Texas tried it, and what
Texas has seen during this period when they put in this law is a huge
influx of doctors who deliver children, who are baby doctors. So there
is a track record. This isn't some sort of theoretical exercise. We
know in practice that this works. I know if it were in place, it would
give a lot of women in this country the comfort of knowing they were
going to have a decent doctor, or any doctor--it would be a decent
doctor, obviously--to care for them as they decide to have children.
I hope we can get to this amendment. But again, I am interested in
the fact that this amendment is being stonewalled by the other side of
the aisle. They are telling me, well, we can't vote on this amendment.
Why? Because we have a fundraiser tonight. I wonder who is at that
fundraiser, by the way? There wouldn't be any trial lawyers there. We
can't vote on this amendment because we don't have our people here.
Well, there ought to be enough votes to take care of women in this
country so you wouldn't have to have extra people here to defeat a
proposal which is fairly reasonable and which tracks a major State's
decision and which has been proven to work when it comes to caring for
women who want to have children. It is very narrow. Again, it only
applies to rural communities, only applies to doctors who deliver
babies in rural communities, only gives women an opportunity to get
decent health care.
I have another amendment which I hope to call up, which I would like
to have voted on fairly soon. And by the way, I am agreeable to voting
on all these tonight. I am agreeable to a half-hour timeframe. I am
agreeable to voting them all tomorrow. So I am not holding this bill
up. I am offering these amendments. They are pending and they are ready
to go.
Another amendment I have says this new program of creating a farmers
stress network should not be created. This is more of a statement. I
mean how many new programs can we create in this bill? This is an
unauthorized program. It is not funded. But I suspect it will be
appropriated before we get too far down the road. But why do we need a
stress program for farmers? Granted, farmers are under stress. I used
to work on a farm, so I understand that farming is a stressful
activity. But running a shoe store during an economic downturn is a
stressful activity, running a restaurant is a stressful activity,
running a garage is a stressful activity. There are a lot of activities
in America that involve stress. Are we going to set up a stress network
for every activity in America that has stress? And are we going to
expect the Federal Government to fund it? Yeah.
My goodness, think of what we would have to do for our wonderful
staff here. My goodness, we would have to have such a program it would
be incredible, because we really give them a lot of stress. The simple
fact is, you can't keep throwing these programs out there because they
make good press releases. There are 51 new programs in this bill. Let
us at least pick one of them that is so far off the ranch when it comes
to being anything rational that the American taxpayer should have to
pay for and say, no, we are not going to go this way. That would be a
nice gesture. A gesture to the American taxpayer, I would call it. Kill
the stress network.
Then I have an amendment which says the money in here for the
asparagus program shouldn't be in here. I like asparagus. I have been
accused of not liking asparagus, and that is why I am being bringing
this forward. That is not true. I actually like asparagus. In fact, I
have even grown asparagus. It is very easy to grow, after you get it
cultivated. It takes 2 or 3 years to get a good asparagus bed, and you
can grow
[[Page 33605]]
a lot of asparagus, as long as you don't rototill over it. Then you
kill it, which is what I did to my asparagus. But as a practical
matter, there is no reason we should set up a new program for
asparagus. This is going too far.
A lot is going too far in this bill, but this is another example of
going too far. Now, granted, it is only $15 million, but, again, I like
to think of it as a statement on behalf of the American taxpayer that
we are not going to spend that money on a brandnew asparagus program.
There are some others we should also throw out. The camellia program
we should throw out, the chickpea program--these are all new programs.
They should go out too. But I was only allowed five amendments, and so
I picked out the ones I think are most egregious and the ones I think
we should make a little attempt to try to put some fiscal discipline
into this bill.
Then there is one that is fairly big, which is my last amendment.
There is $5 billion in this bill which is the ultimate earmark. It is
$5 billion alleged to be an emergency fund for when emergencies strike
farm communities. You have to understand how this works. Essentially
this is a slush fund. It is a ``walking around money'' fund for about
five States. It is, purely and simply, an earmark and a classic
porkbarrel initiative.
We know that when we have an emergency in this country we will fund
it, especially if the emergency is in farm country. We do it every
year, and I believe historically it has averaged about $3.5 billion. I
think that is the number. It is off the top of my head as a budgeter. I
think that is the number we usually spend on emergencies in farm
communities. If it is bigger than that, we spend more than that; if it
is less than that, we spend less. But when you put in place a program
which exists before the emergency occurs, all you are saying is: Here
is a bunch of money folks, come and get it. For every big windstorm
that occurs in North Dakota, somebody is going to declare an emergency
and try to get reimbursed for their mailbox that got blown over because
the money is sitting there. It is that simple. It really is terrible
policy to put this forward. You have absolutely set a floor. You know
you are going to spend every year in this account, and you know it is
going to go to four or five States because that is where the claims are
made.
Much better is the approach we presently use, although not perfect, I
admit to that. Much better is to identify it when the emergency occurs,
know what the costs were when the emergency occurred, and then pay
those costs in order to reimburse the farm community which has been
impacted, which is what we do. And we do it in a fairly prompt and
efficient way around here whenever there is such an event.
There is one emergency out there today, and that is the price of oil.
The price of oil has jumped radically. As a result, the cost of heating
in this country has jumped radically. People who are of low income, in
States from the northern tier especially--places such as Minnesota, New
Hampshire--people of low income are in dire need of additional funds in
order to meet their heating bills or else, literally, they are going to
be in the cold. They are going to spend this winter, as we head into
February, in serious straits. In New Hampshire, we have already seen a
significant increase in the number of people applying for low-income
home energy assistance. This is not going to wealthy people. This
doesn't even go to middle-income people. It just marginally goes to
low-income people. It really goes to people in the lowest of low
incomes, people who really need that in order to make ends meet and
keep their heat on in the winter.
What I am suggesting is if we are going to declare emergencies around
here and spend money, let's use the money on a real emergency,
something that actually exists where people are actually feeling the
pain right now, today--in the area of paying for heating for low-income
families.
In addition, I have suggested that we reduce the deficit because that
is a pretty big emergency, in my humble opinion, getting this deficit
down. So this amendment essentially says let's take $1 billion and add
it to the low-income heating assistance program and let's take the
other $4 billion and reduce the deficit with it. That is a pretty
practical approach. That is addressing a need that exists today and a
need that is going to exist tomorrow, which is to reduce the deficit,
rather than adding to the deficit and creating an emergency spending
account which basically ends up being a slush fund and walking-around
money for folks in four or five States that traditionally declare
emergencies.
Those are the five amendments. I regret quite honestly that we cannot
get an agreement to vote on all of them right now. I would be willing
to say: OK, let's debate all of them for half an hour and then go to a
vote, in seriatim vote them--bang, bang, bang, bang. Obviously, I have
serious reservations about this bill. I think it is very bad policy in
a lot of areas. But I recognize that the votes are there to pass the
bill, so I am not trying to delay it in some tactical or procedural
way. I am suggesting just the opposite, that we proceed to vote on
issues which are important, which include making sure people whose
homes are foreclosed on do not end up with the tax man showing up the
next day and saying they owe money on money they didn't ever see as a
result of their home being foreclosed on; making sure that women who
are having children can see a doctor in a rural community, that farm
families have adequate access to baby doctors; making sure that people
who are very low income have enough to be able to meet the heating
costs of this winter, which we know are going to be 30 percent to 40
percent higher than they were last winter; making sure that we reduce
the deficit; suggesting we eliminate a couple of programs which are not
that big but which are sort of examples of an underlying problem, which
is that there is a lot of new programmatic activity here that probably
should not be here and there are a lot of new subsidies in here that
should not be in here--the asparagus program and the farmers stress
network program.
Amendment No. 3673
Madam President, at this time I would like to call up amendment No.
3673. I am not calling it up for a vote because I understand it is not
agreed to, but I do want to call it up and send a motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to making this the pending
amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry, I didn't hear?
Mr. GREGG. I am calling up the medical malpractice amendment, not for
a vote but because I want to second-degree it.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, but I
think the Senator has a right to that--I object for the moment.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the regular order relative to
amendment No. 3673.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 3825 To Amendment No. 3673
Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 3825 to amendment No. 3673.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the amendment, add the following:
``This title shall take effect 1 day after the date of
enactment.''
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, at this point I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Tennessee will be recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, may I ask that I be notified when I
have 5 minutes remaining?
First, I would like to congratulate the Senator from New Hampshire
for
[[Page 33606]]
his, as usual, eloquent remarks, but I would like to congratulate him
especially.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time is allocated? How much time was
agreed to for the Senator?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I believe I am recognized for up to 30 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from New
Hampshire. He is usually eloquent, and he was again today. But the
subject matter is not just eloquent, it is critical in the State of
Tennessee.
There is a medical liability crisis, especially for women who live in
rural areas. The fact is, as the Senator from New Hampshire has said,
women who live in rural areas do not have access to doctors for
prenatal health care. They do not have access to doctors to deliver
their babies.
According to data from the Health Services and Resources
Administration, in 2004, in 45 of Tennessee's 95 counties, pregnant
mothers had to drive for miles to get prenatal care or to deliver their
babies. In 15 of those counties, pregnant mothers have no access
whatsoever to any prenatal health care within their counties.
The Tennessean newspaper, on July 20, 2004, reported that only 1 of
104 medical students graduating from Vanderbilt University Medical
School chose OB/GYN.
Dr. Frank Boehm said that:
We must not lose sight of the fact that one of the side
effects of our current medical malpractice crisis in OB/GYN
is the steady loss of medical students who are choosing not
to practice one of our most important medical specialties. If
the decline continues, patients having babies or needing
high-risk care will be faced with access problems this
country has not yet seen. The same story is true at the
University of Tennessee Medical School in Memphis.
On any given day, there are more than 125,000 medical liability suits
in progress against America's 700,000 doctors.
There is a way to fix this. The State of Texas has shown us how, and
it is similar to the way Senator Gregg has suggested. Put a reasonable
cap on punitive damages, but let there be unlimited liability for any
real damages. That was done in Texas in the year 2005, and in the
following year, last year, more than 4,000 doctors applied for licenses
to practice in Texas. OB/GYNs and other doctors are pouring back into
Texas--up 34 percent from the previous year--because of a change just
like the one the Senator from New Hampshire has suggested.
I am happy for Texas, but I would like Tennessee and the rest of the
country to experience the same thing. Senator Gregg is exactly right to
point out the medical crisis that is caused when women who live in
rural counties cannot have access to prenatal health care and care for
their pregnancy and for their babies.
Amendments Nos. 3551 And 3553
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of
amendments Nos. 3551 and 3553, which were previously offered on my
behalf.
The first amendment is No. 3551. This is an amendment which would add
$74 million to the last 3 years of the farm bill for agricultural
research at land grant colleges or universities. Specifically, it would
provide mandatory funding for the Initiative for Future Agricultural
and Food Systems as follows: $24 million in fiscal year 2010, $25
million in 2011, and $25 million in 2012. It would be fully offset by
striking section 12302 of the tax title in the Harkin substitute
amendment to the farm bill, which basically says that taxpayers in
Georgia and in Tennessee, for example, will pay for transmission lines
for ratepayers in North Dakota and South Dakota and in other States who
want to build transmission lines through rural areas, primarily for
wind energy.
I am here today to talk primarily about farm incomes, and I am
talking about America's secret weapons for farm incomes in the day in
which we live, which are the land grant universities of America. Iowa
State is a great land grant university. I imagine the University of
Minnesota is a great land grant university in Minnesota. I know I was
president of the University of Tennessee, which is our land grant
university, and I confess to some bias because I think I am the only
former president of a land grant university in the Senate.
Why is that so important? Earlier this year, we unanimously passed,
after 2 years of work, a bill we called the America COMPETES Act. What
it did was recognize America's brainpower advantage is what has given
us our incredibly high standard of living.
In this last year, our country, the United States of America,
produced about 30 percent of all the wealth in the world for about 5
percent of the people in the world--that is, our population. How did we
do that? There are a variety of reasons, but primarily, since World War
II, we have taken our brainpower advantage to create new jobs that have
given us that great high standard of living. This amendment is about
making sure we take advantage of that in the agriculture community. It
will provide more competitive grants to our land grant universities so
they can create value-added agricultural products, of which I have an
example right back here.
Congress recognized the importance of this brainpower advantage our
land grant universities have when it authorized the 1998 farm bill. It
created something called the Initiative for Future Agricultural and
Food Systems. In addition to farm income, this research was to be for
future food production for environmental quality, for natural resource
management, as well as, as I said, farm income.
Here is a specific example of the value-added opportunity I am
talking about. There is a weed, I guess people would call it, called
the guayule weed that grows out in the Southwest. Research that was
done at the University of Arizona led to the development of a non-
allergenic rubber product that is made from that plant that is as
useful as latex rubber, for example, for gloves that we use with which
to work. But it does not cause allergic reactions, as latex does, in 10
percent of our Nation's health care workforce. That is an example of
the brain power advantage.
The University of New Mexico and the University of Tennessee are
taking opportunities to use manure as sources of energy and as ways to
create nursery crop containers. At Texas Tech University, the research
that has come directly from the program I described that was started in
1998 has led to the development of a less toxic version of the castor
seed created by using genetic modifications. This means we can grow
more castor oil in this country instead of having to import it.
Now, one might say: Well, what is the big deal about castor oil? It
tastes bad. It is what you take when you are sick. Not anymore. On the
Defense Department's Critical Needs List there are multiple uses of
castor oil for military purposes, including lubricants, adhesives,
pharmaceuticals, waxes and polishes and inks.
The Senator from Georgia and from Iowa will know very well the value-
added advantage to our country of all the products that have come from
soybeans. Our great land grant universities have led the way to create
these extra farm incomes, these new jobs for our country.
There are 76 land grant universities in America. During the 2 years
where this program that was passed in 1998 worked well, 2001 and 2002,
this grant program I am describing awarded 183 different grants, one
grant at least in every State and in the District of Columbia.
So these land grant universities, created in Abraham Lincoln's
administration, have been at the forefront of our agriculture in
America for a long time. If we want to keep high farm income, they are
a major part of our ability to do that.
We have had some experience now since 1998 with this grant program I
am describing, which has a long name, called the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems. First, when it was appropriated, and the
Senator from Georgia mentioned this to me, the appropriators got to the
money and they canceled the appropriation and then increased another
account and earmarked the money for their favorite university.
[[Page 33607]]
That practice stopped in 2001 and 2002. Basically, we went through a
period where the research grants were awarded in the way they are
supposed to be, the way most of our research grants are awarded. One
reason our great higher education system works so well is because it is
a large marketplace; students may choose their school, Government money
follows them to the institution of their choice, public, private,
nonprofit, and the billions of dollars we spend on research to create
jobs, giving us the brain-power advantage, is competitively awarded,
usually peer reviewed.
So in a couple years, that worked for this program. But then, the
authorizers looked at what the appropriators had done and they said, in
effect: We are going to earmark some of this money to our favorite
universities. That happened for a while.
Then, in 2005, we got into a budget crunch, and those trying to
balance the budget said: Here is a place to get some money. They took
the money that was dedicated for agriculture research and used it for
the 2005 budget reconciliation. So only in 2 years since 1998 has this
excellent competitive grant program worked very well, 2001 and 2002.
Now, in the current House version of the farm bill we are debating
today, they try to put it back on track. In the first 2 years of the
bill, they appropriate the money to deal with the budget deficit that
was dealt with in 2005. But in the last 3 years, they authorize money
for this kind of research, $200 million in each of 2010, 2011, 2012,
$600 million, amounts to about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total
cost of the House version of the farm bill.
The Senate version, unfortunately, well, fortunately in the first 2
years, does pay the money to deal with the budget problem. The decision
was made a few years ago. But in the last 3 years, during the time when
the House put in 600 million, the Senate puts in zero.
So my amendment would restore $74 million of the $600 million, and in
conference, hopefully, the conferees could decide this is an important
provision. Since both Houses had provided money, we can put the program
back on track.
How do we pay for it? Well, by striking section 12302 from the tax
title. Now, section 12302 of the tax title provides new tax breaks for
large transmission towers that transmit electricity, primarily from
wind farms, in remote and rural areas.
In my part of the country, Tennessee, for example, wind farms barely
work at all because the wind does not blow. But where they do work a
little bit is up on top of some of our most scenic mountains. So what
the effect of this provision would be is to say: We are going to give
people who own the land an ability not to pay income tax on the income
they get from running these big transmission towers from the top of our
scenic mountains all the way down to where the electric grid is.
That is unnecessary in the first place because the provision, as
written, is retroactive. In addition to applying to future deals that
will be made with landowners, it seems to apply to current and existing
deals.
No. 2, it provides tens of millions of dollars, about $55 million, in
my computation, of new subsidy for wind. Wind already is, in my
judgment and in the judgment of many others, over-subsidized in terms
of an energy source.
Third, and perhaps the largest objection, is transmission towers
should be paid for by the utilities that build the transmission towers.
If the Tennessee Valley Authority builds a transmission tower for
whatever purpose, those of us who buy our electricity from TVA ought to
pay the bill. We should not send the bill to the Colorado taxpayer or
to someone who lives in southern Georgia or someone who lives in Iowa
or New York, and neither should they send their bills to us.
So I think it is inappropriate for all those reasons, to subsidize
further the ability to build transmission lines, primarily from wind
farms to the grid. What it tends to do is to create such extravagant
subsidies for wind that investors see an opportunity to make a lot of
money, and they build wind farms in places where the wind does not
blow.
That might sound to some like a ridiculous statement. But we have one
of those in the Southeastern United States. It happens to be in east
Tennessee. It is a TVA experimental farm. It is up on top of Buffalo
Mountain, 3,500 feet up. It ought to be a particularly good place for
it. You can see the big white towers and flashing lights, instead of
seeing the mountain tops, which we prefer to see.
What does it do? Not much. It cost $60 million over 20 years to TVA
ratepayers to pay somebody to provide this energy. But during August,
when we were in a drought and we needed to turn our air-conditioning
on, it was operating 10 or 15 percent of the time.
So there is a much better solution to the need for new electricity in
our part of the world and in many parts of America than to encourage
investors through extravagant subsidies to build huge transmission
lines through rural areas to connect wind farms with grids that are a
long distance away.
If the market supports that sort of electricity investment, let it
support it. That will usually mean, if you are going to build big wind
farms, you will build them fairly close to the electric grid so you
will not have to spend a million dollars a mile on the transmission
line.
That is the first amendment. We would take the $74 million from this
unnecessary expenditure that causes people to pay, in one part of the
country, for what should be an electric ratepayer's bill in another
part of the country; gives an unnecessary amount of money to wind
developers. It, in fact, takes an example of wasteful Washington
spending and uses it for higher farm incomes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter to Chairman Harkin from organizations stating their support
for increased funding for research at land-grant universities.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
November 7, 2007.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss: As you
know, the committee reported Food and Energy Security Act
proposes to eliminate mandatory funding for the Initiative
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). Currently,
$200 million per year in IFAFS funds are scheduled to become
available in FY2010. The House Farm Bill protects IFAFS
funding so that it becomes available as scheduled and
provides additional mandatory research dollars.
Elimination of IFAFS funds will severely limit integrated
agriculture research and extension programs at America's
land-grant universities, at a time when such efforts are ever
more necessary to help solve pressing national and
international problems. We urge you to allow IFAFS funds to
become available as allowed for in the baseline.
The IFAFS program was, as you know, created in 1998 to
provide a source of mandatory funding for integrated
competitive programs sponsored by the land-grant
universities. Since its inception, however, IFAFS funds have
been captured in all but two years by the Appropriations
Committees, the Office of Management and Budget and
Committees on Agriculture via the budget reconciliation
process. Nonetheless, the land-grant system has worked hard
to reverse this situation in light of the tremendous unfunded
needs--in areas as diverse as human nutrition and biofuels--
that must be addressed through programs where scientific
research is directly linked to public outreach.
Without IFAFS the agricultural research, education and
extension baseline is diminished substantially, something
that is harmful to every single stakeholder this bill is
created to serve. Agricultural production, healthy, abundant
and safe foods, conservation, rural development, biofuels,
specialty crops, aquaculture and countless other areas
impacted by this legislation are reliant on research, and the
application of the results of that research via education and
extension.
While we appreciate the new mandatory funding for bio-
fuels, specialty crops and organics contained in this bill,
we are still facing a net cut to research, education and
extension as a result of eliminating IFAFS funds. Therefore,
we respectfully urge you to ensure the IFAFS funding becomes
available for the nation's agricultural research, education,
and extension needs as scheduled. We sincerely believe that
we should not shortchange the future for short-term gains.
[[Page 33608]]
Please utilize the IFAFS funds in the Research Title, as that
is where the future lies.
Sincerely,
American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and
Renewable Resources, American Dietetic Association, American
Feed Industry Association, American Sheep Industry
Association, American Society for Horticultural Science,
American Society for Nutrition, American Society of Plant
Biologists, Cherry Marketing Institute, Coalition on Funding
Agricultural Research Missions (CoFARM), Crop Science Society
of America, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, and
Federation of Animal Science Societies.
Institute of Food Technologists, National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, National
Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research (NC-FAR), National Corn Growers Association,
National Sorghum Producers, Soil Science Society of America,
The American Society of Agronomy, United Egg Producers, and
US Rice Producers Association.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator has used 18 minutes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Please let me know when there are 5 minutes remaining.
Amendment No. 3553
Here is my second amendment. It is amendment No. 3553. I say it with
all due respect to the Senator from Colorado because he and I discussed
this. I am sure he will have more to say about this. But here is what
this amendment is about.
The question is whether every Member of this body--I hope a lot of
Senators are watching or their staffs are watching, because you do want
to help your Senator if you are a staff member go home and explain,
wherever you may live in America, why you took $4,000 of their tax
money and gave it to their neighbor to build a 12-story tower in that
neighbor's front yard with a flashing red light on top.
That is the question. The farm bill tax title, as reported by the
Senate Finance Committee, says it is called a small wind tax credit.
Now, I would ask those who can see this picture whether they would
consider this tower an example of a small wind turbine? I think you can
see the large crane next to it. You can see the telephone pole by it.
Imagine if that is in your neighborhood, in the front yard of your
neighbor. What the proposal in the tax title as reported says, that a
small wind tax credit would give you up to $4,000 toward building a
turbine of up to 100 kilowatts. That is a 100-kilowatt wind turbine.
Now, you might build a smaller one, and the cost would vary--a 0.5
kilowatt turbine might cost about $1,900 and receive a $570 tax credit,
which is 30 percent of the total cost. A 1 kilowatt turbine might cost
about $4,000 and receive a $1,200 credit, which is also 30 percent of
this turbine's cost. A 2.5 kilowatt turbine costs about $15,000 and
would receive a $4,000 credit, which is 27 percent of the turbine's
cost. But you could build one as big as the 100 kilowatt turbine
depicted here with taxpayer funds under the provisions of this bill.
I would like to ask my colleagues to think about whether they think
that is an appropriate use of tax money. My view is the puny amount of
electricity produced by these wind turbines is not worth ruining the
character of our neighborhoods.
So what my amendment would do is simply say: This is a farm bill. If
the Members of this body and this Congress want to subsidize the
building of 12-story white towers in rural areas for farms and
businesses, then do that in the farm bill. But do not allow that to go
into residential neighborhoods across America, which the bill, as
presently written, does.
Now, when I say a puny amount of electricity, what do I mean by that?
Well, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which has examined
this provision of the proposed farm bill, it would encourage the
installation of 12 megawatts of electricity.
Electrical generators have something called rated capacity. The rated
capacity is the power that an electrical plant generates when operating
at its full capacity. A nuclear power plant, for example, in Tennessee
on average operates at 90 to 95 percent of rated capacity. That is why
so many Americans are beginning to understand that nuclear power is the
way you deal with climate change, if you are serious about it, because
they produce 1,100 or 1,200 megawatts of power 92 percent percent of
the time, and that is clean power. That has no nitrogen, no sulfur, no
mercury. It has no carbon. Nuclear power produces 20 percent of our
electricity and 80 percent of our carbon-free electricity.
The idea here is that by putting 12-story towers or up to 12-story
towers in our neighbor's front yard or in our front yard, we could
produce under this proposal an estimated 12 Megawatts of electricity.
Probably turbines like that would operate 20, 25, 30 percent of the
time. So it wouldn't be 12 megawatts of electricity, it would be 3 or 4
mega-
watts on average. This is equivalent to two-tenths of 1 percent of the
energy from a nuclear reactor or six-tenths of 1 percent of the energy
from a single coal plant.
My appeal is that we respectfully use our common sense as we think
about how to deal with the various challenges we have with clean air,
with climate change, with our need for energy. Common sense does not
say we ought to subsidize the building of 12-story towers or up to 12-
story towers in our front yards. For example, we would get a much
better bang for the buck--$5 million is what is estimated to be spent--
if we simply bought energy-efficient light bulbs and gave them to our
neighbors. Spending $5 million on $2 energy-efficient light bulbs would
save eight times the electricity generated by these ``small wind
turbines.'' So why should we ruin the character of our neighborhoods
when we could do eight times as much good with the same amount of money
by changing our light bulbs? That would be common sense.
I am very much aware of the concern about climate change. Ever since
I have been a Member of this body, I have had legislation in the
Senate--first with Senator Carper, then with Senator Lieberman--to
establish caps on utilities which produce a third of all the carbon in
the country. That legislation, which I introduced with those two
Senators over the last 5 years, also would establish more aggressive
standards for nitrogen, mercury, and sulfur than the administration
does. In addition, last week when we were debating climate change, the
Environment Committee adopted my proposal for a low-carbon fuel
standard which would be one of the most effective ways, probably the
most effective way, to reduce quickly the amount of carbon in the fuel
we use. In the last Congress, I was the principal sponsor of the solar
energy tax credit. So I, like most Americans, am looking for ways for
us to continue to power our huge economy but to do it in a clean way. I
make a plea for common sense while we do this.
I suppose it would be possible for us to give $4,000 to a homeowner
and say: Build a big bonfire in your backyard, and then we will give
you more money to sequester the carbon and bury it under the ground.
That would be possible. But would it make common sense? No, it wouldn't
make common sense. There are better ways to use the money. Why would we
destroy the environment to save the environment, which is precisely
what we are doing in residential neighborhoods with this proposal. I
regret not that it allows farm families and farm businesses a small
subsidy to build large wind turbines. I regret that we would extend
that to residential neighborhoods at the same time.
Let me say something else about the number of subsidies for wind
power that exist today in our country. Sometimes the need for wind has
become nearly a religion. Instead of looking carefully at whether we
should use more efficient light bulbs or smart meters on utilities or
solar panels or efficient appliances or green buildings, a whole
variety of things we can do as a country to be green--instead of doing
that, I think we have gone overboard on the idea of wind.
Let me give a couple of examples of that, if I may. There are a great
many
[[Page 33609]]
subsidies already in existence for wind. The biggest, of course, is the
renewable electricity production tax credit. Through that renewable
production tax credit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation,
the United States taxpayer will spend $11.5 billion on wind energy over
the next 10 years. Let me say that again. The United States taxpayer is
committed, through the existing renewable electricity production tax
credit, to spend $11.5 billion on wind energy over the next 10 years.
That doesn't count the value of various other Federal, State, and local
subsidies for wind. There are the clean renewable energy bonds to help
build the wind turbines. There are Department of Energy grants and
incentive programs. There are Department of Agriculture renewable
energy and energy efficiency grants and loans. There are various State
subsidies for wind.
Texas is appropriating billions of dollars for transmission lines for
wind. That is their decision. It is not as if this were a form of
energy which lacked support. I am afraid the result is that the
extravagant subsidies for wind are causing people to build wind farms
and to use wind where they otherwise would not. In testimony before the
Environmental and Public Works Committee recently, one utility manager
from Oklahoma said he is tripling the amount of wind they are using.
I said: Why are you doing that? Can you use it as baseload power;
that is, can you use it as reliable power all day long?
He said: We can only use it when the wind blows.
I said: Can you use it for peaking power?
He said: No, we can't use it for that because the peaking power, the
busiest time of the day or year, might come when the wind is not
blowing.
I said: Why are you doing it then?
He said: To make the legislators happy.
So we are not letting the market decide. We have become obsessed with
the idea that this needs to be done. How big is that obsession? I think
most Senators would be surprised to learn that by fiscal year 2009, the
renewable electricity production tax credit will be the single largest
tax expenditure for energy: $1.9 billion of that in 2009 would go for
all renewable sources, but $1.3 billion would be for wind. We hear a
lot about oil and gas and the subsidies for oil and gas. One might
think that would be true since we have this massive economy. We use
about 25 percent of all the oil and gas in the world. But according to
figures from the Joint Tax Committee--and perhaps somebody will point
out that the Joint Tax Committee is wrong, but this is what they say in
the year 2009, the subsidies for oil and gas tax expenditures will be
$2.7 billion from the taxpayers. The production tax credit for wind
will be $1.3 billion. Wind, $1.3 billion; oil and gas, $2.7 billion.
The reason I mention that is because of the disproportionate
relationship between the value of oil and gas to an economy that uses
25 percent of all of it in the world and the amount of electricity
produced by wind.
In 2006, wind energy produced seven-tenths of 1 percent of the
electricity we consumed in the United States, yet it is the largest
single energy tax expenditure by the taxpayer. Something is wrong
there. The Energy Information Administration estimates that by the year
2020, after we have spent presumably tens of billions of dollars of
subsidies for large wind turbines in your front yard and backyard and
side yard and our national forests, along our beaches, our most scenic
mountaintops, after we have done all of that, according to the Energy
Information Administration, wind is projected to produce about 1
percent of our electricity needs.
I am skeptical of that figure. I think the Energy Information
Administration is too conservative. It might be 2 percent. It might be
3 percent. Maybe it is 4 percent. But should the largest energy
expenditure be to encourage the building of such towers, or should we
be spending our money in different ways?
We have other ways to produce electricity: 49 percent of our
electricity is produced by coal. Would it be wise to spend money in
finding a way to sequester that coal, perhaps through algae, perhaps
through enzymes, so we can use it to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil? I think it would. But the largest single energy tax expenditure is
for wind. Twenty percent of our electricity is produced by nuclear
power, 80 percent of our clean power. In my view, if we are serious
about climate change in this generation, climate change is an
inconvenient truth, the inconvenient solution is nuclear power and
conservation. But the largest single energy tax expenditure is for
large wind turbines. Hydropower is clean as well. It is only about 7
percent of the electricity in the United States. It will drop a little
by 2020. But wouldn't there be ways to encourage that as well?
It may be said that this is only a small matter. It is only $5
million. But it won't be a small matter in residential neighborhoods in
Knoxville and Denver and Los Angeles, all across the country, when a
neighbor comes in and says: I just got $4,000 of your tax money, and I
am going to put up a 12-story white tower with a blinking red light on
top because I want to do what I can for climate change.
I think the proper answer is to say that is not the most commonsense
thing we can do. There are many ways we can conserve. Efficient light
bulbs would save eight times as much as this proposal would generate.
Why don't we do that instead?
If you think this is not going to happen in your neighborhood, I ask
unanimous consent to print in the Record following my remarks a story
from CNN.com about neighbors in Atlanta who are already squabbling
about someone who has built a wind turbine in their front yard in a
historic neighborhood. It makes no difference that the wind doesn't
blow very much in Atlanta. The neighbor is just making a statement.
That is the kind of thing that this will encourage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. It would be my hope that this amendment would be
accepted by the Senate. The effect of it would be to leave in place up
to $4,000 support for building a tower that could be as large as that
one, a 100 kilowatt turbine, in rural areas or for rural business. That
would still be in place under my amendment. What would not be in place
is the ability to use that in residential neighborhoods. The amendment
would also make clear that nothing we are doing in this legislation
preempts any local decision about the kind of decisions people will
make. I am for caps on utilities. I am the sponsor of the solar credit.
I am for cleaner air, more aggressively than the administration has
been. I am ready to use smart meters. I am ready to try geothermal,
almost anything, the low-carbon fuel standard. But I hope we will use
common sense.
Common sense says to me, with all due respect, that we should not
encourage using other people's tax money for your neighbor to build up
to a 12-story white tower in his front yard as a solution to the
current concern about climate change. There are other, better ways to
do it, starting with energy efficiency, other ways that make much more
common sense.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Neighbors Fight, States Scramble Over Clean Power
(By Thom Patterson)
Atlanta, Georgia (CNN).--Curt Mann's neighbors are livid,
accusing him of erecting an ugly wind turbine among their
historic homes for no other reason than to show off his
environmental ``bling.''
The 49-year-old residential developer is remodeling his
1920's house to be more environmentally friendly, including
installation of a 45-foot-tall wind turbine in his front
yard. ``It's really none of their business how I spend my
money,'' Mann said.
The towering turbine, which overlooks majestic trees and
Victorian rooftops, pits preservationists in Atlanta's Grant
Park Historic District against a property owner and his
individual rights.
``It's unattractive and it's a nuisance,'' said Scott
Herzinger, whose home is three doors down. Mann ``invaded the
public view . . . when he put that tower up.''
In blustery regions, home turbines can cut power bills by
up to 80 percent. But opponents claim Mann's wind turbine
needlessly
[[Page 33610]]
threatens neighborhood property values because Atlanta's low
winds don't produce enough speed to make the device
worthwhile.
At a cost of $15,000, Mann said the turbine will shave at
least $20 per month off his power bill--hardly a windfall. A
proposed federal tax credit would bring Mann $3,000.
Acknowledging it could be decades before his investment pays
off, Mann said, ``even if it was a 50-year payback, at least
we've done something to reduce our dependency on fossil
fuels.''
Herzinger blames Atlanta, which ``let us down miserably''
when zoning officials sided with Mann.
Said Mann, ``If regulations for historic preservation don't
address modern-day issues, then they're not very sound.''
But Herzinger, 48, who shares Mann's support for wind
power, said Mann could have considered many alternatives
which would have helped the environment more than the
turbine. ``After looking at the facts, it doesn't seem
unreasonable to think of Mann's wind turbine as eco-bling.''
Although opponents filed a lawsuit in Fulton County
Superior Court against both Atlanta and Mann, the squabble
poses larger, far-reaching questions about how communities,
states and the nation as a whole should tackle the ongoing
shift toward cleaner energy.
``I don't think we're going to revolutionize the utility
industry through wind turbines in the front yard,'' said
longtime California energy consultant Nancy Rader, ``To
really make a dent in the power sector we've got to have the
big, central, bulk-generating facilities.''
At least 21 states and the District of Columbia have set
deadlines or goals for utilities to obtain electricity from
clean renewable sources instead of fossil-fuel burning
plants.
The scramble has triggered construction of large-scale wind
farms throughout much of the nation, including proposals for
the first U.S. offshore facilities.
Delaware and Galveston, Texas, have offshore projects in
the works, although a farm proposed off New York's Long
Island was shelved this year due to high projected
construction costs.
Top New York energy official Paul Tonko said the push
toward renewable energy became more urgent as oil prices hit
a record $80 a barrel September 13.
``We have precious little time to adjust,'' said Tonko,
president of New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority. ``We are behind the curve of several leading
nations who have moved forward with very aggressive
outcomes.''
In Massachusetts, where utilities are under the gun to
obtain four percent of electricity from renewables by 2009,
builders await federal approval of a hugely controversial
wind farm off historic Cape Cod.
The Cape Wind project envisions 130 wind turbines each
rising 440 feet above Nantucket Sound by 2011. State
officials said the farm will eliminate pollution equal to
175,000 gas-burning cars.
Like Mann's neighbors, Cape Wind opponents are rallying to
protect historic properties. The Massachusetts historical
commission said the wind farm's ``visual elements'' would be
``out of character'' and would have an ``adverse effect'' on
more than a dozen historic sites, including the Kennedy
family residential compound in Hyannis Port.
James E. Liedell, director of Clean Power Now, a grass-
roots group that supports the project, said he once asked
Sen. Edward Kennedy, during a random encounter in 2003, what
he thought of Cape Wind. ``It's the sight of wind turbines
that bothers me,'' Liedell said Kennedy said, reminding
Liedell that, ```that's where I sail, and I don't want to see
them when I sail either.'''
According to polling in northern Europe where wind farms
are flourishing, residents eventually have come to accept
turbine towers dotting the landscape, said Dr. Mike
Pasqualetti, who has done much research on the topic.
Communities near many California wind farms, which were built
in the 1980s, have largely come to accept the turbines, said
the Arizona State University professor.
As the nation's fastest growing form of new power
generation, wind-born electricity may soon fuel commutes for
millions of Americans.
``If we power electric hybrid cars with electricity that
comes from wind farms, it means you aren't polluting on
either end of the equation,'' said Dr. Robert Lang, director
of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. ``It doesn't
make sense to power electric cars with electricity from
fossil fuel burning plants.''
Governments should consider offering property owners
reduced energy rates or other incentives to win their support
for green energy projects, suggested Lang.
Washington state utilities are racing to obtain 15 percent
renewable energy by 2020--much of that from wind. When the
Kittitas County Commission unanimously rejected placing a 65-
turbine facility near residential property, Gov. Chris
Gregoire overruled the commissioners in a move that Chairman
Alan Crankovich called disappointing and unprecedented.
``To have a land-use decision overturned by the governor,
that scares me,'' Crankovich said. ``I'm concerned about it
because this is the first step in weakening local authority
and I hope she understands that.''
Bertha Morrison, 89, a lifelong resident whose property
abuts the proposed site applauded the governor's decision.
``There'll be money coming from it to the county and that
will keep our taxes down a little bit.''
Individuals such as Morrison, Mann and Herzinger can
influence public energy policy, said energy consultant Rader,
by participating in local government and casting votes on
statewide initiatives.
``We're going to have to bite the bullet,'' said Rader. ``I
think we need to do every damn thing we can to save this
planet and everybody on it.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a unanimous consent
agreement in terms of the order of speakers. I ask unanimous consent
that after Senator Barrasso speaks for 7 minutes, that I be recognized
for 10 minutes, Senator Klobuchar for 10 minutes, Senator Sanders for
10 minutes, and Senator Crapo for 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, agriculture is one of the most trusted,
respected, and revered ways of life in America. It is the farmers and
the ranchers who feed this country.
Wyoming agriculture is a billion-dollar industry, and livestock
producers are at the heart of our State's prosperity.
I am privileged to represent more than 9,100 farm and ranch
operations in the State of Wyoming. That is why I fight every day to
ensure that our farm and our ranch businesses continue to thrive.
This generation of farmers and ranchers faces more challenges than
our parents ever did. We need agricultural policy that adapts to this
changing world. Frankly, following the same old farm bill paradigm is
not getting us there. Agriculture is critical to Wyoming. We produce
over a billion dollars of agricultural products each year. Agriculture
provides more than 10 percent of the jobs in our State.
I am coming to this debate with a real interest in seeing American
agriculture succeed. To do that, we need to change our thinking and
change our policy.
I commend the Senate Agriculture Committee for producing bipartisan
legislation that addresses the important issues of conservation, rural
development, and agricultural disaster. But let's not forget this bill
also carries a huge pricetag. And let's not forget that cost is for
programs targeted at the old ways of agriculture.
I believe we need to spend our taxpayer dollars wisely. We should
focus our efforts on smart growth in agriculture. We should sunset
those programs of the past that fail to address the real issues facing
agriculture today.
I support conservation programs. I believe providing incentives for
farmers and ranchers to make improvements to their operations and to
benefit the environment--both of those--serves all of our interests.
In Wyoming, we have seen smart growth spurred by conservation
programs. Wyoming producers have implemented almost 3,000 Environmental
Quality Incentives Program contracts over the past 5 years. We have
protected over 34,000 acres in our State through the Grassland Reserve
Program. Conservation programs, provided for in this farm bill, will
continue the real, on-the-ground results we have seen in Wyoming.
Our conservation policies should give incentives to ranchers,
incentives that will help ranchers to operate at maximum efficiency and
promote good business and a healthy environment.
I support business-friendly policies that help our farmers and
ranchers succeed in marketing their products. It is a victory that this
bill contains meaningful implementation guidelines for country-of-
origin labeling. We raise exceptional beef and exceptional lamb in this
country. Our producers deserve the opportunity to label their product
``born and raised in the USA.'' Consumers demand it, and they will buy
it.
[[Page 33611]]
I am also pleased this farm bill will end the prohibition on the
shipment of Wyoming beef and lamb products to other States. Our State
inspection program is more stringent than Federal programs, and yet we
have faced a limit on our product for years. I am very pleased this
farm bill will change that. Eliminating this restriction will help spur
new small business opportunities for all. I hope to see more livestock
competition reforms included in this farm bill.
In addition, I have offered an amendment promoting veterinary
research. This amendment authorizes the Minor Use Animal Drug Program.
This amendment helps the American sheep industry be competitive in the
world market. I am proud to sponsor it on behalf of Wyoming's 900 sheep
producers. I am pleased the bill's sponsors have included this
amendment in the managers' package.
Animal disease research is of the utmost importance in Wyoming. Our
rugged landscape is a real challenge to ranchers trying to keep their
livestock healthy. To meet this need, I have cosponsored an amendment,
along with my neighbors from Montana and Idaho, to promote brucellosis
and pasturella research. I hope my colleagues will join us in support
of this much needed work.
One of the amendments we are likely to consider on this legislation
would expand the renewable fuels standard enacted in 2005. This
expansion is concerning both to Wyoming's livestock producers and to
Wyoming's energy producers. I am troubled by the food versus fuel
debate. When we use so much corn to make ethanol, there is less corn to
feed our cattle. The price of corn is rising, and ranchers are
struggling to keep their businesses profitable.
This afternoon the Presiding Officer and I attended a meeting of the
Energy Committee. We heard testimony from Pat O'Toole, a former Wyoming
legislator and a rancher from Savery, WY. He told the committee that as
he was testifying, his wife was driving a truck along I-80 in southern
Wyoming--a truck of corn--and the corn this year costs twice as much as
it did last year.
I strongly support policies that advance the development of
alternative and renewable energy: Solar energy, wind, geothermal, coal-
to-liquids, biofuels. We need all of the energy. But we cannot forget
the cost if we trade food for fuel.
There is a great opportunity before this Congress to meet the
changing needs of agriculture. We need to set a standard that improves
our industry for the future. That is why the people of Wyoming want to
see farm policies that use common sense. Let's put an end to farm
policies that are outdated. Let us embrace the agriculture markets of
today and of tomorrow.
Now we can do this with on-the-ground conservation programs. This
farm bill can provide profit incentives and market-based agricultural
research. That is what the American farmers and American ranchers
deserve. It is also what the American taxpayers deserve.
I thank my colleagues for the hard work that has gone into this bill.
I now call on the Senate to make real commonsense reforms for American
agriculture.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise, first of all, to indicate again
my strong support for the bill that is in front of us, the Food and
Energy Security Act, and to thank one more time our leader, Senator
Harkin, and his partner in this, Senator Chambliss, for their
leadership and great work, and for all the support of the committee in
bringing forward a unanimous bill, bipartisan bill.
Amendment No. 3672
I specifically today, though, want to touch briefly on two amendments
that have been proposed by my good friend from New Hampshire. I really
do mean that. He is somebody whom I enjoy working with very much,
although I must rise to oppose him on an amendment dealing with the
asparagus growers of this country.
As a background to this, the U.S. asparagus industry was and
continues to be economically injured, unfortunately, by an agreement
back in 1990, the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which extended duty-
free status to imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus. This particular
agreement eliminated the tariffs on a wide variety of products,
including asparagus, coming into this country.
Unlike most trade agreements, ATPA provided no transition period for
American growers to allow our producers to prepare or adapt to an
unlimited quantity of Peruvian asparagus coming in with a zero tariff.
The recently approved Peruvian Trade Promotion Agreement actually
codifies that particular situation for American asparagus growers.
Following the enactment of this original agreement in 1990, imports
of processed asparagus products surged 2,400 percent into the United
States, from 500,000 pounds of asparagus in 1990 to over 12 million
pounds in 2006--with a zero tariff--coming into the United States to
compete with American asparagus.
Our domestic asparagus acreage dropped 54 percent from 90,000 acres
in 1991 to under 49,000 acres in 2006. That is American farmers losing
acreage, losing their farms, being placed in a very difficult
situation, a very difficult situation economically.
Michigan asparagus acreage has dropped from 15,500 acres in 1991 to
12,500 acres in 2006.
In Washington State, asparagus decreased from 31,000 acres in 1991 to
9,300 acres in 2006. The value of Washington asparagus in 1990 was
approximately $200 million. The present value is $75 million.
This is a huge drop for any area of American agriculture. This is a
huge drop and has created great hardship for our asparagus growers.
Asparagus acreage in California decreased from 36,000 acres in 1990
to 22,500 acres in 2006.
What we have in this bill is some small effort to help those growers
who have found themselves--because of our policy, our trade policy--in
an immediate situation of facing an unlimited supply of asparagus
coming in with no tariff and with no ability to have any kind of a
transition.
Unlike other areas that have been hit by trade, they did not qualify
for trade adjustment assistance. So the Asparagus Market Loss Program
is a relatively small program compared to other parts of this farm
bill. It is a $15 million effort that is critically important to
compensate American asparagus growers across the country for the loss
to this industry that resulted from the ATPA.
This program is based on a similar market loss program for apples and
onions back in 2002, where cheap Chinese imports harmed those American
growers, and that program provided $94 million for apple and onion
growers. I might add, I say to my friend, the author of this amendment,
the State of New Hampshire received over $1 million from this
particular market loss program for apples. That was done in 2002. So
what we are doing is patterning this program after the very same
marketing loss program that helped our apple growers.
Market loss funds will be used to offset costs for American asparagus
producers to plant new acreage and invest in more efficient planting
and harvesting equipment. It is a very small fraction of, in fact, what
they have incurred, as well as a result of the policy that was enacted
back in 1990.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gregg amendment and to
support the effort of the Agriculture Committee to help alleviate an
industry that has received dramatic losses as a result of our Federal
trade policy.
Amendment No. 3674
On a different note, Senator Gregg has offered an amendment that, in
fact, is a reflection of a bill I have introduced regarding the
mortgage industry. Senator George Voinovich is my Republican cosponsor.
We have a number of colleagues who have joined us in this effort. I
certainly support the intent of that amendment. I know there is a
strong understanding of support
[[Page 33612]]
coming from the chairman of the Finance Committee about the need to
make sure people who find themselves losing their home because of a
foreclosure situation or a short sale or some other situation regarding
the housing crisis--that they do not also end up with a big tax bill
after possibly losing their home. I know there is a commitment from the
Finance Committee, of which I am a member, to address this issue and,
in fact, to make sure people do not end up with this tax liability.
The real question is how we do this in terms of this particular
amendment. Certainly, substantively I support it, but the farm bill
will not be done before the end of this year, and if we don't have
something in place by the end of this year, people who have found
themselves in the middle of a mortgage crisis with this kind of an
unforeseen tax liability will have an additional tax bill. I know it is
our desire not to have that happen. It would be a real tragedy, in
fact, if that did happen.
So I know we have to work out what will happen on that amendment, but
certainly I think there is very broad support for the substance of it.
It is a question of whether we are able to get relief to people quickly
enough. The farm bill will not be done and passed into law by the end
of the year, and we need to have that provision done by the end of the
year. So I know the Finance Committee leadership is making
determinations about the best way to approach this, but certainly I
appreciate the issue being raised because no one wants to see people
who have found themselves in a potential situation of losing their home
or their home going into foreclosure or some kind of a refinancing for
less than the mortgage price, to find themselves also in a situation
where they have a new tax bill. That certainly is no one's intent.
I am pleased the White House is supporting our legislation to fix
this. The House has, in fact, acted as well and has sent a bill to us
to address this issue. It is my hope--my sincere hope and urgent hope--
that we will have this done by the end of this year rather than placing
this policy into the farm bill because there is a sense of urgency
about getting this done right now. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as has been previously agreed, I ask
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first again wish to commend Senator
Harkin, Senator Chambliss, and our entire Agriculture Committee for the
work we are doing on this farm bill. I am excited that it is moving
ahead. As you know, I am hopeful that we will get some more reform in
the bill, including my amendment to make sure the hard-working farmers
in this country are at the receiving end of the help from the farm bill
as opposed to multimillionaires from across this country. I look
forward to debating that in the next few days.
Toy Safety
I am here to talk about another topic, and that is that across
Minnesota and across the country, families are making their annual
trips to stores and to malls for their holiday presents. Kids are
making their wish lists. I know my daughter has her own. Parents are
combing the ads for the best prices. But this year, parents are
thinking about something a little more than the price, a little more
than the wish list. They are also wondering if the toys they are buying
are safe.
In fact, just this weekend, I visited Morehead, MN, in 20-below-zero
weather, and I can tell you there were a number of parents who turned
out, as well as people who work in this area, to talk about their
concerns about the safety of toys. They told me they are shocked that
in this day and age that we have these toxic toys on our shores and in
our stores and we have to put an end to it.
This year, almost 29 million toys and pieces of children's jewelry
have been recalled because they were found to be dangerous and, in some
cases, deadly for children. In many cases, the reason for these recalls
have been truly horrific. Who would believe that a parent would buy
some Aqua Dots, a very popular toy for their children, and find out the
child swallowed this little dot, which normally you wouldn't think
would become a disaster, but in fact this toy had morphed into the date
rape drug and put their child into a coma. That is what happened in
this country.
Another 9 million toys have been recalled this year for containing
toxic levels of lead. The lead levels in these toys can lead to
development delay, brain damage, and even death, if swallowed.
As a mom and as a former prosecutor and now as a Senator, I find it
totally unacceptable that these toys are in our country. As my 12-year-
old daughter said when her famous Barbies were recalled: Mom, this is
really getting serious.
It is clear that the current system we have in place to ensure the
safety of products for our most vulnerable consumers--our children--
needs to be fixed, and we need to fix it now.
The Senate Commerce Committee on which I serve has taken strong
action to stem the tide of these recalls. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission Reform Act of 2007, which was passed by the Commerce
Committee under the leadership of Chairman Inouye and Chairman Pryor
and with my help, as well as the help of Senator Bill Nelson and
Senator Durbin, represents some of the most sweeping reforms that we
have seen in 15 years for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The
bill would finally take the lead out of children's products, establish
real third party verification, simplify the recall process, and make it
illegal to sell a recalled product. It also gives this long forgotten
agency the resources it needs to protect our children.
The recent action by the Commerce Committee sends to the Senate floor
an opportunity to reform our consumer protection laws and effectively
ban lead from kids' products. I am hopeful that we will act quickly,
that we will work out any details that need to be worked out, and that
when we adjourn for the holidays, this reform will be passed.
To me, the focus is simple. We need to make sure there is a clear
mandatory standard--not just voluntary, not just a guideline, but with
the force of law. I think it is shocking for most parents when they
realize there has never been a mandatory ban on lead in children's
products; instead, we have this voluntary guideline that involves a
bunch of redtape that makes it hard to enforce. As millions of toys are
being pulled from the store shelves for fear of lead contamination, it
is time to make crystal clear that lead has no place in kids' toys.
The need for this ban was crystallized for me in Minnesota when a
little 4-year-old boy named Jarnell Brown got a pair of tennis shoes at
a store in our State. With the pair of shoes came a little charm, and
this little boy was playing with the charm and swallowed it. He didn't
die from choking or from some kind of blockage of his airways. No, he
died from the lead in that charm. The lead that should never have been
in that charm went into his bloodstream over a period of time. When
they tested that charm, it was 99 percent lead. It came from China.
This little boy died.
What is most tragic about this death is that it could have been
prevented. He should never have been given that toy in the first place.
It shouldn't take a child's death to alert us that we need to do
something about this problem in this country. The legislation I
originally introduced to address this problem is included in our bill.
There is a lead standard in the bill that effectively bans lead,
allowing for trace levels for jewelry and allowing for some trace
levels for toys.
For 30 years we have been aware of the dangers posed to children by
lead. The science is clear. It is undisputed that lead poisons kids. It
shouldn't have taken this long to figure that out, but we know it and
know we can do something about it.
[[Page 33613]]
As we all know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's last
authorization expired in 1992, and its statutes have not been updated
since 1990. During that time, since 1990, we have had billions of
dollars' worth of toys coming in from China and other countries that
have essentially been unregulated because of a lack of resources for
that agency. It is a shadow of its former self. It is half the size
that it used to be in the 1980s. Here we have billions of dollars'
worth of unregulated toys coming into this country, and there has been
no response from this agency, no requests for a big increase. Nothing.
Meanwhile, these toys are coming on to our shores.
The inspection effort for toys at the Consumer Product Safety
Commission is led by a man named Bob, and he has an office that is kind
of messy in the back of the CPSC and he is retiring at the end of this
year. We need to get more toy inspectors in the field. We need to give
this agency the tools it needs to do its job.
The legislation sitting before the Senate today goes a long way in
modernizing the Commission. The legislation more than doubles the
CPSC's budget by the year 2015--something we wish the CPSC asked for
itself, but we went ahead and did it ourselves. The CPSC Reform Act
will actually make it illegal to sell a recalled toy, finally taking
action against those bad actors out there who are knowingly leaving
recalled products on their shelves.
I do at this moment wish to thank some retailers that have worked
with us on this bill. The CEO of Toys 'R Us testified. We worked with
Target, a Minnesota company. They want to get some legislation passed,
and they want to actually increase the budget of this agency so there
can be more inspection. This bill will also--and this is the piece of
the bill that I worked on--make it easier for parents to identify toys
when they are recalled.
I have to tell my colleagues, when most parents get their toys and
their children open them on Christmas morning, they don't keep the
packaging. My mother-in-law keeps the packaging, but most people don't.
So you have this packaging, and then you have the toy. What we are
saying is, the batch number should be on the toy if it is practical.
You can't do it on Pick Up Sticks, but you can do it on the foot of a
Barbie or on SpongeBob Square Pants, so that when a parent knows about
a recall--and we know there are more to come, although we hope they
level off soon--the parent can actually figure out which toy to throw
out and which toy to keep in their toy box. This is good practical
reform to which everyone has agreed.
The other piece of this is that the batch number should be on the
packaging. That is because, unlike some of the big retailers where it
is easy for them to pull these recalled toys from their shelves and to
zero them out on their computer system, some people buy toys on eBay,
they buy them at garage sales, and that is why we think it is very
important these toy numbers be on the actual packaging as well as on
the toy.
We have seen too many headlines this year to sit around and think
this problem is going to solve itself. As a Senator, I feel strongly it
is important to take this step to protect the safety of our children.
When I think of that little 4-year-old boy's parents back in Minnesota
and think about all of those other children who have been hurt by these
toys--the one who just went into a coma over the date rape drug--they
are just little kids. We can do better in this country. We can put the
rules in place and make it easier for them to do their job. We can't
just sit around bemoaning the results anymore. We have to act. We have
the opportunity. We must pass this bill before we go home for recess.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and that the Gregg amendment No. 3822 be the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is
the nature of this amendment?
Mr. SANDERS. What the Gregg amendment does is take $5.1 billion from
agricultural disaster assistance for farmers, and it puts $924 million
into LIHEAP. What my amendment does is put $924 million into LIHEAP but
does not affect agriculture disaster assistance.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. It is a second-degree amendment?
Mr. SANDERS. It is a second-degree, yes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Then I do not object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3826 to Amendment No. 3822
(Purpose: To provide for payments under subsections (a) through (e) of
section 2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistant Act of 1981, and
restore supplemental agricultural disaster assistance from the
Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I come from a State where the weather
gets 20, 30 below zero.
I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Gregg amendment
No. 3822 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 3826 to amendment No. 3822.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SANDERS. As I mentioned a moment ago, I come from a State, as do
many others in the Senate, where the weather gets cold--sometimes 20 or
30 degrees below zero. I come from a State, as do many other Members,
where many folks are finding it extremely difficult this year to pay
for their home heating fuel costs because, as we all know, costs are
soaring. It is not unusual when I walk the streets of Burlington, VT,
or other towns in the State of Vermont, that people are appalled and
frightened about the rapidly escalating costs of home heating oil, and
they are in need of help.
As you know, Mr. President, the LIHEAP program has been an enormously
successful program in providing help to many Americans in paying their
heating bills, especially the senior citizens.
So what this amendment would do--and I will talk at greater length
about it tomorrow--is provide $924 million in increased LIHEAP funding
because we need that funding now.
We need to see LIHEAP significantly increased beyond where it is
right now if for no other reason than to simply keep pace with the
outrageous increase in costs for home heating.
Further, it is my view, and why I am offering this amendment, that it
is wrong to be cutting into agriculture disaster assistance for
farmers. There are disasters and there will be disasters. If we are
serious about maintaining family-based agriculture in America, it is
important those provisions be maintained. That is essentially what that
amendment is about.
I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call
up an amendment that I send to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
inquire of the Senator, is this an amendment that was not on our list
that we have already received unanimous consent on?
Mr. SANDERS. I believe that is the case.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Senator Harkin and I have worked diligently over the
last 4 weeks to get where we are today, and we have winnowed this list
down to 20 amendments on each side. If we make an exception on one
side, I obviously have a lot of folks who would like to add an
amendment to the list. We simply cannot do that. We have to cut it off.
Regrettably, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
[[Page 33614]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I seek recognition under the unanimous
consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for up to 30
minutes.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I come today to speak in general about the
farm bill, which we are debating, more correctly called the Food and
Energy Security Act of 2007, and also to speak about some of the
amendments proposed to it.
This is an essential piece of legislation. I am proud to have been
part of both committees that have brought separate parts of this
legislation forward and to have been able to work together in a
bipartisan fashion to craft a bill in the Senate I believe very
effectively addresses the food and fiber needs of our Nation as we move
forward.
This legislation impacts the lives of families across this Nation and
around the world through providing food security, enabling global
competitiveness, and ensuring a better environment. I have been pleased
to work with my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee, the
Senate Finance Committee, and others in Congress to craft a bill that
builds upon previous farm bills for a stronger Federal farm policy.
The legislation includes essential provisions, such as the new
specialty crops subtitle that strengthens the specialty crop block
grant and other important programs. I thank Senator Stabenow, Senator
Craig, and others for working with me on this effort. I also thank the
committee for its commitment to helping us be sure that these new
specialty crop provisions have been included in the legislation. There
has been confusion because, although we have included specialty crops
in the legislation this year, they have not been included as a
commodity crop, in those crops that are covered by the commodity
programs. Instead, they are included in ways that will help them to
obtain better technical assistance and grant programs so they can
facilitate and enhance their development, the growing of these crops,
and the marketing of them; but they don't technically, under this bill
or in any way, participate in the commodity programs.
I also thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on the
Finance Committee for helping to craft a tax title for the farm bill
that, in addition to its many other strong provisions, includes
improvements to the Endangered Species Act, through tax incentives for
landowners, to help them with species recovery. This is a piece of
legislation Senators Baucus and Grassley have agreed to cosponsor with
me, as well as many other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats in
the Senate. It is one we have worked on for years to try to find a
bipartisan path forward, where those who are concerned about the
preservation and recovery of species, as well as those who are
concerned about the impacts of our efforts on private property owners,
can come together with a proposal that will help us to facilitate the
recovery of endangered species.
One little-known fact is approximately 80 percent of the threatened
or endangered species in the United States are located on private
property. It is critical we bring forward the assistance of private
property owners and incentivize their involvement in the recovery of
these threatened and endangered species. That is what this legislation
will do.
I wish to take some time to talk more about other important aspects
of the farm bill and some changes being proposed. In order to do so, I
wish to explain what many people don't understand when we talk about
the farm bill. We discuss the farm bill as though it were a bill that
focused on production agriculture, and certainly it does.
The commodity title I referenced and the conservation title I will
reference in a minute both focus closely on production agriculture but
not solely on it. What goes unnoticed in these debates is the farm bill
is a very broad bill that deals with a multitude of critical issues in
our Nation relating to the production of food and fiber. It has 11
titles--titles on commodities and conservation, as I have indicated;
titles on trade, nutrition, rural development, credit, research,
forestry, energy, livestock, and other miscellaneous provisions.
One other little known or little focused on fact relating to the farm
bill is the commodity title, which we most often talk about, represents
only 14 percent of the funding allocated in the bill. The conservation
title, which is another one of those we talk about a lot, only
represents about 9 percent of the funding in the bill. The nutrition
portion of the farm bill includes almost two-thirds--in fact, a little
over two-thirds of the funding in the bill, 67.2 percent, is allocated
to the nutrition program. I will talk about those as well as I go
forward.
My point is this is a very broad-based bill. It is one that impacts
rural and urban areas. It deals with the importance of food and fiber
in many different contexts, from feeding a nation and clothing a nation
to engaging in international trade, to our security as a nation, and to
many other aspects of our lives. As I said earlier, it literally
impacts people not only throughout this country but throughout the
world.
Let me move on and talk about a couple of those titles. The first one
I will go to is the commodity program and the commodity title.
I am concerned with efforts that have been introduced in some
amendments to the bill on the floor that would lower selected loan
rates, including the rates for barley, wheat, oats, wool, and honey
loan rates--reduce them back down to the 2002 farm bill levels and then
divert the funding saved by that reduction into the nutrition title and
other titles of the bill.
I certainly understand and don't question the importance of our
nutrition programs and other programs being targeted for this diverted
funding. But it is important to note that under this farm bill,
nutrition funding already accounts for over two-thirds of the funding
in the bill, with only 14 percent allocated to commodities.
Much work has been done in this bill to try to provide adequate
support for farm families across our Nation, while carefully balancing
the limited funding available to each title of the bill.
Additionally, adjustments or corrections have been made to loan rates
to better ensure the loan rates don't distort planting decisions. That
is very critical in our World Trade Organization negotiations. Under
the 2007 farm bill, we have the rates established in a way that will
assist us in our global trade negotiations. Specifically, the
adjustments in the Senate bill increase the loan rates for wheat,
barley, oats, and minor oilseeds to 85 percent of the Olympic average
for prices between 2002 and 2006. For those who don't pay attention to
what all that means, the bottom line is it is important, as we move
forward in the commodity program, that we not establish programs that
distort planting decisions by farmers; otherwise, we will be accused of
improper subsidy or improper trade-impacting decisions and policies
that will be challenged in world trade negotiation arenas.
Loan rates for crops that compete for acres must be set at similar
percentages of recent market prices or they can affect production
decisions when prices are expected to be near or below loan levels.
Farmers and their lenders take price support from the loan program
into consideration in making planting decisions. Current loan rates
under the 2002 farm bill were heavily skewed in favor of and against
different crops, ranging from 69 percent to 111 percent of the Olympic
average during the years 2002 through 2006. It is these variations that
create planting decision distortions we need to avoid.
Efforts to strike the changes we have made and divert the funding
will prolong the existing disparity in the current farm bill, a policy
which has been a factor of loss of wheat, barley, oats, and minor
oilseeds to increased production in other commodities.
Our producers work to feed our country and people of nations across
the world, while also dealing with high levels of regulation and
taxation, labor shortages, droughts, and other natural
[[Page 33615]]
disasters and ever-increasing input costs, substantial foreign market
barriers, and other factors that put them at a disadvantage in a very
competitive world market.
We have to ensure our farm families have the necessary support as
they continue to work to remain successful, while factoring in and
facing these increased challenges.
I ask other Senators in the Chamber to stand with me in supporting
this careful balance we have reached in the bill and to vote against
amendments or other efforts to eliminate the loan rate rebalancing and
other commodity program support.
I also wish to talk about, in the commodity title, the importance of
pulse crop support.
As amendments are being considered to strike portions of the farm
bill, I wish to discuss the history and importance of support for pulse
crops in this farm bill.
Pulse crops are cool season legumes that can withstand the cool
temperatures of the northern tier of the United States. Pulse crops are
such things as dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas.
These cool season, nitrogen-fixing legumes are grown across the
northern tier of the United States in rotation with wheat, barley, and
other minor oilseeds.
In the late 1990s, when agriculture prices for commodities struggled,
bankers steered growers away from raising pulse crops because they did
not have the farm program safety net provided to other crops in their
rotation.
In 1999, dry pea acres dropped by 55 percent. The pulse industry
responded by requesting full program crop status for pulse crops as a
way to keep the nitrogen-fixing legumes in the crop rotation with other
program crops. Again, as we worked with issues in the previous farm
bill, this was an area that needed adjustment and attention.
In 2002, I worked with the industry and other Members of Congress to
include dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas in the 2002 farm bill.
Specifically, the industry was granted a marketing assistance loan
program for dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas.
Pulse crops are very good for the environment and for the overall
soil health. The citizens of our country demand that our farm programs
protect the long-term sustainability of our agricultural production.
These legumes generate their own nitrogen and require no processed
fertilizer to produce a crop.
Pulses fix nitrogen in the soil, which supplies a 40-pound-per-acre
nitrogen credit to the following crop in the rotation, such as wheat,
barley, and other minor oilseeds. Pulse crops and soybeans are the only
farm program crops that do not require nitrogen fertilizer.
The carbon footprint of pulses and soybeans is lower than any other
farm program crop because of their ability to generate their own
nitrogen.
The farm bill provides us with the opportunity to encourage our
Nation's farmers to protect the long-term sustainability of our soils.
Including pulse crops in farm programs provides a safety net to other
program crops and, therefore, encourages crop diversity and
sustainability. Once again, it is an issue of favoring one crop over
another with the unintended impact on the soils of our Nation.
Stripping pulse crops out of the farm programs, as some are
proposing, would encourage farmers in the northern tier to shift
production to those crops with a safety net in periods of low prices.
This shift in production would upset the delicate environmental balance
that pulse crops provide to overall soil health and sustainability and
would result in acreage loss.
I encourage my fellow Senators to oppose amendments that would strip
pulse crops and support for them from the farm bill.
Let me shift for a moment to the conservation title. As the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Rural Revitalization, Conservation, and
Forestry, I wish to take a few minutes to evaluate and discuss the
critical importance of the conservation title.
The programs authorized through the conservation title of the farm
bill provide landowners with both financial and technical assistance
necessary to bring real environmental results. In fact, I have said
many times that of all the legislation we consider in these Chambers
year in and year out, it is the farm bill that provides the most
significant protection and support of our environment than any other
legislation we consider. Conservation programs are the backbone of the
Federal conservation and environmental policy.
The farm bill before us provides $4.4 billion in new conservation
spending. The legislation builds on current successful conservation
programs and needed enhancements to make them work better for our
producers. It provides $1.28 billion in new spending for a program
named the Conservation Stewardship Program. Funding is provided for
continuation of the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve
Program.
The Wetlands Reserve Program would be provided with funds to enroll
250,000 new acres per year through 2012, and the Grasslands Reserve
Program would have sufficient resources to work in a similar fashion
from 2008 through 2012.
As of fiscal year 2006, more than 9,000 wetland reserve sites have
been enrolled and improved on more than 1 million acres of land in the
United States. There are more than 900,000 acres enrolled in the
Grasslands Reserve Program, providing habitat for more than 300
migratory birds species that rely on this prairie habitat.
The Conservation Reserve Program would be maintained at its 39.2
million acres. This program has reduced cropland soil loss by about 450
million tons. It has restored 2 million acres of wetlands, protected
170,000 miles of streams, and sequestered 48 million tons of carbon
dioxide through 2006.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program would be continued with $85
million per year through the year 2012.
The Farmland and Ranchlands Protection Program would also be
authorized at $97 million per year. Easements on nearly 2,000 farms and
ranches have been enabled through this program. It is estimated that
almost 384,000 acres of prime, unique, and important farmland soil on
the urban fringe have been or will be permanently protected from
conversion to nonagricultural uses with these easements.
These are just some of the programs that are included in the
conservation title of the farm bill. I understand and share the
interest of many who want to increase funding for conservation
programs, and as a strong supporter and proponent of these programs, I
believe we will all benefit from these investments in conservation.
However, I think we should be very careful where we look to obtain
these funding increases. A strong farm bill is one that carefully
balances each of the items, as I have indicated before.
I have indicated that the nutrition title represents almost or little
more than two-thirds of the funding in the bill. Nutrition in our
schools remains an issue of critical importance for all Americans. As a
father, I understand the positive effects that good nutrition has in
helping a child develop and learn throughout the course of a schoolday.
In addition, I am troubled by the fact that the percentage of
overweight young Americans has more than doubled in the past 30 years.
I have been a strong proponent of programs that increase access to
healthy foods for our children in schools. One example is the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable Program. The farm bill would expand this existing
limited program to every State in the United States and the District of
Columbia and would require that at least 100 of the chosen
participating schools be located on Indian reservations.
I applaud the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee for working
toward these commonsense solutions and programs to support positive
steps in nutrition for our children and others across our Nation. But
as I said earlier, I also must express my concerns with proposals that
seek to regulate food and beverage choices in schools from the Federal
level.
I am wary of Federal policies that interfere with the local autonomy
of
[[Page 33616]]
State and local schools in this matter. In addition, studies have shown
that parents and educators need to work with our youth to educate them
about the right choices they can make for dietary health. The best way
to get a child to do something different is to tell them they cannot do
it sometimes. Instead of dictating to our children, we have a
responsibility to teach them about their choices and encourage them to
make the right choices for themselves.
The rural development title also has much assistance for America.
Throughout the farm bill debate, there has been much discussion
regarding investing in rural communities across our Nation, and I am
pleased to have had the opportunity today to highlight just a few of
the ways in which this farm bill helps us to further invest in rural
America.
One of the things we have noticed, as we have seen economic decline
in rural America, is that we must build the infrastructure in our rural
communities so they can have access to the increasing markets overseas
and nationally. It has become apparent to me that the effect of our
Federal environmental rules and regulations is also felt most heavily
in small and rural communities. These communities do not have the
economies of scale because of the small population for very expensive
updating required for their water and wastewater systems that they must
do in order to comply with Federal law. Something a large urban
community could handle can literally bankrupt a smaller community
seeking to comply with our clean water and safe drinking water
standards. Because of that, I have fought for years to promote a
program called Project Search which we established in the 2002 farm
bill to provide small rural communities with financial assistance to
help them comply with these regulations.
Through the changes made to Project Search's model, small,
financially distressed communities in Idaho and across the Nation will
now have increased and more streamlined access to Federal assistance in
the early stages of water, wastewater, and waste disposal projects.
This will help them keep their water clean and help them do so in a way
that allows the community to avoid financial ruin.
This farm bill has also made critical reforms to the Rural Broadband
Loan Program ensuring that broadband access is provided to those
communities with the greatest need.
The Connect the Nation matching grant program will be added to
benchmark current broadband access programs and build GIS service maps
to promote greater accuracy and understanding of our Nation's broadband
networks.
I am also pleased that this farm bill will reauthorize the National
Rural Development Partnership.
There are many other important programs included within the rural
development title that will have a major impact on our rural
communities. Again, I thank my colleagues for working with us to make
this part of the title effective.
There are only two more titles about which I want to talk. One is the
energy title. The largest energy reserves in our Nation reside in the
farmland and forests across this country. Let me say that again. The
largest energy reserves in our Nation reside in our farmland and
forests across this country.
In order to provide for national energy security, it has become clear
that agriculture is a part of the solution. For far too long we have
been dependent almost entirely on petroleum as our major source of
energy in this Nation. We are far too dependent not only on petroleum
but on foreign sources of petroleum. And as anyone working with a
portfolio would say, we must diversify. That is why I have supported
many of the provisions in this farm bill to move our Nation into more
diverse forms of alternative and renewable fuels.
Let's take, for example, biomass. The stored energy in biomass
worldwide amounts to approximately 50 billion tons of crude oil
equivalent units every year, over five times our current energy needs.
Using 17 million tons of biomass a year for energy could produce up
to 7,000 new primary jobs, displace 6.8 million tons of CO2
from natural gas-fired powerplants, and generate renewable carbon
credits that might eventually be worth more than $200 million.
Through research, we can expand and harness a good part of that
astronomical potential, and that is why we included biomass provisions
in this bill, provisions such as the Crop Transition Program, that will
stimulate production and ease transition toward perennial biomass
crops. Mr. President, $172 million would be provided over 5 years for
this program.
There would be competitive research grants of $75 million for biomass
to bioenergy programs, focusing on increasing process efficiency and
utilization of byproducts, and providing for a regional bioenergy
program that is awarded competitively to land grant universities.
I also support a strong focus in this bill on biofuels. We have long
recognized the value in providing homegrown fuel in the form of
ethanol. It is cleaner, it is renewable, and it reduces our dependence
on foreign oil.
As we move forward, it is also clear that as we approach the maximum
production limits of our starch ethanol, we also need to move into
cellulosic ethanol which must be a primary component of our Nation's
ethanol portfolio. America's energy demand will increase 30 percent
over the next 22 years, and biofuels are critical to that increase.
Finally, I wish to talk about the trade portion of our bill. As
Congress moves forward in a farm bill debate, we often wonder what is
the future of American agriculture. I wish to discuss one very
important piece of it because it is very clear to all of us that a
major part of our future in American agriculture lies beyond our
borders. Agriculture production in the State of Idaho is a great
example.
According to statistics from the Idaho State Department of
Agriculture, if Idahoans had to consume all the farm products produced
within the State, every day each resident would have to eat 52
potatoes, 240 slices of bread, 38 glasses of milk or 1.9 pounds of
cheese, two quarter-pound hamburgers, two onions, and the list goes on
and on. The point being, we depend on other markets for our successful
agricultural programs, and trade support must be a critical part of our
agricultural programs in this farm bill.
This farm bill contains a number of programs such as the Market
Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the
Technical Assistance Program for Specialty Crops, which I talked about
earlier, to name a few.
One final point. Senator Baucus and I have offered an amendment with
regard to trade with Cuba. The future success of our agricultural
programs and the ability of this Nation to remain globally competitive
depend on our ability to have access to markets beyond our borders.
There is a huge debate in this country about whether we should continue
to refuse or to limit our trade with Cuba or whether to open trade with
Cuba, and I am one of those who believes we should open it.
I recognize we face in Cuba and in the Castro Government a brutal
dictatorship, one in which human rights and civil rights are not
recognized or honored in any way realistically. But for us to refuse to
trade with them, in my opinion, does nothing to solve that problem and
does everything to reduce the opportunities of the United States to
influence Cuba, both on economic levels, as well as political levels.
If we look at the economic impact on the United States, our refusal
to sell our agricultural products to Cuba does not mean that Cubans
cannot eat or they cannot gain these agricultural products. They simply
buy them from somewhere else--Canada, Europe, or other places.
Yet if we were to open our trade with Cuba and allow more aggressive
U.S. marketing of agricultural products there, a recent study by the
trade commission says that exports of fresh fruits and vegetables would
likely increase by $37 million to $68 million in exports; milk powder
exports would more than double; processed food exports would see a $26
million increase;
[[Page 33617]]
wheat exports would be doubled to $34 million; and exports of dry beans
would increase by $9 million, up to $22 million, to give a few
examples.
The point is, there are markets in Cuba for our goods which our
producers need to be able to take advantage of, and we will do nothing
but increase our ability to work with the people of Cuba to address the
political issues they face by doing so.
If we want to have a positive impact on the people of Cuba and the
pressures they face under the regime in which they live, then we should
open trade, open travel, and open communication so we can take to them
an opportunity to see the freedom we experience here and to experience
the power of open and free markets.
That is why Senator Baucus and I have introduced this legislation,
and I hope the Senators here will support this amendment to this
critical bill to help the United States in this one area move forward.
When we have significant trade with a nation such as China across the
Pacific Ocean, yet we will not open significant trade with a neighbor
such as Cuba, 90 miles off our shore, we need to reevaluate the
effectiveness of our foreign policy, not only in terms of its impact on
U.S. producers but in terms of its impact on our ability to truly reach
out and cause the kind of positive change in Cuba that will help them
achieve the kind of political freedom and avoid the kinds of oppression
and human rights pressures they now face.
I have talked about a number of the portions of the farm bill. There
are other very critical portions as well. The bottom line is we have an
opportunity in the Senate this month, if we will deal with the
amendments that are pending, to move forward on a very critical piece
of legislation, a piece of legislation that, as I indicated, deals with
the food and fiber of our Nation and the ability of our people and of
people globally to have a better diet, to have a better opportunity to
participate in global markets, and a stronger and cleaner environment.
I hope that as we move through this process, we will not make changes
to the bill that will make it worse, that instead we will simply adopt
those improving proposals and then hopefully soon send on to the House
this very significant and important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 3736 to Amendment No. 3500
(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to bioenergy crop transition
assistance)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3736.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 3736 to amendment No. 3500.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, November 15,
2007, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my intention to be brief. I am
offering this amendment with the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, and I have had a chance to visit
with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss. It is our
intention to work very closely with Senator Chambliss in hopes that we
can work out the amendment I am going to offer now.
This amendment is an important one because it gives us a chance to
promote the use of biofuels to reduce our Nation's dependence on
foreign oil. We have worked hard to try to build a broad coalition of
organizations, ranging from the National Association of Wheat Growers
to the League of Conservation Voters, in an attempt to ensure this
proposal would have broad support in the Senate.
From an oil standpoint, I think we all understand the value of
promoting biofuels. Our country now imports roughly $1 billion a day of
oil. The fact is--and Senator Chambliss and I serve on the Intelligence
Committee--I have come to believe our dependence on foreign oil is a
national security issue. When you pull up at a gas pump in this
country, whether it is New Jersey or Oregon or Alabama, you, in effect,
pay a terror tax. A portion of what you pay at the gas pump in our
States, in effect, eventually finds its way to a government in the
Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, which consistently ends up, through
charitable groups and others, back to terrorist organizations that want
to kill patriotic Americans. So our dependence on foreign oil has very
clear consequences, and it is important for wheat growers and
environmentalists and others to come together, as Senator Harkin and I
have sought to do in our amendment with respect to biofuels. It is
important as a national security issue, and it is important from an
environmental standpoint.
In my view, our proposals can reduce the amount of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases that are being released into the atmosphere and
contributing to global warming. Our amendment will provide an
opportunity for new sources of income for our farmers and our
communities. What Senator Harkin and I and the wheat growers and the
environmental folks have sought to do is to make sure we can get these
economic benefits for our farmers in a way that will ensure we protect
the land and water and air for the longer term.
The amendment Senator Harkin and I offer is built on four key
principles: We want to promote growing biofuels stocks with sustainable
agricultural practices, we want to protect native ecosystems, we want
to protect biodiversity, and we want to encourage this biofuels
production on a local basis so as to promote local economies. That
means assembling enough farmers, growing enough feedstocks, and being
in a position to fund a new bioenergy fuel or conversion facility. We
give a boost to that effort with some small planning grants in order to
help those farmers get off the ground. In addition, we think our
proposed amendment is going to set realistic kinds of conservation
objectives, again to promote soil and wetlands, avoid the untouched
native grasslands and forests, and warrant the investment our country
should be making in this exciting area.
At the end of the day--and then I will yield to my friend, the
distinguished chairman of the committee--we think bioenergy production
can be done in a way that protects threatened ecosystems. The two are
not mutually exclusive. It is not a question of bioenergy production or
protecting our treasured lands and air and water. We can do both, and
that is what the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman, and I
have sought to do.
I am really pleased--I think the chairman may not have been on the
floor--that we have the National Association of Wheat Growers in
alliance with the League of Conservation Voters. It doesn't happen
every day. I had a chance to visit with the distinguished Senator from
Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, and what I was trying to do was to talk about
the fact that this is an exciting coalition that adds a lot of energy
and passion for the future to this bill.
Mr. President, I wish to yield at this time to my friend, the
distinguished chairman of the committee. It is our intent to work with
the Senator from Georgia in hopes that we can all work this out. We had
a good conversation before we got on the floor, and I thank the Senator
from Iowa for all his assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, are we under a time limitation here?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague and friend
from Oregon for sponsoring this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor
of it.
Quite frankly, this amendment brings us to where we initially started
when we started talking about biomass production for biofuels. If we do
it
[[Page 33618]]
right--if we do it right--I predict that 5 years from now, by the end
of the life of this farm bill, we will see cellulosic ethanol plants
springing up like mushrooms all over the country--in the far west, in
the Plains States, the southeastern part of the United States, all over
America, using different inputs such as wood pulp, fast-growing
poplars, pine, switchgrass, Buffalo grass, miscanthus, and various
other species depending upon the area of the country you are from.
In order to get there, we have to merge two things. Right now, I say
to my friend from Oregon, we have a classic chicken-and-egg situation.
You can't get investors to invest in biorefineries for cellulose
because they ask a very important question: Where is the feedstock?
Well, then you go to farmers and say, we would like you to grow biomass
for cellulosic ethanol, and they ask a very important question: Where
is the market? So on the one hand you have investors saying where is
the feedstock, and then the farmers saying where is the market, and we
have to get these two together.
Well, in the farm bill before us--and my friend knows this very
well--we have very good provisions for loan guarantees for
biorefineries. So on the investor end, I think we have done a really
good job with this bill of looking at that. On the other end, providing
the transition payments and support to farmers to grow biomass
feedstocks, this amendment fills in that gap. This says to farmers:
Look, you can go ahead and transition some of your land to producing
biomass crops, such as perennials, and you can do it without having a
long-term financial commitment to a biorefinery, and you can do it by
adhering to conservation goals.
Now, that is the other part of this amendment that is so important.
What this amendment basically says is: Look, we will be glad to give
you--an individual farmer--financial support for establishment. Because
if you are going to transition from row crops to perennials for biomass
production, that may cost some money. You may have to buy some new
equipment or change your practices or that type of thing. Maybe you
have to separate out a certain section of your land. Well, that is a
transition cost, and this provides for 50 percent matching money for
those transition costs.
The other thing is to provide for a rental payment, a rental payment
to a farmer to make up the revenues lost on the land while the crop is
being established. For example, if you have a row crop or something
now, but you want to, say, take a certain part of your land and you
would like to start growing biomass, well, your income from that will
probably be a little less for the first few years. So what the Wyden
amendment does is it provides for a rental payment for that period of
time.
The other key thing is it provides for a preference for enrollment in
the Conservation Stewardship Program. Now, again, in order to get this,
the contract the farmer would sign would require them to limit their
plantings to noninvasive species, enroll only land that was previously
used for agricultural purposes, potentially including grazing and CRP
lands. In other words, you couldn't take lands out of the WRP program
or that type of thing. You have to meet the stewardship threshold of
the CSP program by the end of the contract period, and you have to
limit the harvest of your biomass crops to time periods outside the
major brooding and nesting season for wildlife and avian species in
your area.
So again, this is a very good amendment, I say to my friend from
Oregon. It is very well thought out and very well tailored. And the
Senator from Oregon is absolutely right, we have a lot of groups
supporting this amendment. I may be repeating what the Senator said--I
didn't hear all of his remarks--but we have a letter here from the
National Wildlife Federation that includes 94 different groups that
support the Wyden amendment, everything from the American Corn Growers
to the Audubon Society, the Center for Rural Affairs, Defenders of
Wildlife--basically, a lot of wildlife groups all over this country
supporting this amendment.
Did the Senator ask consent to put those in the Record?
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman for all his assistance in this. We
have not put it in the Record, so if you would do that, that would be
very helpful.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record the letter and the signatories of the groups from the
National Wildlife Federation supporting the Wyden amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
December 6, 2007.
Re Wyden-Harkin Amendment to the Senate Farm Bill
Dear Senator Wyden: The organizations signed onto this
letter urge you to support the Wyden-Harkin Amendment to the
Senate farm bill which provides critical improvements to a
new Bioenergy Crop Transition Assistance Program in the farm
bill's Energy Title.
Sustainable bioenergy production from agriculture holds
substantial promise for promoting rural economic development,
reducing dependence on imported fuels, enhancing the
environment and reducing greenhouse gases. While the farm
bill Energy Title contains several programs for research and
development of the next generation of bioenergy refineries,
the Bioenergy Crop Transition Assistance Program is the only
measure designed to assist farmers and foresters who want to
start producing cellulosic bioenergy crops.
The Bioenergy Crop Transition Assistance Program was
originally designed to provide incentives to farmers and
foresters to plant and grow bioenergy crops in a sustainable
manner. Many bioenergy crops--particularly perennial native
species--will be grown for production for the first time in
regions across the country. The goal of the original measure
was to give farmers and foresters financial assistance and
incentives to use good conservation measures with new
bioenergy crop systems and to generate information that other
farmers can use to grow sustainable bioenergy crops.
The current Senate farm bill language, however, will not
achieve these original goals. A farmer or forester cannot
participate unless there is a formal financial commitment
from a biomass energy facility. This prevents farmers and
foresters from undertaking trial plantings of bioenergy crops
and would exclude bioenergy facilities under development from
participating. Adequate conservation goals are missing and
funding could be used to support agricultural or forest
practices that harm wildlife and destroy native habitat. The
limited funds are not targeted to perennial systems which can
increase soil quality and carbon sequestration and decrease
soil erosion and field run-off.
The Wyden-Harkin Amendment would help ensure that the farm
bill's incentives for bioenergy production to increase the
nation's energy security and achieve substantial economic
gain for rural communities at the same time improve the rural
environment and conserve the nation's natural resources. It
would help accelerate the challenging transition from
traditional row crops to more sustainable perennial
feedstocks for bioenergy.
The Amendment would provide modest grant funding for groups
of farmers or foresters and local entities to join with the
bioenergy sector in conducting feasibility studies for
bioenergy crop production. It allows participating farmers
and foresters to undertake trial plantings of bioenergy crops
at the planning stages for biorefinery development. The
Program's limited funding is targeted to perennial crop
systems that can increase soil quality and carbon
sequestration and decrease erosion and field run-off. The
Amendment restores conservation goals to ensure that funding
under this Program does not increase environmental
degradation, harm wildlife or destroy native habitat.
The emerging bioenergy sector provides a unique opportunity
to create an industry that supports agriculture,
environmental goals, energy security, and local economic
development. Policies that do not consider all of these
issues could fracture the coalition that supports bioenergy
production, thereby making future policy initiatives all the
more difficult.
Thank you for your consideration of our request that you
support the Wyden-Harkin Amendment to the Senate farm bill.
Sincerely,
AERO, Alternative Energy Resources Organization,
Agricultural Missions, Inc. (NY), Agri-Process
Innovations (AR), Alliance for a Sustainable Future,
American Agriculture Movement, American Corn Growers
Association, American Farmland Trust, American Society
of Agronomy, Animal Answers (VT), Audubon Minnesota
(MN), BioLyle's Biodiesel Workshop (WA), Biomass Gas &
Electric LLC (GA), Bronx Greens (NY), California
Institute for Rural Studies, Caney Fork Headwaters
Association (TN), C.A.S.A. del Llano, Inc. (TX),
Catholic Charities of Kansas City--St. Joseph, Center
for
[[Page 33619]]
Earth Spirituality and Rural Ministry (MN), Center for
Rural Affairs, Center for Sustaining Agriculture &
Natural Resources, Washington State University (WA),
Clean Fuels Development Coalition, Clean Up the River
Environment (MN), Coevolution Institute, Cornucopia
Institute, Crop Science Society of America, CROPP
Cooperative/Organic Valley, Cumberland Countians for
Peace & Justice (TN), Dakota Resource Council, Dakota
Rural Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered
Habitats League (CA), Environmental Defense,
Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Environmental
Law & Policy Center, Farmworker Association of Florida,
Fresh Energy (MN), Friends of the Earth, Hancock Public
Affairs (NY), Illinois Stewardship Alliance,
Independent Beef Association of North Dakota,
Innovative Farmers of Ohio, Institute for Agriculture &
Trade Policy, Iowa Farmers Union, Izaak Walton League
of America, Kansas Rural Center, Land Stewardship
Project, Local 20/20 (Jefferson County WA), Maysie's
Farm Conservation Center (PA), Michigan Land Trustees,
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota
Conservation Federation, Minnesota Farmers Union,
Minnesota Food Association, Minnesota Project,
Mississippi Biomass Council, National Audubon Society,
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, National
Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Center for
Appropriate Technology, National Farmers Organization,
National Wildlife Federation, Nebraska Wildlife
Federation, Network for Environmental & Economic
Responsibility (TN), New Fuels Alliance, NOFA/Mass
(Northeast Organic Farming Association/Mass), Northern
Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society, Northwest
Biofuels Association, Orapa Limited (TN), Oregon
Environmental Council, Organic Consumers Association,
Pacific Biofuels, Pennypack Farm Education Center for
Sustainable Food Systems (PA), Pinchot Institute for
Conservation, Progressive Christians Uniting,
ReEnergizeKC, a Project of Heart of America Action
Linkage, Robyn Van Eyn Center (PA), Rural Advantage
(MN), Sierra Club, Social Concerns Office--Diocese of
Jefferson City (MO), Soil Science Society of America,
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, SUN DAY Campaign
(MD), Sundays Energy (MN), Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition, The Corporation for Economic Opportunity
(SC), Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington
Sustainable Food & Farming Network, Western
Organization of Resource Councils, World Wildlife
Fund--U.S.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also have a letter here, also from a
coalition of conservation organizations, the American Sport Fishing
Association, Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, Pheasants
Forever, Quail Forever, Trout Unlimited, and again a number of groups
supporting the Wyden amendment. So I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the letter and the signatories thereto.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
December 7, 2007.
Dear Senator: As the coalition of America's leading
conservation organizations, we urge your support for the
Wyden-Harkin Amendment to the Farm Bill. This amendment
provides needed improvements to a new Bioenergy Crop
Transition Assistance Program (BCTAP) within the bill's
Energy title that would make the program work better for both
farmers and wildlife.
The BCTAP was originally designed to provide financial
assistance and incentives to farmers and foresters to get
started growing next generation bioenergy crops in a
sustainable manner. It is the only farm bill program that is
designed specifically to help farmers and foresters establish
cellulosic bioenergy crops. Many of these bioenergy crops--
particularly perennial native species--will be grown for
production for the very first time in many regions across the
country. The goal of the original measure was to give farmers
and foresters financial assistance and incentives to use good
conservation measures with these new bioenergy crop systems
and to generate information that other farmers could use to
grow sustainable bioenergy crops.
However, the current Senate Farm Bill language will not
achieve these original goals. As presently written,
participation by a farmer or forester is dependent upon a
formal financial commitment from a biomass energy facility.
This would prevent farmers and foresters from undertaking
trial plantings of bioenergy crops and would exclude those
growing crops for bioenergy facilities still under
development. Conservation goals are also missing from the
current Senate bill and funding could be used to support
agricultural or forest practices that harm wildlife,
introduce invasive species, destroy native habitat, or
convert perennial grasses that have been restored for
wildlife and other conservation purposes (such as has been
done in the CRP) to fast-growing trees. Moreover, these
limited funds are not targeted to promoting development of
perennial systems. Developing perennial systems is vital
because of their strong promise in serving as future sources
of energy, while improving soil quality, increasing carbon
sequestration, and decreasing soil erosion and field run-off.
And because farmers have little experience with such systems,
development assistance will be key to achieving the great
potential of perennials.
The Wyden-Harkin Amendment would improve the BCTAP within
the Farm bill and address the existing deficiencies found in
the current language. Specific improvements include: Offers
matching grants of up to $50,000 to farmer groups, counties,
or other local entities for feasibility studies and planning
including outreach to farmers about bioenergy crop
production; stipulates that a letter of intent from an
existing or planned facility is sufficient to allow farmers
to apply for assistance in planting and maintaining bioenergy
crops, allowing farmers more flexibility to field test new
perennial bioenergy crops for proposed and existing bioenergy
facilities encourages participating farmers to meet
reasonable conservation goals in return for financial
assistance and incentives to establish and maintain perennial
bioenergy crops under a 5-year contract with USDA; limits
eligible land to that which has already been used for
production, such as previously cultivated land, managed
pasture, or clear-cut forest land--ensuring that public
subsidies do not promote the loss of native habitats; and
restricts harvesting of bioenergy crops until after bird
nesting and brood rearing seasons, which is typically not a
problem for the harvesting dates sought by most bioenergy
companies anyway.
Bioenergy production from agriculture holds substantial
promise for promoting rural economic development, improving
energy independence, enhancing habitat for some species of
fish and wildlife, and reducing greenhouse gases. As this
burgeoning industry and the technologies developed to support
it continue to grow, it is vital that all these factors be
considered to ensure its long-term sustainability. The Wyden-
Harkin Amendment does just that and we encourage you to
support it in the Farm Bill.
Sincerely,
American Sportfishing Association; Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies; Ducks Unlimited; Izaak Walton League of
America; Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation; National
Wildlife Federation; Pheasants Forever; Quail Forever; Quail
Unlimited; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Trout
Unlimited; and The Wildlife Society.
Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, the National Association of Wheat Growers and
IOGEN Corporation together have sent a letter in support of the Wyden
amendment. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
December 6, 2007.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss: We wish
to express our support for the efforts both in your chamber
and in the House of Representatives to provide appropriate
incentives for agricultural producers interested in producing
non-traditional biomass crops as feedstock for commercialized
cellulosic ethanol.
We appreciate your co-sponsorship of a substitute amendment
offered by Sen. Ron Wyden that would, in part, establish a
Bioenergy Crop Transition Assistance Program within the
Senate's 2007 Farm Bill. We also recognize and commend House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson for including
similar provisions in the House-passed version of H.R. 2419.
Both of these programs recognize that, for the potential of
cellulosic ethanol to be fully realized, there is a need to
encourage growers to begin establishing crops for which no
market, as of yet, exists. As you know, farmers operate in a
business environment with a multitude of risks and,
therefore, tend to avoid risk wherever possible. Committing
to grow crops for a yet-to-arrive market qualifies as an
easily avoided risk. Yet commodity crop residues can carry
cellulosic ethanol only so far, and dedicated energy crops
will be needed before long. Encouraging producers to begin
experimenting with crops that may require innovative agronomy
and for which there is no market will require just the type
of transition program both House and Senate provisions are
attempting to provide.
We are in wholehearted support of your and Chairman
Peterson's goals, and hope to continue working with you to
refine the legislative language. In both the House and
[[Page 33620]]
Senate versions there are provisions that we find commendable
and others which we believe can be improved through further
collaboration with you and your colleagues. For example, we
would encourage you to consider including in the final
legislation a small plot pilot program as outlined in the
attached document. We are currently in the process of
creating a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate
language including our comments on specific provisions, which
we will share with you shortly.
The future of the cellulosic energy industry is predicated
on the ability and willingness of growers to produce biomass
feedstock. We appreciate your ongoing support of measures
that would provide for an effective transition into
commercial production of these crops, and look forward to
continued work together on these issues.
Sincerely,
John Thaemert,
President, National Association of Wheat Growers.
Brian Foody,
President and CEO, Iogen Corporation.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, this amendment is broadly supported. This is an
amendment that is good for the entire country, not just Oregon but also
for Iowa, for the plains States, and for the southeastern part of the
United States. This is good for America. This is good for our farmers.
It will get us moving on the right path toward biomass production,
and at the same time protecting our environment, protecting our
wildlife habitats, and making sure that cellulosic ethanol from biomass
gets a firm foothold, as I said, within the life of this farm bill.
Probably by the end of this farm bill, as I said, if we do it right--
and the Wyden amendment is the amendment that makes sure we do it
right--then we will see the cellulosic plants springing up all over the
country. We will have better wildlife, we will have more ducks, more
pheasants, more geese. We will have more hunting grounds for hunters
and fishermen. We will have better and cleaner water. We will have the
energy we need in America growing in this country.
I applaud the Senator from Oregon. It is a very thoughtful amendment,
very farsighted, very meaningful, and I hope we can adopt it
overwhelmingly.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to wrap up very briefly, and I
know the Senator from Alabama was waiting, but the Senator from North
Dakota wanted to do a very brief unanimous consent request, and I think
that is acceptable to all Senators.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for his assistance. What the Senator
from Iowa essentially described, by way of bringing together people
such as wheat growers and corn growers and conservation groups and the
Wildlife Federation, the League of Conservation Voters--this is the
future of modern agriculture: bringing all these folks together so we
can take steps that will ensure that farmers grow their incomes. We
want farmers to prosper on the land. We want to make sure their kids
have a future in agriculture. To do it, we are going to have to adopt,
as the Senator from Iowa has pointed out, an approach that encourages
more sustainable agriculture.
We think this is a winner for farmers' income. We think this is good
for the environment. We think it is going to promote conservation.
The Senator from Georgia has left the Senate floor, but it is my
intent, with the Senator from Iowa, to work closely today and over the
next day or so to make an agreement that will be acceptable all around.
I think we are capable of doing it. I thank the Senator from Iowa, once
again, for his support and that of his staff on some other issues as
well--the illegal logging question, where the chairman has been so
helpful.
I yield the floor.
Modification to Amendment No. 3695
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if it will be permissible, I ask unanimous
consent to modify an amendment. I have cleared this with Senator
Chambliss and Senator Harkin. I ask for the regular order on my
amendment No. 3695 for the purpose of modifying it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to call for regular
order.
Mr. DORGAN. The modification is at the desk. I ask the amendment be
so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(7) the improvements to the food and nutrition program made
by sections 4103, 4108, 4208, and 4801(g) (and the amendments
made by those sections) without regard to section 4908(b);
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Amendment No. 3596
Mr. SESSIONS. I call up amendment No. 3596.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be once
again the pending question.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I will have an hour debate on
this, 30 minutes on each side. I ask I be recognized for 10 minutes
tonight and be notified when that 10 minutes has run.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first I would like to share in the gist
of the remarks of Senator Wyden, that OPEC is a cartel. They meet to
decide how much production they will allow. The reason they do that is
to control the price of oil in the world marketplace. By controlling
the amount they produce, they control the price. It is a cartel price,
it is not a free market price. They call themselves a cartel. In
effect, they meet to decide how much they are going to tax the American
consumer. That is because the value of the oil on the global
marketplace is disconnected to the cost of its production throughout
the world.
I think we should do what we can with ethanol and other alternative
fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, both for our economy, as
well as for our national security.
I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership as chairman of the
Agriculture Committee. He has been courteous to me and other Senators
in any number of ways. I thank Senator Chambliss for his leadership and
his expertise, particularly concerning matters in our region of the
country.
My amendment has to do with crop insurance. I truly believe it is an
amendment that will be a good-government amendment that will allow us
to test an idea that came from farmers themselves and could, indeed,
create a situation in which crop insurance works better in America than
it currently does.
Crop insurance alone has not worked as well as we expected. Many
farmers don't sign up, one farmer told me today. That alone should tell
you something. He said farmers are pretty clever. They know a good deal
when they see it. If they are not signing up, usually there is a
reason.
But crop insurance is a critical component of farming in America
today. We need more farmers signed up. We need more farmers insured.
How we get there is the question. The farm insurance program that the
Government funds and helps support has not ended the periodic disaster
payment bills that Congress has considered. Since the year 2000, $1.3
billion per year has been appropriated by this Congress as disaster
relief, indicating that the crop insurance is not yet covering the
losses that farmers are sustaining. In addition, we are supporting crop
insurance premiums to the tune of $3.25 billion a year. That is a lot
of money.
What can we do? I suggest we should listen to the farmers. In 1999,
the Alabama Farmers Federation held a conference and formed a committee
to see what could be done to improve crop insurance. That committee was
led by Ricky Wiggins, a cotton and peanut farmer in south Alabama, and
concluded that farm savings accounts could do that. That is what they
recommended. My amendment would create and allow the Department of
Agriculture, in fact, to create farm savings accounts for farmers. The
Federal Government subsidy that has been going to insurance premiums
would go into this account, and the farmers' part of the premium would
go into this account. It would be their controlled insurance fund.
[[Page 33621]]
I talked to Secretary Johanns about this when he was our Secretary,
and he liked the idea. He thought it was premature to try to mandate
this around the country. We discussed a pilot program and he thought
that was a good idea and that is what I am proposing in this amendment.
The concept would be for the Department of Agriculture to create and
implement regulations for a pilot program. It would be limited to just
1 percent of farmers throughout the country. That is only approximately
20,000 farmers nationwide. It would create a whole farm risk-management
account for all the farming activities, not just on a commodity-by-
commodity basis. The combination of two and three failures of a small
nature can put a farm in critical condition, and often they are not
able to collect on their crop insurance because no one particular crop
has been badly damaged. Farm savings accounts would overcome this by
providing more flexibility.
The Federal Government would contribute, the farmer would contribute,
and when a disaster occurs, a farmer would be allowed to withdraw the
money from his emergency fund. If his income fell below 80 percent of
his 3-year farm income average, unless there was change in his
activities, he would be able to draw money out of that account. But the
farmer also must have catastrophic insurance through an insurance
company because it is still possible that there would be a catastrophe
and he would have a total loss and would need the kind of coverage this
farm savings account does not provide. The pilot program would be
totally voluntary. No farmer would be required to participate.
I believe the results of this pilot program could be substantial. It
would certainly save overhead. It would create a situation where the
farmer could decide how to utilize his resources. Today, if a farmer
believes his crop is a total loss, he calls in an adjuster. The
adjuster has to look at the crop and has to certify that this crop is
likely to be a failure at the time it is harvested and would not be
worth carrying forward. This will allow farmers in many circumstances
to plow under that crop and replant another crop. Until he gets the
certification that his insurance is going to pay, he is delayed from
doing the replanting. This can be crucial because as the weeks go by
the season gets shorter and the farmer has less and less ability to
replant.
Those are things I hear about a lot. They come to me and complain. I
called insurance companies on behalf of farmers. It is a difficult
situation for both sides. The insurance companies have legitimate
reasons to be cautious and responsible with their money. Farmers have a
legitimate reason to seek prompt payment so they can move forward.
Farm savings accounts could reduce the amount of disaster relief that
our Nation is paying out each year. I believe it is an amendment that
my colleagues should sincerely consider.
In conclusion, let me say this about it. We will talk about it more
tomorrow. This is a farmers plan. They came forward with it. The
Alabama Farmers Federation is an affiliate with the American Farm
Bureau. They strongly support it. The Farm Bureau itself has not taken
a position on it. They are not opposing this legislation.
It would apply only to 1 percent of farmers. It would be voluntary.
No farmer would have to sign up for it. The decisionmaking for how to
utilize the money when a disaster occurs would be given to the farmer
and not an insurance adjuster. And we can see how it works. Maybe it
will not work, and maybe we will realize this is not the way to go.
But, then again, it might work. In fact, I think it will work. In fact,
I think our farmers were very smart when they asked for this.
I believe quite a number of farmers may find this is far more
effective for them than the present system we are utilizing. One can
conjure up objections that might occur. Certainly, for some farmers
this would not be something they would want to opt for, but I believe
the Department of Agriculture can work through this and create some
guidelines and regulations that would work.
So I say, let's try. Let's give this idea a chance. Let's see if we
can create a better way of handling insurance for a number of farmers.
After a few we will have learned something. I urge my colleagues to
consider this legislation as we go forward with this farm bill. We will
probably have a vote on it tomorrow. I truly urge them, let's try this.
If you have any objections, I would be pleased to try to address them,
and we will speak in more detail about the amendment tomorrow.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3830 to Amendment No. 3500
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and I have an amendment that I send to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr.
Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 3830 to amendment No.
3500.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it looks as though we are wrapping up here
for the day. I do not know of other speakers who want to come to the
floor.
We are now working, I might inform fellow Senators, on a unanimous
consent agreement that we hope to propound shortly that will set up
some votes for tomorrow, I think hopefully about five votes that have
been agreed upon. We are working on the consent to get those lined up
right now so we can have those first thing tomorrow.
Quite frankly, I am very optimistic. I thank all of the Senators who
came here today, debated their amendments. I thank the ranking member,
Senator Chambliss. We have been working together on this. If we get
these amendments agreed to, to dispose of them early tomorrow, and then
work through other amendments tomorrow--hopefully we can work a little
bit later than perhaps we did today--I can see that we can have a lot
of votes tomorrow.
We have two or three amendments on the farm bill that we, by mutual
agreement, were going to bring up on Thursday. The end may be in sight.
The end actually may be in sight on this farm bill. I am hopeful this
week, if we continue on the pace we are going, we can do that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on the amendment I just placed
at the desk to add Senator Gregg as an original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to say a few words
about a couple of amendments that are offered and are pending that we
may have votes on tomorrow.
Amendment No. 3553
First, the Alexander amendment No. 3553 that the Senator from
Tennessee discussed earlier. The tax package that was added to the farm
bill includes a small wind tax credit of up to 30 percent, or $4,000,
for small wind turbines installed at a residence or a business. A small
wind turbine is one with generation capacity of less than 100
kilowatts. The amendment offered by the Senator from Tennessee,
amendment 3553, would limit the eligibility of this to only wind
turbines installed on farms or at a rural small business.
Well, you might say: What is wrong with that? At first blush that
sounds all right, except that we have new technologies coming on line,
small wind turbines that are very effective, cost effective, that will
be used on
[[Page 33622]]
farms, will be used at some small businesses. But I can also see some
of them being used for plain old residences. They may be rural, they
may be in rural areas, but they would be on farms. They may not be a
business or a farm, but they will be rural residences. They ought to be
allowed also to have access to this.
I think the amendment unduly restricts the number of people who can
be eligible for purchasing these small wind turbines. Also, it says ``a
rural small business.'' Well, a rural small business has a rather
definite definition, a restricted definition. So there may be a lot of
small businesses that would want to put up a wind turbine for their
small business, but they may not be classified as a rural small
business.
It could be in a small town, it could be in the suburbs, it could be
in metropolitan areas, but they are on the outskirts of a metropolitan
area, but they may not be listed as a ``rural small business.'' So why
would we want to say to a small business that might be in a rural area,
classified in a rural area, but 10 miles away, you would have a small
business that might not be classified as rural, but they would not be
eligible for it even though they could use and would be inclined to
construct or buy a small wind turbine?
Again, I think we want to keep the amendment open to a broader
population. It means more wind power installations, more clean and
renewable power. Again, the Senator from Tennessee is probably correct,
and the majority of these may well, I hope, be put in rural areas, on
farms, or at rural businesses. But why would we want to restrict that
if we want clean, renewable energy in this country? We want to get off
the oil pipeline.
It would seem to me we would continue to encourage this wherever we
could. I think the Finance Committee had it right. They had it right,
and they drafted it right. I hope we will keep the amendment as written
and defeat this Alexander amendment on wind power.
Amendment No. 3551
Again, Senator Alexander also has an amendment No. 3551, much along
the same lines. Right now, rural landowners receive an easement payment
when electric transmission lines are sited on their property.
Well, the Finance tax package in the farm bill includes a section
which would allow property owners to exclude these easement payments
from their gross income when calculating their tax payments if the
transmission property meets certain requirements, including high
voltage and used primarily to transmit renewable energy.
Again, do we not want to encourage renewable energy? Do we want to
get off the pipeline? We want to encourage rural landowners to be more
prone to let a transmission line be constructed across their property
if it is renewable electricity.
That is what the amendment does. It allows them to exclude the
easement payment if it meets the voltage and renewable use
requirements. So, again, this is another small thing to do to help
encourage the development of wind power and wind farms or solar energy
or geothermal energy; it could be any of those.
Since a lot of these will be located in rural areas, they are going
to need to build transmission lines across the farms in rural areas, so
the Finance Committee added this to the farm bill. It can help support
transmission access development for renewable energy and expand and
modernize the transmission grid, and benefit consumers nationwide by
bringing down the cost of renewable electricity. But it is often the
farmers and ranchers who see the actual infrastructure on their
property. This is, again, another way of encouraging, as rapidly as
possible, the building of more renewable energy systems in the country.
Amendment No. 3671
Lastly, Mr. President, Senator Gregg today offered amendment No. 3671
to strike the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network from the farm
bill.
I listened a little bit to what the Senator had to say. I want to
make it very clear for the record that this is not a mandatory program.
This is only an authorization. It is fully discretionary. It is up to,
of course, the Agriculture Appropriations Committee to appropriate
money for it. Senator Grassley, and a lot of other members are
supportive of this provision. The Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance
Network provision is a bipartisan part of the farm bill. We included it
to respond to an increase in the incidences of psychological distress
and suicide in rural areas.
Farmers and rural residents often lack affordable health insurance,
and they lack any close proximity to any mental health treatment
services. So this program we included would provide telephone help
lines, Web sites, support groups, outreach services to farmers,
ranchers and rural residents who need this help.
Again, it is an authorization only. There are no mandatory funds. I
find it odd this provision is singled out when there are no mandatory
funds involved. Farmers increasingly face a lot of stress. They have no
control over many factors such as drought, blizzards, floods, ice
storms, as we are having in Iowa right now, financial difficulties
beyond their control, foreign markets, imports, disease, different
things that happen. A lot of times farmers have no control over these.
It can be compounded if a farmer or rancher has some poor physical
health problems, in addition, and they lack insurance coverage. So
again, it is trying to establish some rural help lines so a farmer out
there, rancher out there who feels stressed might want to call and seek
some help and assistance.
Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being rugged individuals.
That they are. But that doesn't mean they are not subject to stress.
That doesn't mean they don't commit suicide. They do. That doesn't mean
they sometimes get so stressed out they act out in violent ways. It
happens to the best of people and the most rugged of individuals. I
have been approached--I am sure others have--by a lot of farm groups
asking that we do something more to assist farmers and farm families
who have had stresses. That was why we set up the Farm and Ranch Stress
Assistance Network. It had never been done before. We wanted to test it
out and see if it might work and might help save a few lives, keep a
few families together, cut down on spousal abuse, cut down on maybe
even some child abuse in some cases. It is a good part of the farm
bill. I hope Senators will oppose the Gregg amendment and keep the
rural stress assistance network as part of the farm bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 2448
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, it was 8 degrees in Manchester this
morning. Home heating oil costs $3.27 per gallon. These are the cold,
hard facts of winter in New England--8 degrees; $3.27 per gallon. As we
continue debate this week on a comprehensive energy bill, let's keep
these numbers in mind, and let's not pass energy policies that increase
the cost of heating our homes in the winter.
The Federal Government has limited power to reduce energy prices in
the near future. Taxes and regulations can greatly increase them, but
Congress is in poor position to affect the laws of supply and demand.
So what are we to do to help those most in need during the long, cold
winter?
Fortunately, there is a program in place to help low-income
households pay to heat their homes; a program that does a good job
getting assistance to those who need it; a program that I have
consistently supported during my 11 years here in Congress: the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
LIHEAP works. It is administered by the States and by local agencies
that
[[Page 33623]]
know the people receiving assistance. Congress passed the precursor
program back in 1980, and the program has grown over the years, to $3.2
billion nationwide in 2006.
Last year, under the continuing resolution, LIHEAP funding was
roughly a billion dollars less. Because we have provided less money for
the program, Health and Human Services is providing less money to
States. So far, HHS has only been able to release 75 percent of each
State's traditional allocation under LIHEAP.
Since my first year in Congress, I have consistently supported
funding for LIHEAP. I have asked President Clinton and President Bush
to support LIHEAP. I have asked Republican appropriations chairmen and
Democratic appropriations chairmen to increase support for LIHEAP. I
have asked Health and Human Service Secretaries to release contingency
funds in response to heat waves in the summer and cold snaps in the
winter. And today, I have joined the senior Senator from New Hampshire,
Mr. Gregg, as a cosponsor of an amendment to the farm bill that would
provide an additional $924 million for LIHEAP this year. The Senator
from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, has introduced a bill that would provide a
billion dollars in emergency funds for LIHEAP, and I am a cosponsor of
that legislation as well.
I have joined colleagues from both parties in requesting additional
support of LIHEAP in the Omnibus appropriations bill that is now being
drafted, and I have joined colleagues from both parties in seeking a
meeting with Director Jim Nussle at the Office of Management and Budget
in order to press for support for this vital program.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program has broad bipartisan
support in the House and the Senate. We are pursuing a number of ways
to get this increased assistance out to people who are having trouble
heating their homes.
Quite frankly, these folks don't really care how we go about it. They
just know that it was 8 degrees this morning in Manchester and that
heating oil costs $3.27 per gallon.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 6
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any cloture
filed on Wednesday, December 12, with respect to H.R. 6, the Energy
bill, be considered as having been filed on Tuesday, December 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in
relation to the Dorgan-Grassley amendment No. 3695 occur at 9:15 a.m.
on Thursday, December 13.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
resumes H.R. 2419 tomorrow, December 12, it proceed to vote in relation
to the following two amendments in the order listed, with no amendments
in order to the amendments prior to the votes, and that there be 2
minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled:
Gregg amendments Nos. 3671 and 3672, with the second vote 10 minutes in
duration; further, that on Wednesday, December 12, the following
amendments be debated for the time limits specified, with all time
equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no amendments in
order to any of the amendments covered under this agreement prior to a
vote in relation to the amendment: Alexander amendments Nos. 3551 and
3353, with 30 minutes divided as follows: 10 minutes each for Senators
Alexander, Bingaman, and Salazar; Cornyn amendment No. 3687, 30
minutes; Dorgan-Grassley amendment No. 3695, as modified, 2 hours;
Klobuchar amendment No. 3810, 60 minutes; Gregg amendment No. 3673, 2
hours; Sessions amendment No. 3596, 40 minutes; Coburn amendments Nos.
3807, 3530, and 3632, a total of 90 minutes.
Mr. President, I will add, Senator Coburn, even though I get upset at
him for offering all these amendments, some of which I think are not in
the best interests of the Senate, is always very agreeable to work
with. He is a very pleasant man. I like him a lot. Here is an
indication on these amendments, about which he feels strongly. He
agreed to a short period of time and rarely takes all his time. A
little side comment.
Continuing the unanimous consent request, provided further, that the
following amendments be subject to a 60-vote threshold, and that if the
amendment achieves 60 votes, then it be agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table; that if the amendment fails to
achieve 60 votes, then it be withdrawn: Dorgan-Grassley amendment No.
3695, Gregg amendment No. 3673, and Klobuchar amendment No. 3810;
further, that in any vote sequence, there be 2 minutes equally divided
prior to each vote, and that after the first vote in any sequence, the
remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
______
IMPORTANCE OF A CPSC BILL
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue that is very
important to Americans, especially during this holiday season: the
safety of consumer products.
The string of recalls of toys and other children's products we have
all read about in the news over the past 6 months has created
uncertainty and anxiety among parents shopping for their children for
the holidays.
Parents now come to toy stores armed with shopping lists, as well as
lists of toy recalls from the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web
site.
Their concern is understandable. This year has seen an unprecedented
number of unsafe toys recalled this year--more than 25 million so far,
and counting.
They include some of the most popular children's characters: Thomas
the Tank Engine, Elmo, Dora the Explorer, Polly Pockets--even Curious
George and SpongeBob SquarePants.
The list of dangers range from high lead content and toxic chemicals
to choking hazards and dangerously powerful magnets that can rip open a
child's intestines if they are swallowed.
What is going on with all these recalls?
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsible for overseeing
the safety of more than 15,000 consumer products--everything from toys
to power tools.
That agency has suffered deeper staffing and budget cuts than any
other Federal health and safety regulator.
Here are some numbers that ought to worry every American:
In 1974, its first year of operation, the CPSC had a budget of $146
million in today's dollars. Today, its budget is less than half that
amount: just over $62 million.
In the last 3 years, the CPSC has suffered its deepest staff cuts
since the Reagan administration--from 471 full-time employees down to
just 401.
Today, with imports at an all-time high, the CPSC employs 15 port
inspectors for the entire country.
In addition, CPSC does not have the authority or tools it needs to
protect American consumers.
The CPSC cannot require premarket testing, cannot order a recall when
it knows a product poses a hazard to consumers, and can't quickly
notify the public of product hazards.
In some instances, the combination of lack of funding and lack of
tools has led to unnecessary, preventable injuries and fatalities
suffered by children.
It is hard to imagine that our lead product safety agency does not
have these tools.
Fortunately, there is a set of proposals pending in the Senate that
will
[[Page 33624]]
aid consumer safety by restoring the CPSC to a functioning agency and
requiring manufacturers of children's products to test and certify the
safety of their products.
The Senate Commerce Committee has reported a bill by voice vote,
authored by Senator Pryor, that would fix many of these problems.
Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye and Senator Pryor, chairman of the
Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, deserve credit for a balanced,
responsible plan.
The bill would more than double CPSC's current budget, to $141
million, and increase the agency's staff by 20 percent over the next 7
years.
It would also eliminate the use of dangerous lead in toys; require
independent, third-party safety tests of toys before they can be sold
in this country; give the CPSC new powers to regulate the marketplace,
including more authority to force the recall of dangerous products more
quickly; give State prosecutors the authority to enforce Federal
consumer safety laws; and increase the maximum fines for willful
violation of consumer safety laws from $1.8 million to $100 million.
I expect the Senate to move important legislation in this area before
the holiday. The House, led by Congressman Bobby Rush, is engaged in a
similar effort on the House side.
If we are going to pass stronger consumer product safety legislation,
it is vital that we have bipartisan cooperation and pursue this
legislation in a bipartisan fashion. I support the effort led by
Senators Inouye and Pryor to reach out to Senators Stevens and Sununu
of the Commerce Committee to do just that.
I encourage these efforts to continue in order to produce a robust
bill that will improve consumer safety and the functioning of the CPSC.
It is a noncontroversial, bipartisan idea that the American public
expects.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAGGIE LAINE WEBB
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, in Moline, IL, Maggie Laine Webb
will be buried.
A promising career took Maggie away from Moline. Sadly, gun violence
has brought her home.
Maggie Webb was working at the Van Maur department store in Omaha
last Wednesday when a 19-year-old man opened fire with an AK-47 assault
rifle, killing eight people and wounding five more before taking his
own life.
Maggie Webb was the youngest of the gunman's victims. She was just
24; she would have turned 25 in 2 weeks.
She had transferred to Omaha from another Von Maur department store
just 6 weeks earlier. In Omaha, Maggie was a store manager--a position
of unusual responsibility for someone her age. But then, Maggie Webb
was, by all accounts, an unusually responsible, talented young woman.
At Moline High School, where she graduated in 2001, Maggie was a
softball standout, she ran track, and she was involved in student
council and many other activities. She went on to graduate in 2005 from
Illinois State University.
News of her death has hit many of her former teachers at Moline High
School hard. Bill Burrus, the school principal, said one teacher
remarked of Maggie, ``She was one of the good ones,'' paused, and then
said, ``No, one of the great ones.''
Maggie Webb is survived by her parents, Dave and Vicki Webb, of Port
Byron, IL, and her two older sisters.
Our thoughts, prayers, and condolences are with the Webb family and
all of the families affected by this senseless violence.
____________________
FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 21
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008
budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for
legislation, including one or more bills and amendments, that
reauthorizes the 2002 farm bill or similar or related programs,
provides for revenue changes, or any combination thereof. Section 307
authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met,
including that amounts provided in the legislation for the above
purposes not exceed $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2012 and that the legislation not worsen the deficit over the
period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of
the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017.
I find that Senate amendment No. 3711 offered by Senator Lugar to
Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
to H.R. 2419, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve
fund for the farm bill. Therefore, pursuant to section 307, I am
adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the
allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee.
I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con.
Res. 21 Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008--S. Con. Res.
21; Further Revisions to the Conference Agreement Pursuant to Section
307 Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund for the Farm Bill
[In billions of dollars]
Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2007.....................................................1,900.340
FY 2008.....................................................2,024.835
FY 2009.....................................................2,121.607
FY 2010.....................................................2,176.229
FY 2011.....................................................2,357.094
FY 2012.....................................................2,498.971
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2007........................................................-4.366
FY 2008.......................................................-25.961
FY 2009........................................................14.681
FY 2010........................................................12.508
FY 2011.......................................................-37.456
FY 2012.......................................................-98.125
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2007.....................................................2,371.470
FY 2008.....................................................2,509.169
FY 2009.....................................................2,523.934
FY 2010.....................................................2,581.464
FY 2011.....................................................2,696.588
FY 2012.....................................................2,737.256
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2007.....................................................2,294.862
FY 2008.....................................................2,471.293
FY 2009.....................................................2,569.600
FY 2010.....................................................2,607.308
FY 2011.....................................................2,702.556
FY 2012.....................................................2,717.397
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008--S. Con. Res.
21; Further Revisions to the Conference Agreement Pursuant to Section
307 Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund for the Farm Bill
[In millions of dollars]
Current Allocation to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority.......................................14,284
FY 2007 Outlays................................................14,056
FY 2008 Budget Authority.......................................17,088
FY 2008 Outlays................................................14,629
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..................................76,881
FY 2008-2012 Outlays...........................................71,049
Adjustments:
FY 2007 Budget Authority.......................................... 0
FY 2007 Outlays................................................... 0
FY 2008 Budget Authority..........................................336
FY 2008 Outlays..................................................-255
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..................................-2,290
FY 2008-2012 Outlays...........................................-5,504
Revised Allocation to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority.......................................14,284
FY 2007 Outlays................................................14,056
FY 2008 Budget Authority.......................................17,424
FY 2008 Outlays................................................14,374
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..................................74,591
65,5458-2012 Outlays..............................................
____________________
FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 21
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier today, pursuant to section 307 of
S. Con. Res. 21, I filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget
resolution. Those revisions were made for Senate amendment No. 3711, an
amendment offered to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419.
The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment No. 3711. As a consequence,
I am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the
adjustments made pursuant to section 307 to
[[Page 33625]]
the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for Senate amendment No. 3711.
I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res.
21 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008--S. Con. Res.
21; Further Revisions to the Conference Agreement Pursuant to
Section 307 Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund for the Farm Bill
[In billions of dollars]
Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2007.....................................................1,900.340
FY 2008.....................................................2,024.835
FY 2009.....................................................2,121.607
FY 2010.....................................................2,176.229
FY 2011.....................................................2,357.094
FY 2012.....................................................2,498,971
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2007........................................................-4.366
FY 2008.......................................................-25.961
FY 2009........................................................14.681
FY 2010........................................................12.508
FY 2011.......................................................-37.456
FY 2012.......................................................-98,125
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2007.....................................................2,371.470
FY 2008.....................................................2,508.833
FY 2009.....................................................2,526.124
FY 2010.....................................................2,581.369
FY 2011.....................................................2,696.797
FY 2012.....................................................2,737.578
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2007.....................................................2,294.862
FY 2008.....................................................2,471.548
FY 2009.....................................................2,573.005
FY 2010.....................................................2,609.873
FY 2011.....................................................2,702.839
FY 2012.....................................................2,716.392
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008--S. Con. Res.
21; Further Revisions to the Conference Agreement Pursuant to Section
307 Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund for the Farm Bill
[In millions of dollars]
Current Allocation to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority.......................................14,284
FY 2007 Outlays................................................14,056
FY 2008 Budget Authority.......................................17,424
FY 2008 Outlays................................................14,374
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..................................74,591
FY 2008-2012 Outlays...........................................65,545
Adjustments:
FY 2007 Budget Authority.......................................... 0
FY 2007 Outlays................................................... 0
FY 2008 Budget Authority.........................................-336
FY 2008 Outlays...................................................255
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority...................................2,290
FY 2008-2012 Outlays............................................5,504
Revised Allocation to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee:
FY 2007 Budget Authority.......................................14,284
FY 2007 Outlays................................................14,056
FY 2008 Budget Authority.......................................17,088
FY 2008 Outlays................................................14,629
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority..................................76,881
71,0498-2012 Outlays..............................................
____________________
SCHOOL SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in the 8 months since the horrific incident
at Virginia Tech that resulted in the tragic deaths of 32 students, we
have witnessed a barrage of new incidents involving threatening conduct
and, too often, deadly acts of violence at our schools and college
campuses nationwide.
Just this past Saturday, police arrested a student at Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles on suspicion of posting an
anonymous online threat to kill people on campus. The threat appeared
on a blog used primarily by college students. It said: ``I am going to
shoot and kill as many people as I can until which time I am
incapacitated or killed by police.'' Fortunately, police got to this
troubled student before he could make good on his threat. But I urge
the Senate not to sit back and wait until the next time, when police
may not be able to stop a deadly event before it occurs. We must act
now to protect our schools and college campuses.
Those who perpetrate these terrible crimes know no boundaries. No
targets are off limits. This past Sunday, a man killed two people in
Arvada, CO, after being refused lodging at a Christian missionary
center. Later that day, in Colorado Springs, the same man opened fire
outside the New Life Church, taking the lives of two teenaged sisters
and leaving a third victim in critical condition. These recent
incidents make clear yet again that we must do all we can to ensure
that law enforcement is prepared and equipped to respond to such
incidents.
I urge Congress to take prompt action to help stem this tide of
violence. The full Senate can begin to address this terrible and
recurring problem by taking up and passing the School Safety and Law
Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007, a legislative package that
responds to the Virginia Tech tragedy and the ongoing problem of
violence in our schools and in our communities.
The Judiciary Committee passed this important bill out of committee
over 4 months ago. In passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee
this past September, the committee attempted to show deference to
Governor Kaine and the task forces at work in Virginia and to
complement their work and recommendations. Working with several
Senators, including Senators Boxer, Reed, Specter, Feingold, Schumer,
and Durbin, the committee originated this bill and reported it before
the start of the academic year in the hope that the full Senate could
pass these critical school safety improvements this fall.
Regrettably, the bill has been stalled on the Senate floor. I urge
those holding up its passage to consider that this administration has
spent more than $15 billion to equip, train, and build facilities for
the Iraqi security forces. Surely Congress can stand up for American
kids who face unrelenting school violence by authorizing just a
fraction of this money to reduce deadly violence in our schools and
communities right here at home.
I do not think the Senate should continue to stand by and wait for
the next horrific school tragedy to make the critical changes necessary
to insure safety in our schools and on our college campuses. The risk
of school violence will not go away just because Congress may shift its
focus. Since this bill passed out of committee, we have seen tragedy at
Delaware State, University of Memphis, SuccessTech Academy in
Cleveland, OH, as well as incidents in California, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Oregon, to name just a few. I urge the Senate to move
aggressively with the comprehensive school safety legislation. It
includes background check improvements, together with other sensible
yet effective safety improvement measures supported by law enforcement
across the country. If we are prohibited by objection from doing so by
unanimous consent, then let us move to it and let those with objections
seek to amend those provisions to which they object.
There are too many incidents at too many colleges and schools
nationwide. This terrorizes students and their parents. We should be
doing what we can to help.
Several weeks ago, a troubled student wearing a Fred Flintstone mask
and carrying a rifle through campus was arrested at St. John's
University in Queens, NY, prompting authorities to lock down the campus
for 3 hours. The day after that incident, an armed 17-year-old on the
other side of the country in Oroville, CA, held students hostage at Las
Plumas High School, also resulting in a lock-down. The incidents have
continued with the arrest a few weeks ago of an armed student suspected
of plotting a Columbine-style attack on fellow high school students in
Norristown, PA. More recently, in Happy Valley, OR, police arrested a
10-year-old student who brought a semi-automatic weapon into his
elementary school. The students in these situations were lucky and
escaped without injury.
University of Memphis student Taylor Bradford was not so lucky. He
was killed on campus on September 30 in what university officials
believe was a targeted attack. He was 21 years old. Shalita Middleton
was not so lucky. She died on October 23 from injuries she sustained
during the Delaware State incident. She was 17 years old. Nathaniel Pew
was not so lucky. He was wounded at Delaware State. High school
teachers Michael Grassie and David Kachadourian and students Michael
Peek and Darnell Rodgers--all of whom were wounded by a troubled
student at SuccessTech Academy on October 10--were not so lucky.
[[Page 33626]]
The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act responds
directly to incidents like these by squarely addressing the problem of
violence in our schools in several ways. The bill enlists the States as
partners in the dissemination of critical information by making
significant improvements to the National Instant Background Check
System, known as the NICS system. The bill also authorizes Federal
assistance for programs to improve the safety and security of our
schools and institutions of higher education, provides equitable
benefits to law enforcement serving those institutions including
bulletproof vests, and funds pilot programs to develop cutting-edge
prevention and intervention programs for our schools. The bill also
clarifies and strengthens two existing statutes--the Terrorist Hoax
Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act--which are
designed to improve public safety.
Specifically, title I would improve the safety and security of
students both at the elementary and secondary school level, and on
college and university campuses. The K-12 improvements are drawn from a
bill that Senator Boxer introduced in April, and I want to thank
Senator Boxer for her hard work on this issue. The improvements include
increased funding for much-needed infrastructure changes to improve
security as well as the establishment of hotlines and tip-lines, which
will enable students to report potentially dangerous situations to
school administrators before they occur.
These improvements can save lives. After the four students and
teachers were wounded at SuccessTech Academy, the press reported that
parents had been petitioning to get a metal detector installed and
additional security personnel added, and that the guard who was
previously assigned to the school had been removed 3 years ago. In
fact, the entire city of Cleveland has just 10 metal detectors that are
rotated throughout the city's more that 100 schools. Title I of the
bill would enhance the ability of school district to apply for and
receive grant money to fund the installation of metal detectors and the
training and hiring of security personnel to keep our kids safe. Over
the past 4 years, this administration has spent over $15 billion to
equip, train, and build facilities for the Iraqi security forces.
Surely, Congress can stand up for American kids who face unrelenting
school violence by supporting just a small fraction of this figure for
much-needed school safety improvements.
To address the new realities of campus safety in the wake of Virginia
Tech and more recent college incidents, title I also creates a matching
grant program for campus safety and security to be administered out of
the COPS Office of the Department of Justice. The grant program would
allow institutions of higher education to apply, for the first time,
directly for Federal funds to make school safety and security
improvements. The program is authorized to be appropriated at
$50,000,000 for the next 2 fiscal years. While this amounts to just $3
per student each year, it will enable schools to more effectively
respond to dangerous situations on campus.
Title II of the bill seeks to improve the NICS system. The senseless
loss of life at Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of
information relevant to gun purchases between the States and the
Federal Government. The defects in the current system permitted the
perpetrator of this terrible crime to obtain a firearm even though a
judge had declared him to be a danger to himself and thus ineligible
under Federal law. Seung-Hui Cho was not eligible to buy a weapon given
his mental health history, but he was still able to pass a background
check because data was missing from the system. We are working to close
gaps in the NICS system. Title II will correct these problems, and for
the first time will create a legal regime in which disqualifying mental
health records, both at the State and Federal level, would regularly be
reported into the NICS system.
Title III would make sworn law enforcement officers who work for
private institutions of higher education and rail carriers eligible for
death and disability benefits, and for funds administered under the
Byrne grant program and the bulletproof vest partnership grant program.
Providing this equitable treatment is in the best interest of our
Nation's educators and students and will serve to place the support of
the Federal Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers
who serve and protect private colleges and universities nationwide. I
commend Senator Jack Reed for his leadership in this area.
Title IV of the bill makes improvements to the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act of 2003. These amendments to existing law will
streamline the system by which qualified retired and active officers
can be certified under LEOSA. It serves us all when we permit qualified
officers, with a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no
adverse employment history, to protect themselves, their families, and
their fellow citizens wherever those officers may be.
Title V incorporates the PRECAUTION Act, which Senators Feingold and
Specter asked to have included. This provision authorizes grants to
develop prevention and intervention programs for our schools.
Finally, Title VI incorporates the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of
2007, at the request of Senator Kennedy.
Let us go forward and act now on this important bill. The Virginia
Tech Review Panel--a body commissioned by Governor Tim Kaine to study
the Virginia Tech tragedy--recently issued its findings based on a 4-
month long investigation of the incident and its aftermath. This bill
would adopt a number of recommendations from the review panel aimed at
improving school safety planning and reporting information to NICS. We
must not miss this opportunity to implement these initiatives
nationwide, and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of our
kids.
I recognize that there is no solution to fully end the sad phenomenon
of school violence. But the recent tragedies should prompt us to
respond in realistic and meaningful ways when we are presented with
such challenges. I hope the Senate can promptly move this bill forward
to invest in the safety of our students and better support law
enforcement officers across the country.
____________________
FEDERAL CRACK COCAINE SENTENCING POLICY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nothing is more fundamental to our system
of justice than the tenet inscribed in Vermont marble on the supreme
court building, that all people should receive ``equal justice under
law.'' For more than 20 years, however, our Nation has tolerated a
Federal cocaine sentencing policy that treats crack offenders more
harshly than cocaine offenders. This policy has unacceptably had a
disparate impact on people of color and the poor--without any empirical
justification.
Today, the U.S. Sentencing Commission took yet another important step
in addressing the wide disparity in our Federal cocaine sentencing
laws. By voting to change our Sentencing Guidelines to reduce the
sentences of crack offenders currently incarcerated, the Commission
took a moderate but significant step to reduce unwarranted sentencing
disparities in Federal crack and powder cocaine laws. Their unanimous
vote is consistent with the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act,
including ``the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct'' and brings our Nation one step closer to a drug policy that
is fair and equal for all Americans.
The good news does not stop there. Just yesterday, in the landmark
ruling of Kimbrough v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United
States expanded the power of our Federal trial courts to address the
unfair disparity in our Federal sentencing laws between crack and
powder cocaine. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Court ruled that Federal
judges may, in their discretion, consider this disparity and depart
from a guideline sentence where the punishment is ``greater than
necessary'' to serve Congress's objectives.
[[Page 33627]]
Under current law, an offender apprehended with 5 grams of crack
cocaine faces the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence as an offender
with 500 grams of powder cocaine. That means existing law gives the
same sentence to a drug trafficker dealing crack cocaine as it would to
one dealing 100 times more powder cocaine.
This year, the Sentencing Commission has taken historic actions to
address the unfairness and injustice of this disparity. The Commission
held hearings and, after extensive study of this issue, reiterated its
long-held position that crack cocaine penalties continue to
disproportionately impact minorities and undermine various
congressional objectives set forth in the Sentencing Reform Act. Next,
the Commission attempted to correct this disparity and provide some
relief to some crack cocaine offenders by recommending that all crack
penalties be lowered by two base offense levels. Last month, Congress
allowed this new Commission amendment--the so-called ``Crack Minus 2''
amendment--to be enacted in the Sentencing Guidelines.
Today, the Sentencing Commission has taken yet another positive step.
This amendment is consistent with Congress's intent in creating a
sentencing guideline system. In its report to Congress, the Commission
said that the Crack Minus 2 amendment was needed to address its long-
held finding that ``the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio (for crack
cocaine) significantly undermines the various congressional objectives
set forth in the Sentencing Reform Act.'' I agree. I join the chorus of
our esteemed Federal judges, articulated in the Judicial Commission's
testimony before the Sentencing Commission on this amendment, that
fundamental fairness dictates that this amendment ``equally applies to
offenders who were sentenced in the past as well as offenders [who]
will be sentenced in the future.''
Fundamental fairness dictates that we undo past errors to build
public confidence in the rule of law. Americans must have faith and
confidence that our drug laws are fair and proportional, and a rule
correcting a past injustice should be applied retroactively to restore
that public confidence. The public's faith is even more critical in
crack cocaine cases where 85 percent of the defendants are African
Americans--a fact which only enhances the public perception that harsh
and punitive sentences are imposed disproportionately on persons of
color.
Allowing judges to reconsider the sentences for crack offenders will
not threaten public safety. As the Judicial Conference noted in its
testimony before the Sentencing Commission, ``no offender would be
eligible for release without judicial approval.'' This amendment allows
judges the discretion to give a sentence outside of the Federal
guidelines but does not mandate that such a sentence must be imposed.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have some experience
with the people who serve our Nation in lifetime positions on the
Federal bench. Unlike those who argue that the sky is falling, I have
every confidence in the ability of our Federal judges to use this power
sparingly and to provide a proper check when necessary to prevent the
release of dangerous offenders back into our communities and
neighborhoods.
Most importantly, while I abhor the damage done by drug abuse, I also
abhor that the penalties for those in the inner city are different than
for those in affluent society. For 21 years, far too many African
Americans and low-level drug offenders were subject to unfair and
overly punitive Federal crack cocaine sentencing laws. With the
Commission's amendment to reduce this disparity, we begin the process
of healing wounds which have long shaken the public's confidence in our
Federal drug policy. Applying this fix retroactively is only fair and
just.
The administration's failure to support retroactivity of even the
slightest modification of crack penalties is both a surprise and a deep
disappointment. I recall that 2 days before taking office, President
Bush said that we should address this problem ``by making sure the
powder cocaine and the crack cocaine sentences are the same.'' He also
said, ``I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.'' Yet his
Justice Department has strongly opposed retroactive application of this
crack cocaine reform amendment, even though failure to act would once
again disparately impact African Americans, since an estimated 85
percent of those who would benefit from the policy are African
Americans. The Justice Department's position would also erode public
confidence that our drug laws are free from bias since previous drug
reform amendments more likely to benefit Whites and Hispanics were made
retroactive.
Thankfully, the Sentencing Commission accepted the administration's
view. Their decision today was unanimous. I hope the Attorney General
will take notice and move to support drug laws that treat all Americans
equally.
While fundamental change will require congressional action, I salute
the Sentencing Commission for its leadership on this issue. I urge my
colleagues to support the Commission's decision and support additional
changes to our laws to further reduce the disparity in our Federal
cocaine sentencing laws. It is long past time for us to rectify this
problem.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNIZING HIDALGO EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I recognize the many schools
in my State of Texas that are working to close achievement gaps and
provide their students with an excellent education. Last week, the U.S.
News and World Report issued the very first national rankings for the
Best High Schools in America. Out of more than 20,000 schools that were
evaluated, one school in south Texas, Hidalgo Early College High
School, ranked 11th among the top schools that provide ``a good
education across their entire student body, not just for some
students.''
I will have more to say about the other schools on the list in
separate remarks, but today I would like to focus on the extraordinary
story of Hidalgo High School, home of the Pirates and 850 Hispanic
students in grades 9-12.
Hidalgo, TX, is a small town, population 7322, on the U.S.-Mexico
border about 250 miles south of San Antonio. Although Hidalgo is the
fourth largest U.S. port of entry, unemployment tops 11 percent and
nearly 40 percent of the population is below the poverty level. Over a
quarter of the students at Hidalgo High are limited English proficient.
Yet this school has a 94-percent graduation rate.
A grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2006 has
allowed Hidalgo High and the University of Texas-Pan American to
develop an innovative partnership for college preparation. All students
at Hidalgo High School are enrolled in the Early College High School
Program, where they will earn both a high school diploma and an
associate's degree or up to 2 years of credit toward a bachelor's
degree. Students receive college level credit from the University of
Texas-Pan American. The class of 2010 will be the first class to
participate in this program for a full 4 years.
According to Hidalgo High Principal Edward Blaha:
We continuously strive to seek high expectations for all
students in their academic, civic and social endeavors and to
provide them with opportunities for a successful transition
to higher education and the marketplace. . . . Our high
school program is designed to engage students in active,
collaborative learning that emphasizes the development of
critical thinking skills to be applied to real-world
concepts.
Congratulations to Principal Edward Blaha, the faculty and staff, and
all of the students and their families at Hidalgo High School on
achieving this distinction. The decision to pursue the Early College
High School Program provides students with the educational
opportunities necessary to generate economic and intellectual progress.
I am proud of your vision, hard work and achievement.
[[Page 33628]]
____________________
RETIREMENT OF ELESTINE SMITH NORMAN
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my honor and distinct
pleasure to recognize Elestine Smith Norman for 34 years of public
service to South Carolina's Third Congressional District. Elestine's
dedication to her community is without equal and I was fortunate to
have her as a member of my staff when I served in the House of
Representatives.
Born on December 12, 1949, to the late Wilbert and Elese Morton Smith
of Greenwood, SC, Elestine is the youngest of five children. She
attended Brewer High School in Greenwood and became the first member of
her family to graduate from college, receiving degrees from Piedmont
Technical College and Limestone College.
Elestine has been married to Willie Neal Norman for 37 years. Neal
works for the South Carolina Department of Social Service and is the
pastor of Weston Chapel AME Church in Greenwood where they have
faithfully served for 18 years.
She is a two-time survivor of breast cancer and will be the first to
tell you that her faith in Jesus Christ provided her the strength to
beat this deadly disease.
Elestine's commitment to her community extends well beyond the office
door. She was president of the Greenwood Business and Professional
Women's Club, a board member of the local United Way, and sat on the
Board of Visitors for both Piedmont Technical College and Lander
University. In 2007, she was recognized with the Women's History Month
Government Award from the AME Church for the State of South Carolina.
Elestine began her career with the U.S. House of Representatives in
1973. She has been a constituent service liaison for four consecutive
Members from the Third Congressional District, Democrat and Republican
Representatives Bryan Dorn, Butler Derrick, me, and the current office
holder Gresham Barrett. Her love for people and her desire to serve has
always put her above a party label.
At the end of this year, Elestine Norman will retire after more than
three decades of public service. I thank her for her passion and
dedication to her job. She exemplifies the high level of service to
humanity we should all strive to achieve.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations and withdrawals which were referred to the appropriate
committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
______
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED
The President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd) announced that on today,
December 11, 2007, he had signed the following enrolled bills and joint
resolution, previously signed by the Speaker of the House:
S. 888. An act to amend section 1091 of title 18, United
States Code, to allow the prosecution of genocide in
appropriate circumstances.
S. 2371. An act to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to make technical corrections.
S.J. Res. 8. Joint resolution providing for the
reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen regent
of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
____
At 1:08 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has
signed the following enrolled bills:
H.R. 710. An act to amend the National Organ Transplant Act
to provide that criminal penalties do not apply to human
organ paired donation, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3315. An act to provide that the great hall of the
Capitol Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall.
H.R. 3688. An act to implement the United States-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement.
H.R. 4118. An act to exclude from gross income payments
from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to the victims of the
tragic event at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University.
The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Byrd).
____
At 6:20 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 4341. An act to extend the trade adjustment assistance
program under the Trade Act of 1974 for 3 months.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
S. 2436. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to clarify the term of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
S. 2440. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the
provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.
S. 2441. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the
provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-4202. A communication from the Counsel for Legislation
and Regulations, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Revisions to the Hospital Mortgage
Insurance Program'' (RIN2502-AI22) received on December 6,
2007; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-4203. A communication from the Associate General Counsel
for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Public and Indian
Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Project-Based Voucher Rents for Units Receiving Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits'' (RIN2577-AC62) received on December 6,
2007; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-4204. A communication from the General Counsel, National
Credit Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Identity Theft Red Flags and
Address Discrepancies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003'' (RIN3084-AA94) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-4205. A communication from the General Counsel, National
Credit Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Purchase, Sale, and Pledge of
Eligible Operations'' (RIN3133-AD37) received on December 6,
2007; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-4206. A communication from the Secretary, Division of
Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revisions to Rule 12h-1 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934'' (RIN3235-AJ91) received on December 3, 2007; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4207. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Updated Statements of
Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations''
(RIN0694-AE19) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4208. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airplane Performance and Handling Qualities in Icing
Conditions'' ((RIN2120-AI14)(Docket No. FAA-2005-22840))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4209. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-204)) received on
[[Page 33629]]
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4210. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-
1000T Gliders'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-CE-032))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4211. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; SICMA Aero Seat 50XXX Passenger
Seats'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-09)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4212. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Societe de Motorisations
Aeronautiques SR305-230 and SR305-230-1 Reciprocating
Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-26)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4213. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Artouste III B,
Artouste III B1, and Artouste III D Turboshaft Engines''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NE-54)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4214. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11,
MD-11F, DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F,
DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-061)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4215. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace Skyluxe II
Passenger Seats'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-21))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4216. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 2B1 Turboshaft
Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-02)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4217. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 500
Series Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-
NE-15)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4218. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Aircraft
Engine Group CF6-45A Series, CF6-50A, CF6-50C Series and CF6-
50E Series Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No.
2006-NE-23)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4219. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Model 400,
400A, and 400T Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No.
2007-NM-016)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4220. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300F4-605R and
A300F4-622R Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-
080)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4221. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-089)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4222. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-
80C2A5F Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-
NE-23)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4223. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Models
58P and 58TC Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-CE-
24)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4224. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited
Model R2160 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-
076)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4225. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB 2000 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-248)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4226. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation
Model 390 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-CE-
043)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4227. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes and
Model A310 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-
259)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4228. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-111 and A318-
112 Airplanes and Model A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-169)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4229. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part Marking, and
Miscellaneous Proposals'' ((RIN2120-AI78)(Docket No. FAA-
2006-25877)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4230. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Flightdeck Door Monitoring and Crew Discreet Alerting
Systems'' ((RIN2120-AI16)(Docket No. FAA-2005-22449))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4231. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Inspection Authorization 2-year Renewal'' ((RIN2120-AI83)
(Docket No. FAA-2007-27108)) received on December 5, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4232. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Model DHC-7
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-004))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4233. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, and 747SP Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. 2007-NM-025)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4234. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-008))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4235. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
[[Page 33630]]
Model A300-600R Series Airplanes; and Model A310-300 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-067))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4236. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-215)) received on December 5, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4237. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Limited Model
PC-6 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-CE-
074)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4238. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR,
and 747SP Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
2007-NM-198)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4239. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-10-10F
and MD-10-30F Airplanes, Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes,
and Model 717-200 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
2006-NM-156)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4240. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2006-NM-233)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4241. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2006-NM-292))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4242. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A321 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-019))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4243. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model
750XL Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-CE-055))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4244. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -200B, -
200C, and -200F Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. 2007-NM-034)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4245. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lady Lake, FL''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 07-ASO-15)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4246. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Live Oak, FL''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 07-ASO-8)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4247. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Winfield, FL''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 07-ASO-13)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4248. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, FL''
((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 07-ASO-14)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4249. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Forest Hill, MD''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 06-AEA-13)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4250. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Removal of Class D and E Airspace; Utica, NY; Amendment of
Class D and E Airspace; Rome, NY; Establishment of Class E
Airspace; Rome, NY'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 07-AEA-3))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4251. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Kotzebue, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66) (Docket No. 07-AAL-07)) received on December 5, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4252. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Fort Yukou, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66) (Docket No. 07-AAL-06)) received on December 5, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4253. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Removal of Class E Airspace; Columbus, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)
(Docket No. 07-ASO-18)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4254. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Everett, WA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66) (Docket No. 07-ANM-2)) received on December 5, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4255. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Hoquiam, WA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)
(Docket No. 06-ANM-9)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4256. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Centreville, AL;
Correction'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 07-AAL-7)) received
on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4257. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference''
((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 29334)) received on December 5,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4258. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Hailey, ID'' ((RIN2120-AA66)
(Docket No. 07-ANM-8)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4259. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10,
-20, -30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-81, -82,
-83, and -87 Airplanes; and Model MD-88 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2003-NM-198)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4260. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2003-NM-194))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4261. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-077))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
[[Page 33631]]
EC-4262. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
2007-NM-018)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4263. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-068)) received
on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4264. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-200)) received on December
5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4265. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation,
Ltd. Model 750XL Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-
CE-039)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4266. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-010)) received
on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4267. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-80E1
Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-32))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4268. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet
Model Falcon 10 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-
NM-192)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4269. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320,
and A321 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-170))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4270. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Model P-180 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No . 2007-C-
041)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4271. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7R4
Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NE-38))
received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce ,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4272. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 and A340
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-178)) received
on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4273. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-1A,
-3A, -3A1, -3A2, -3B, and -3B1 Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2000-NE-42)) received on December 5 , 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4274. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Enstrom Helicopter Corporation
Model F-28A, F-28C, F-28F, TH-28, 280, 280C, 280F, 280FX,
480, and 480B Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-
SW-07)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce , Science, and Transportation.
EC-4275. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney Canada PW535A
Turbofan Engines; Correction'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No.
2006-NE-35)) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4276. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket
No. 2006-NM-159)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4277. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(Amdt. No. 3240)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4278. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(Amdt. No. 3239)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4279. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(Amdt. No. 3237)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4280. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(Amdt. No. 3238)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4281. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(Amdt. No. 3236)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4282. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments'' ((RIN2120-
AA63)(Amdt. No. 470)) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4283. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hulett, WY'' ((RIN2120-
AA66) (Docket No. 07-ANM-9)) received on December 5, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4284. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Jet Routes J-29 and J-101; South Central United
States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 07-ASW-1)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4285. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of the Phoenix Class B Airspace Area;
Arizona'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 05-AWA-2)) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4286. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Temporary Rule; Closure of Quota Period 2 Fishery for Spiny
Dogfish'' (RIN0648-XD92) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4287. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Temporary Rule; Closure of a New York 2007 Summer Flounder
Commercial Fishery'' (RIN0648-XD45) received on December 6,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
[[Page 33632]]
EC-4288. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Temporary Rule; Inseason Bluefish Quota Transfer from VA to
NY'' (RIN0648-XD65) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4289. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon Fisheries; Inseason
Orders'' (RIN0648-XD05) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4290. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Extension of Emergency Action to Lower the Haddock Minimum
Size Limit to 18 Inches to Reduce Regulatory Discarding''
(RIN0648-AV75) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4291. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Safety Zone (including 5 regulations beginning
with CGD09-07-119)'' (RIN1625-AA00) received on December 6,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4292. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Security Zone; Hawaii Superferry Arrival/
Departure, Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, Hawaii'' (RIN1625-AA87)
received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4293. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Safety Zone: Marine City Maritime Festival
Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(CGD09-07-016)) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4294. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Cumberland River,
Clarksville, TN'' ((RIN1625-AA11)(CGD08-07-010)) received on
December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4295. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Security Zone (including 2 regulations beginning
with CGD14-07-001)'' (RIN1625-AA87) received on December 6,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4296. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; John
H. Kerr Reservoir, Clarksville, VA'' ((RIN1625-AA08)(CGD05-
07-045)) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4297. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Safety Zone (including 2 regulations beginning
with COTP Western Alaska-07-003)'' (RIN1625-AA00) received on
December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4298. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Back
River, Poquoson, VA'' ((RIN1625-AA08)(CGD05-07-060)) received
on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4299. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Safety Zone'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(CGD05-07-088))
received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4300. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Safety Zone; Morgan City-Port Allen Alternate
Route, Mile Marker 0.5 to Mile Marker 1.0, Bank to Bank''
(RIN1625-AA00) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4301. A communication from the Chief of Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Shipping; Technical, Organizational, and
Conforming Amendments'' ((RIN1625-ZA14)(Docket No. USCG-2007-
29018)) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4302. A communication from the Attorney, Office of
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Furnaces and Boilers'' (RIN1904-AA78) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
EC-4303. A communication from the Secretary of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report on
University Collaboration''; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-4304. A communication from the Secretary of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to
operations at the Naval Petroleum Reserves for fiscal year
2006; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-4305. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Acetamiprid;
Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL No. 8340-6) received on December
6, 2007; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4306. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Bacillus
Thuringiensis Vip3Aa20 Protein and the Genetic Material
Necessary for Its Production in Corn; Extension of Temporary
Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No.
8340-5) received on December 6, 2007; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-4307. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Textiles and Apparel, Import Administration,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Imports of Certain Cotton
Shirting Fabric: Implementation of Tariff Rate Quota
Established Under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006'' (RIN0625-AA74) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-4308. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Employer-Owned Life Insurance'' ((RIN1545-
BG58)(TD 9364)) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-4309. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``2008 Annual Covered Compensation Tables''
(Rev. Rul. 2007-71) received on December 6, 2007; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-4310. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Annual Cumulative List of Changes in Plan
Qualification Requirements'' (Notice 2007-94) received on
December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-4311. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Model Amendments for Certain Section 403(b)
Plans'' (Rev. Proc. 2007-71) received on December 5, 2007; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-4312. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Announcement--Disqualified Corporate
Interest Expense Disallowed Under Section 163(j)''
(Announcement 2007-114) received on December 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-4313. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Notice: Tier 2 Rates for 2008'' (26 U.S.C.
3241) received on December 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-4314. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Definition of Insurance Under Section
402(1) of the Code--Modification of Notice 2007-7'' (Notice
2007-99) received on December 4, 2007; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-4315. A communication from the Program Manager, Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Medicare Program; Revisions to the Medicare
Advantage and Part D Prescription Drug Contract
Determinations, Appeals, and Intermediate Sanctions
Processes'' (RIN0938-AO78) received on December 4, 2007; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-4316. A communication from the Program Manager, Centers
for Medicare and
[[Page 33633]]
Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Medicaid Program; Optional State Plan Case Management
Services'' (RIN0938-AO50) received on December 4, 2007; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-4317. A communication from the Program Manager, Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Medicaid Integrity Program; Limitation on
Contractor Liability'' (RIN0938-AO88) received on December 4,
2007; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-4318. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a
proposed agreement for the export of defense articles to
Taiwan, Singapore, Canada, and the United Kingdom relative to
the installation of two multi-source remote sensing satellite
ground stations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4319. A communication from the Deputy Director, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Benefits Payable in
Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in
Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and
Paying Benefits'' (29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044) received on
December 6, 2007; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-4320. A communication from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual
report relative to the implementation of the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 for fiscal year 2006; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-4321. A communication from the Program Manager, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Procedure for Designating Classes of
Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of
2002; Amendments'' (RIN0920-AA13) received on December 4,
2007; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-4322. A communication from the Chair, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Commission's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal
year 2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4323. A communication from the Chairman, Merit Systems
Protection Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's
Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2007;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-4324. A communication from the Executive Director,
Marine Mammal Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Commission's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal
year 2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4325. A communication from the Chairman, National
Endowment for the Humanities, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the organization's Performance and Accountability Report for
fiscal year 2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4326. A communication from the Federal Co-Chair,
Appalachian Regional Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Semiannual Report of the Commission's Inspector
General for the period of April 1, 2007, through September
30, 2007; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4327. A communication from the Director, National
Science Foundation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Foundation's Annual Financial Report for fiscal year 2007; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4328. A communication from the Director of Regulations
Management, Veterans Health Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Reasonable Charges for Medical Care or
Services'' (RIN2900-AM35) received on December 4, 2007; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-4329. A communication from the Director of Regulations
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Extension of the Presumptive Period for
Compensation for Gulf War Veterans'' (RIN2900-AM47) received
on December 3, 2007; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
S. 2445. An original bill to provide for the flexibility of
certain disaster relief funds, and for improved evacuation
and sheltering during disasters and catastrophes (Rept. No.
110-240).
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an
amendment:
S. 2135. A bill to prohibit the recruitment or use of child
soldiers, to designate persons who recruit or use child
soldiers as inadmissible aliens, to allow the deportation of
persons who recruit or use child soldiers, and for other
purposes.
____________________
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. KYL:
S. 2442. A bill to provide the Secretary of Agriculture
with alternatives to comply with the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 2443. A bill to provide for the release of any
revisionary interest of the United States in and to certain
lands in Reno, Nevada; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2444. A bill to direct the Secretary of Education to
provide grants to establish and evaluate sustainability
programs, charged with developing and implementing integrated
environmental, economic, and social sustainability
initiatives, and to direct the Secretary of Education to
convene a summit of higher education experts in the area of
sustainability; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S. 2445. An original bill to provide for the flexibility of
certain disaster relief funds, and for improved evacuation
and sheltering during disasters and catastrophes; from the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs;
placed on the calendar.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 2446. A bill to provide that the Secretary of Homeland
Security may waive certain retirement provisions for
reemployed annuitants in the Department of Homeland Security,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2447. A bill to make a technical correction to section
119 of title 17, United States Code; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tester, and
Mr. Barrasso):
S. 2448. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to make certain technical
corrections; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2449. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United
States Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases,
disclosures of discovery information in civil actions, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 2450. A bill to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to
address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the
work product doctrine; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2451. A bill to enhance public safety by improving the
reintegration of youth offenders into the families and
communities to which they are returning; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mrs. DOLE:
S.J. Res. 27. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relative to the line
item veto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Baucus, and Mr. Tester):
S. Res. 400. A resolution to designate Friday, November 23,
2007, as ``Native American Heritage Day'' in honor of the
achievements and contributions of Native Americans to the
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Harkin):
S. Res. 401. A resolution to provide Internet access to
certain Congressional Research Service publications; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
[[Page 33634]]
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 469
At the request of Mr. Barrasso, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 469, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified conservation
contributions.
S. 871
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 871, a bill to establish
and provide for the treatment of Individual Development Accounts, and
for other purposes.
S. 898
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 898, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to fund breakthroughs in Alzheimer's disease
research while providing more help to caregivers and increasing public
education about prevention.
S. 961
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the names of the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson)
were added as cosponsors of S. 961, a bill to amend title 46, United
States Code, to provide benefits to certain individuals who served in
the United States merchant marine (including the Army Transport Service
and the Naval Transport Service) during World War II, and for other
purposes.
S. 1107
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1107, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce cost-sharing under
part D of such title for certain non-institutionalized full-benefit
dual eligible individuals.
S. 1164
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) 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. 1394
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the names of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) were added as
cosponsors 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. 1910
At the request of Mr. Cardin, his name was withdrawn as a cosponsor
of S. 1910, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide that amounts derived from Federal grants and State matching
funds in connection with revolving funds established in accordance with
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act
will not be treated as proceeds or replacement proceeds for purposes of
section 148 of such Code.
At the request of Mr. Wyden, his name was withdrawn as a cosponsor of
S. 1910, supra.
S. 1951
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1951, a bill to amend
title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure that individuals
eligible for medical assistance under the Medicaid program continue to
have access to prescription drugs, and for other purposes.
S. 2020
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2020, a bill to reauthorize
the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal year 2010,
to rename the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 as the
``Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act of 2007'', and for other
purposes.
S. 2042
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2042, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct activities to rapidly
advance treatments for spinal muscular atrophy, neuromuscular disease,
and other pediatric diseases, and for other purposes.
S. 2051
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2051, a bill to amend the
small rural school achievement program and the rural and low-income
school program under part B of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
S. 2123
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) 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. 2140
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2140, a bill to award a Congressional
Gold Medal to Francis Collins, in recognition of his outstanding
contributions and leadership in the fields of medicine and genetics.
S. 2166
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2166, a bill to provide for
greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts
owed to the United States and the international financial institutions
by low-income countries, and for other purposes.
S. 2181
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2181, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to protect Medicare beneficiaries'
access to home health services under the Medicare program.
S. 2213
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2213, a bill to amend title
18, United States Code, to improve prevention, investigation, and
prosecution of cyber-crime, and for other purposes.
S. 2257
At the request of Ms. Snowe, her 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. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2257, supra.
S. 2347
At the request of Mr. Obama, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the Senator
from Maine (Ms. Snowe) were added as cosponsors of S. 2347, a bill to
restore and protect access to discount drug prices for university-based
and safety-net clinics.
S. 2385
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2385, a bill to provide Federal
Perkins Loan cancellation to fire fighters.
S. 2400
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the names of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2400, a bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the
Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a
combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to
before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled
to if the member was not retired or separated, and for other purposes.
S. 2425
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mr.
[[Page 33635]]
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2425, a bill to require the
Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Commerce to submit
reports to Congress on the commercial and passenger vehicle traffic at
certain points of entry, and for other purposes.
S. 2431
At the request of Mr. Brown, the names of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) were added as cosponsors of S. 2431,
a bill to address emergency shortages in food banks.
S.J. RES. 22
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) were added
as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States
Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services within the Department of Health and Human Services relating to
Medicare coverage for the use of erythropoiesis stimulating agents in
cancer and related neoplastic conditions.
S. CON. RES. 53
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 53, a concurrent
resolution condemning the kidnapping and hostage-taking of 3 United
States citizens for over 4 years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC), and demanding their immediate and unconditional
release.
S. RES. 178
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 178, a resolution
expressing the sympathy of the Senate to the families of women and
girls murdered in Guatemala, and encouraging the United States to work
with Guatemala to bring an end to these crimes.
S. RES. 398
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 398, a resolution
honoring the life and recognizing the accomplishments of Joe Nuxhall,
broadcaster for the Cincinnati Reds.
S. RES. 399
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 399, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that certain benchmarks must be met
before certain restrictions against the Government of North Korea are
lifted, and that the United States Government should not provide any
financial assistance to North Korea until the Secretary of State makes
certain certifications regarding the submission of applications for
refugee status.
AMENDMENT NO. 3616
At the request of Mr. Salazar, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3616 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. 3639
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) and the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 3639 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. 3695
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson),
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. McCain) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3695 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. 3814
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3814 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. 3822
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the names of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the Senator
from Maine (Ms. Snowe) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3822
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. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tester, and Mr.
Barrasso):
S. 2448. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 to make certain technical corrections; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is of
great importance to my State. Last year a bipartisan coalition of
Senators came together to pass the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act Amendments of 2007. Since that time, some lawyers and
bureaucrats in Washington have taken it upon themselves to misinterpret
the law. We need to fix this. The legislation I am introducing will yet
again reiterate congressional intent as to how the program should be
run. The bill that passed as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act
2006, which was a part originally of the pension reform bill, fixed the
abandoned mine land trust fund so it would run as Congress originally
intended, which was some 30 years earlier. For the first time in years,
States were scheduled to receive funding they were promised that would
be used to clean up abandoned coal mines where that was needed.
For States that had been certified by the Office of Surface Mining as
having completed their coal cleanup work, funding was expected to go to
these States to do whatever the State legislators chose to be a
priority for that State.
The language is simple and straightforward. It reads:
Payments shall be made in 7 equal annual installments,
beginning in fiscal year 2008.
As we passed the legislation, everyone involved knew what that meant.
For years, our State's money has been held hostage to pay for other
programs. With the passage of the abandoned mine land bill, the money
would flow with no strings attached and no diversions to other
programs. Congressional intent was very clear. Unfortunately, last week
I was told by lawyers and bureaucrats at the Department of Interior
that they have decided to ignore the congressional intent and have
chosen to send the money to States such as Wyoming in the form of
grants. It seems they don't have enough Federal employees because their
plan will create an onerous program that will undoubtedly require more
hires.
As one of the lead Senators in passing the original legislation, I
know what Congress meant when we wrote:
Payments shall be made in 7 equal and annual installments,
beginning in fiscal year 2008.
To ensure that no confusion existed, I met with the Office of Surface
Mining and with the Office of Management and Budget on numerous
occasions to discuss that particular issue. Congress intended for
payments to be made. Congress did not expect the agency to create a new
grant program. When I realized this egregious misinterpretation of the
law was a possibility, I took immediate action. I asked those same
lawyers and bureaucrats who did not read the law to provide me with the
legislative language that makes it explicitly
[[Page 33636]]
clear that they should interpret the law the way Congress intended.
That is the bill I am introducing today with my colleague from
Montana and the other Senator from Wyoming. Only in the absurd world
that is Washington could an agency believe the word ``payment'' means
grant. I look forward to working with my colleagues to swiftly move
this forward so the executive branch can finally follow what Congress
intended.
I have to tell my colleagues it was quite a shock to find out a whole
program was going to be set up so Wyoming could ask for its money
piecemeal. We have been begging for 30 years to get this money. The
money has been paid in by the coal companies to cover reclamation and
then anything that had to do with coal impact. We did the reclamation.
We are now handling the coal impact. But the money has been held
hostage; $550 million worth of money has been held over that period.
Last year Congress said: Wyoming and Montana--Montana has $58
million--deserve their money. So do several other States. We will give
it to them.
Now there was a little question about what that did with debt, but we
were able to show them that paying off debt with debt wound up with the
same amount of debt but wasn't stealing from the States. So we were
able to get that confirmed by this body and put into law. It said we
would be paid in seven equal annual payments, beginning in the year
2008. Now we find out it could be millions of payments over a number of
years under a grant program. They do realize they can't deny any grant
request the State has, but each and every transaction would have to go
through somebody. We are not about to hire that many people to do what
is explicit in the language.
I will ask the rest of my colleagues to help us on this amendment. We
will find a place to put it, and we will get it done this year so the
intent of the law we passed last year will get done.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2449. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code,
relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of
discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in
Litigation Act of 2007, a bill to curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy
orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes
in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important
health and safety information from the public.
This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in
product liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of
action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted
from a defect in one of its products. The injured party often faces a
large corporation that can spend an unlimited amount of money defending
the lawsuit and prolong its resolution. Facing a formidable opponent
and mounting medical bills, plaintiffs often have no choice but to
settle the litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking,
the victim is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her
from revealing information disclosed during the litigation.
Plaintiffs get a respectable award, and the defendant is able to keep
damaging information from getting out. Because they remain unaware of
critical public health and safety information that could potentially
save lives, the American public incurs the greatest cost.
This concern for excessive secrecy is warranted by the fact that
tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers, and pharmaceutical
companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide
information which, if it became public, could protect the American
people. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like
protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company
information. This legislation makes sure such information is protected.
But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used for the
sole purpose of hiding damaging information from the public to protect
a company's reputation or profit margin.
One of the most famous cases of abuse involved Bridgestone/Firestone
tires. From 1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and
Firestone tires were causing accidents across the country, many
resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up
to their mistakes and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly
settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements.
It wasn't until 1999, when a Houston public television station broke
the story, that the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled
6.5 million tires. By then, it was too late. More than 250 people had
died, and more than 800 were injured as a result of the defective
tires.
If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were
just an aberration, one might argue that there is no urgent need for
legislation. But, unfortunately, the list goes on. There is the case of
General Motors. Although an internal memo demonstrated that GM was
aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with
``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in
fires involving these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed
documents only under protective orders and settled these cases on the
condition that the information in these documents remained secret. This
type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued.
Evidence suggests that the dangers posed by protective orders and
secret settlements continue. On December 11, 2007, at a hearing before
the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition
Policy and Consumer Rights, Johnny Bradley, Jr. described his tragic
personal story about the implications of court-endorsed secrecy. In
2002, Mr. Bradley's wife was killed in a rollover accident allegedly
caused by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating the
case, his attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design
defects. Through aggressive litigation of protective orders and
confidential settlements in cases prior to the Bradleys' accident,
Cooper had managed to keep the documents confidential. Prior to the end
of Mr. Bradley's trial, Cooper Tires settled with him on the condition
that almost all litigation documents would be kept confidential under a
broad protective order. With no access to documented evidence of design
defects, consumers will continue to remain in the dark.
In 2005, the drug company Eli Lilly settled 8,000 cases related to
harmful side effects of its drug Zyprexa. All of those settlements
required plaintiffs to agree, ``not to communicate, publish or cause to
be published. . .any statement. . .concerning the specific events,
facts or circumstances giving rise to [their] claims.'' In that case,
the plaintiffs uncovered documents that showed that, through its own
research, Lilly knew about the side effects as early as 1999. While the
plaintiffs kept quiet, Lilly continued to sell Zyprexa and generated
$4.2 billion in sales that year. More than a year later, information
about the case was leaked to the New York Times and another 18,000
cases settled. Had the first settlement not included a secrecy
agreement, consumers would have been able to make informed choices and
avoid the harmful side effects, including enormous weight gain,
dangerously elevated blood sugar levels and diabetes.
There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders
accepted by State or Federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence
suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent.
Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone, Cooper Tires, and
Zyprexa, secrecy agreements had real life consequences by allowing
Dalkon Shield, Bjork-Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous
products and drugs to remain on the market. And those are only the ones
we know about.
While some States have already begun to move in the right direction,
we still have a long way to go. It is
[[Page 33637]]
time to initiate a Federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in
Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges
to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that the defendant's
interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information
related to public health and safety.
Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or
sealed, a judge would have to determine--by making a particularized
finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of
information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts,
both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective
orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies.
This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the
board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It
simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs
legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important
health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some
sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
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
placed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2449
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 ``Sunshine in Litigation Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND SEALING OF
CASES AND SETTLEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1660. Restrictions on protective orders and sealing of
cases and settlements
``(a)(1) A court shall not enter an order under rule 26(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restricting the
disclosure of information obtained through discovery, an
order approving a settlement agreement that would restrict
the disclosure of such information, or an order restricting
access to court records in a civil case unless the court has
made findings of fact that--
``(A) such order would not restrict the disclosure of
information which is relevant to the protection of public
health or safety; or
``(B)(i) the public interest in the disclosure of potential
health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and
substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of
the information or records in question; and
``(ii) the requested protective order is no broader than
necessary to protect the privacy interest asserted.
``(2) No order entered in accordance with paragraph (1),
other than an order approving a settlement agreement, shall
continue in effect after the entry of final judgment, unless
at the time of, or after, such entry the court makes a
separate finding of fact that the requirements of paragraph
(1) have been met.
``(3) The party who is the proponent for the entry of an
order, as provided under this section, shall have the burden
of proof in obtaining such an order.
``(4) This section shall apply even if an order under
paragraph (1) is requested--
``(A) by motion pursuant to rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure; or
``(B) by application pursuant to the stipulation of the
parties.
``(5)(A) The provisions of this section shall not
constitute grounds for the withholding of information in
discovery that is otherwise discoverable under rule 26 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
``(B) No party shall request, as a condition for the
production of discovery, that another party stipulate to an
order that would violate this section.
``(b)(1) A court shall not approve or enforce any provision
of an agreement between or among parties to a civil action,
or approve or enforce an order subject to subsection (a)(1),
that prohibits or otherwise restricts a party from disclosing
any information relevant to such civil action to any Federal
or State agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an
activity relating to such information.
``(2) Any such information disclosed to a Federal or State
agency shall be confidential to the extent provided by law.
``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a court shall not
enforce any provision of a settlement agreement between or
among parties that prohibits 1 or more parties from--
``(A) disclosing that a settlement was reached or the terms
of such settlement, other than the amount of money paid; or
``(B) discussing a case, or evidence produced in the case,
that involves matters related to public health or safety.
``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply if the court has made
findings of fact that the public interest in the disclosure
of potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a
specific and substantial interest in maintaining the
confidentiality of the information.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 1659 the
following:
``1660. Restrictions on protective orders and sealing of cases and
settlements''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall--
(1) take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(2) apply only to orders entered in civil actions or
agreements entered into on or after such date.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 2450. A bill to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the
waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to create
Federal Rule of Evidence 502. I am pleased that Senator Specter has
joined me in this effort. After much study, several hearings, and
significant public comment, the Judicial Conference's Standing
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Advisory
Committee on Evidence Rules, arrived at a proposed new rule that is
intended to provide predictability and uniformity in a discovery
process that has been made increasingly difficult with the growing use
of email and other electronic media. I commend all of the judges,
professors and practitioners who were involved in the rule's drafting
and subsequent improvement for their hard work and attention to this
issue. The legislation we are introducing today contains the text that
the Judicial Conference recommends.
Billions of dollars are spent each year in litigation to protect
against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials. With the
routine use of email and other electronic media in today's business
environment, discovery can encompass millions of documents in a given
case, vastly expanding the risks of inadvertent disclosure. The rule
proposed by the Standing Committee is aimed at adapting to the new
realities that accompany today's modes of communication, and reducing
the burdens associated with the conduct of diligent electronic
discovery.
Our proposed legislation would set clear guidelines regarding the
consequences of inadvertent disclosure of privileged material, and
provides that so long as reasonable steps are taken in the prevention
of such a disclosure, or to assure the prompt retrieval of disclosed
information, no waiver will result. Moreover, an inadvertent disclosure
of privileged information would not result in a broader subject matter
waiver beyond the specific materials disclosed.
If a disclosure of privileged material is made voluntarily, only the
privilege associated with the voluntarily disclosed material is waived,
and not other undisclosed related materials. But if voluntary
disclosure of privileged material is done selectively in an effort to
mislead or gain unfair advantage, then where fairness dictates, this
will result in a subject matter waiver.
This legislation would also provide that confidentiality agreements
entered into by parties to litigation, and approved by the court, will
bind all non-parties in other State or Federal litigation. This
provision will add meaningful protection to parties entering
confidentiality agreements and, along with other components of the
proposed rule, will aid in reducing the burdens of excessive pre-
production document review.
Unlike other Federal court rules, any proposed rule that modifies an
evidentiary privilege must be approved by Congress pursuant to the
Rules Enabling Act. The modification of a privilege is an undertaking
not to be approached lightly, and the process that resulted in proposed
Rule 502 was thorough and thoughtful. It has resulted in
[[Page 33638]]
widespread approval of the proposed rule from the bench and bar at both
the State and Federal level.
I urge all Senators to join Senator Specter and me to pass this
proposal and take a positive step toward modernizing and improving the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
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. 2450
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT;
LIMITATIONS ON WAIVER.
(a) In General.--Article V of the Federal Rules of Evidence
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product;
Limitations on Waiver
``The following provisions apply, in the circumstances set
out, to disclosure of a communication or information covered
by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.
``(a) Disclosure Made in a Federal Proceeding or to a
Federal Office or Agency; Scope of a Waiver.--When the
disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal
office or agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or
work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed
communication or information in a federal or state proceeding
only if:
``(1) the waiver is intentional;
``(2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or
information concern the same subject matter; and
``(3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.
``(b) Inadvertent Disclosure.--When made in a federal
proceeding or to a federal office or agency, the disclosure
does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding
if:
``(1) the disclosure is inadvertent;
``(2) the holder of the privilege or protection took
reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and
``(3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify
the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).
``(c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding.--When the
disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the
subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the
disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal
proceeding if the disclosure:
``(1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been
made in a federal proceeding; or
``(2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the
disclosure occurred.
``(d) Controlling Effect of a Court Order.--A federal court
may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by
disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the
court--in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in
any other federal or state proceeding.
``(e) Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement.--An
agreement on the effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding
is binding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is
incorporated into a court order.
``(f) Controlling Effect of This Rule.--Notwithstanding
Rules 101 and 1101, this rule applies to state proceedings
and to federal court-annexed and federal court-mandated
arbitration proceedings, in the circumstances set out in the
rule. And notwithstanding Rule 501, this rule applies even if
state law provides the rule of decision.
``(g) Definitions.--In this rule:
``(1) `attorney-client privilege' means the protection that
applicable law provides for confidential attorney-client
communications; and
``(2) `work-product protection' means the protection that
applicable law provides for tangible material (or its
intangible equivalent) prepared in anticipation of litigation
or for trial.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The table of
contents for the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended by
inserting after the item relating to rule 501 the following:
``502. Attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine; limitations
on waiver.''.
(c) Effective date.--The amendments made by this Act shall
apply in all proceedings commenced after the date of
enactment of this Act and, insofar as is just and
practicable, in all proceedings pending on such date of
enactment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce
legislation, together with Senator Leahy, to enact Federal Rule of
Evidence 502.
Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which was drafted and proposed to
Congress by the Judicial Conference of the United States, is a rule to
provide heightened protection against inadvertent loss of the attorney-
client privilege during the discovery process. At a time when
litigation costs are skyrocketing and discovery alone can last for
years, this rule is urgently needed. And unlike other Federal rules of
procedure, which go into effect unless Congress acts, rules governing
evidentiary privilege must be enacted by Congress.
Current law on attorney-client privilege and work product is
responsible in large part for the rising costs of discovery--especially
electronic discovery. Right now, it is far too easy to inadvertently
lose--or ``waive''--the privilege. A single inadvertently disclosed
document can result in waiving the privilege not only as to what was
produced, but as to all documents on the same subject matter. In some
courts, a waiver may be found even if the producing party took
reasonable steps to avoid disclosure. Such waivers will not just affect
the case in which the accidental disclosure is made, but will also
impact other cases filed subsequently in State or Federal courts.
Thus, lawyers must spend significant amounts of time ensuring that
documents containing privileged communications and work product are not
inadvertently produced. In this day and age when there can be literally
millions of electronic files to comb through looking for privileged
material, the risk of one slipping through the cracks is very high. The
fear of waiver leads to undue expense and to extravagant claims of
privilege.
The proposed rule will alleviate these burdens in two primary ways:
First, it protects against undue forfeiture of attorney-client
privilege and work product protections when privileged communications
are inadvertently produced in discovery--where the party producing the
documents took reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure and does not
try to use the disclosed information in a misleading way. Second, it
permits parties and courts to protect against the consequences of
waiver by permitting limited disclosure of privileged information
between the parties to litigation. This allows parties and courts to
manage the effects of disclosure and provide predictability in current
and future litigation.
The proposed rule enjoys wide support from parties on both sides of
the ``v.'' Both plaintiffs and defendants want this rule because it
makes the litigation more efficient and less costly; it ensures that
the wheels of justice will not become bogged down in the mud of
discovery.
The Judicial Conference, which is the body responsible for proposing
new procedural rules, has undertaken an extensive process in crafting
this rule over the last year and a half. The rule was approved by the
Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, the
Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Judicial
Conference itself, after a public comment period that included several
hearings with supportive comments and testimony from bench and bar.
There were more than 70 public comments, and more than 20 witnesses
testified.
The time is ripe to move forward and enact this proposed rule into
law. Therefore, I have worked with Senator Leahy to bring this bill to
the floor in a timely and bipartisan fashion. This rule is necessary to
protect the attorney-client privilege, to bring clarity to the law, and
to ensure fairness for all parties. And every day we wait wastes the
time and resources of litigants and the courts. I urge my colleagues to
join with Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bill.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 400--TO DESIGNATE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2007, AS
``NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE DAY'' IN HONOR OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS OF NATIVE AMERICANS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bingaman,
Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer,
[[Page 33639]]
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Tester) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
S. Res. 400
Whereas Native Americans are the descendants of the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people who were the original
inhabitants of and who governed the lands that now constitute
the United States;
Whereas Native Americans have volunteered to serve in the
United States Armed Forces and have served with valor in all
of the Nation's military actions from the Revolutionary War
through the present day, and in most of those actions, more
Native Americans per capita served in the Armed Forces than
any other group of Americans;
Whereas Native American tribal governments developed the
fundamental principles of freedom of speech and separation of
governmental powers that were a model for those that form the
foundation of the United States Constitution;
Whereas the Founding Fathers based the provisions of the
Constitution on the unique system of democracy of the Six
Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, which divided powers
among the branches of government and provided for a system of
checks and balances;
Whereas Native Americans have made distinct and significant
contributions to the United States and the rest of the world
in many fields, including agriculture, medicine, music,
language, and art, and Native Americans have distinguished
themselves as inventors, entrepreneurs, spiritual leaders,
and scholars;
Whereas Native Americans should be recognized for their
contributions to the United States as local and national
leaders, artists, athletes, and scholars;
Whereas nationwide recognition of the contributions that
Native Americans have made to the fabric of American society
will afford an opportunity for all Americans to demonstrate
their respect and admiration of Native Americans for their
important contributions to the political, cultural, and
economic life of the United States;
Whereas nationwide recognition of the contributions that
Native Americans have made to the Nation will encourage self-
esteem, pride, and self-awareness in Native Americans of all
ages;
Whereas designation of the Friday following Thanksgiving as
Native American Heritage Day will underscore the government-
to-government relationship between the United States and
Native American governments; and
Whereas designation of Native American Heritage Day will
encourage public elementary and secondary schools in the
United States to enhance understanding of Native Americans by
providing curricula and classroom instruction focusing on the
achievements and contributions of Native Americans to the
Nation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Senate--
(1) designates Friday, November 23, 2007, as ``Native
American Heritage Day''; and
(2) encourages the people of the United States, as well as
Federal, State, and local governments and interested groups
and organizations to observe Native American Heritage Day
with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities,
including activities related to--
(A) the historical and constitutional status of Native
American tribal governments as well as the present day status
of Native Americans;
(B) the cultures, traditions, and languages of Native
Americans; and
(C) the rich Native American cultural legacy that all
Americans enjoy today.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 401--TO PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS TO CERTAIN
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE PUBLICATIONS
Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Cornyn and Mr. Harkin) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:
S. Res. 401
Resolved,
SECTION 1. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.
The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate shall make information
available to the public in accordance with the provisions of
this resolution.
SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE INFORMATION.
(a) Availability of Information.--
(1) In general.--The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, in
consultation with the Director of the Congressional Research
Service, shall make available through a centralized
electronic system, for purposes of access and retrieval by
the public under section 3 of this resolution, all
information described in paragraph (2) that is available
through the Congressional Research Service website.
(2) Information to be made available.--The information to
be made available under paragraph (1) is the following:
(A) Congressional Research Service Issue Briefs.
(B) Congressional Research Service Reports that are
available to Members of Congress through the Congressional
Research Service website.
(C) Congressional Research Service Authorization of
Appropriations Products and Appropriations Products.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Confidential information.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to--
(A) any information that is confidential, as determined
by--
(i) the Director of the Congressional Research Service; or
(ii) the head of a Federal department or agency that
provided the information to the Congressional Research
Service; or
(B) any documents that are the product of an individual,
office, or committee research request (other than a document
described in subsection (a)(2)).
(2) Redaction and revision.--In carrying out this section,
the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, in consultation with the
Director of the Congressional Research Service, may--
(A) remove from the information required to be made
available under subsection (a) the name and phone number of,
and any other information regarding, an employee of the
Congressional Research Service;
(B) remove from the information required to be made
available under subsection (a) any material for which the
Director of the Congressional Research Service, determines
that making that material available under subsection (a) may
infringe the copyright of a work protected under title 17,
United States Code; and
(C) make any changes in the information required to be made
available under subsection (a) that the Director of the
Congressional Research Service, determines necessary to
ensure that the information is accurate and current.
(c) Manner.--The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, in
consultation with the Director of the Congressional Research
Service, shall make the information required under this
section available in a manner that is practical and
reasonable.
SEC. 3. METHOD OF ACCESS.
(a) CRS Information.--Public access to Congressional
Research Service information made available under section 2
shall be provided through the websites maintained by Members
and Committees of the Senate.
(b) Editorial Responsibility for CRS Reports Online.--The
Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate is responsible for maintaining
and updating the information made available on the Internet
under section 2.
SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.
The Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate shall establish the
database described in section 2(a) within 6 months after the
date of adoption of this resolution.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3824. Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Cochran)
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 3825. Mr. GREGG proposed an amendment to amendment SA
3673 proposed by Mr. Gregg to the amendment SA 3500 proposed
by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and
Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, supra.
SA 3826. Mr. SANDERS proposed an amendment to amendment SA
3822 proposed by Mr. Thune (for Mr. Gregg) to the amendment
SA 3500 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, supra.
SA 3827. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3822 proposed by Mr. Thune (for Mr.
Gregg) to the 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 3828. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3674 proposed by Mr. Gregg to the
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 3829. Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton) 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 3830. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Gregg) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3500 proposed by
Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Grassley) to the bill H.R. 2419, supra.
SA 3831. Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 793, to
[[Page 33640]]
provide for the expansion and improvement of traumatic brain
injury programs.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3824. Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Cochran) 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. 11072. DEBT FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
Section 349 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1997) is amended--
(1) by striking ``sec. 349. (a) For purposes of this
section:'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 349. DEBT FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:'';
(2) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ``, fishing, and
wildlife viewing'' after ``includes hunting'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Limitations'' and
inserting ``Eligibility''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) such property--
``(A) is wetland, upland, or highly erodible land; or
``(B) subject to the availability of appropriated funds,
will be enrolled in--
``(i) the wetlands reserve program established under
subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.);
``(ii) the grassland reserve program established under
subchapter C of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n et seq.); or
``(iii) the healthy forests reserve program established
under subchapter D of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985;'';
(4) in subsection (e)(2), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) in the case of a nondelinquent loan--
``(i) 33 percent of the amount of the loan secured by the
land; or
``(ii) if the loan is secured by an easement on the land,
50 percent of the amount of the outstanding loan.'';
(5) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as (g) and
(h), respectively;
(6) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Limitations; Effect.--
``(1) Reduction of payment.--If a landowner receives
payments in accordance with a program described in subsection
(c)(1)(B), such payment shall be reduced by the amount of the
debt reduced or forgiven by the Secretary in accordance with
the program under this section.
``(2) Effect with respect to certain programs.--Landowners
in the program under this section shall be considered by the
Secretary as other enrollees for each program described in
subsection (c)(1)(B).''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations to ensure communication between the
Administrator of the Farm Service Agency and the Chief of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to promote and carry
out the program under this section.''.
______
SA 3825. Mr. GREGG proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3673
proposed by Mr. Gregg to the 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; as follows:
At the end of the amendment, add the following:
``This title shall take effect 1 day after the date of
enactment.''
______
SA 3826. Mr. SANDERS proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3822
proposed by Mr. Thune (for Mr. Gregg) to the 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;
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
Subtitle A--Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
SEC. 12101. LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In addition to any amounts appropriated
under any other Federal law, there is appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for
fiscal year 2008--
(1) $462,000,000 (to remain available until expended) for
making payments under subsections (a) through (d) of section
2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 8623); and
(2) $462,000,000 (to remain available until expended) for
making payments under section 2604(e) of the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(e)),
notwithstanding the designation requirement of section
2602(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 8621(e)).
(b) Emergency Requirement.--The amount provided under this
section is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).
SEC. 12102. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURE DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2101 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE IX--SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURE DISASTER ASSISTANCE
``SEC. 901. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE
ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Actual production history yield.--The term `actual
production history yield' means the weighted average actual
production history for each insurable commodity or
noninsurable commodity, as calculated under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or the noninsured crop
disaster assistance program, respectively.
``(2) Counter-cyclical program payment yield.--The term
`counter-cyclical program payment yield' means the weighted
average payment yield established under section 1102 of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
7912).
``(3) Disaster county.--
``(A) In general.--The term `disaster county' means a
county included in the geographic area covered by a
qualifying natural disaster declaration.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `disaster county' includes--
``(i) a county contiguous to a county described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) any farm in which, during a calendar year, the total
loss of production of the farm relating to weather is greater
than 50 percent of the normal production of the farm, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(4) Eligible producer on a farm.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible producer on a farm'
means an individual or entity described in subparagraph (B)
that, as determined by the Secretary, assumes the production
and market risks associated with the agricultural production
of crops or livestock.
``(B) Description.--An individual or entity referred to in
subparagraph (A) is--
``(i) a citizen of the United States;
``(ii) a resident alien;
``(iii) a partnership of citizens of the United States; or
``(iv) a corporation, limited liability corporation, or
other farm organizational structure organized under State
law.
``(5) Farm.--
``(A) In general.--The term `farm' means, in relation to an
eligible producer on a farm, the sum of all crop acreage in
all counties that --
``(i) is used for grazing by the eligible producer; or
``(ii) is planted or intended to be planted for harvest by
the eligible producer.
``(B) Aquaculture.--In the case of aquaculture, the term
`farm' means, in relation to an eligible producer on a farm,
all fish being produced in all counties that are intended to
be harvested for sale by the eligible producer.
``(C) Honey.--In the case of honey, the term `farm' means,
in relation to an eligible producer on a farm, all bees and
beehives in all counties that are intended to be harvested
for a honey crop by the eligible producer.
``(6) Farm-raised fish.--The term `farm-raised fish' means
any aquatic species (including any species of finfish,
mollusk, crustacean, or other aquatic invertebrate,
amphibian, reptile, or aquatic plant) that is propagated and
reared in a controlled or semicontrolled environment.
``(7) Insurable commodity.--The term `insurable commodity'
means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for
which the producer on a farm is eligible to obtain a policy
or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
``(8) Livestock.--The term `livestock' includes--
``(A) cattle (including dairy cattle);
``(B) bison;
``(C) poultry;
``(D) sheep;
``(E) swine;
``(F) horses; and
``(G) other livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
``(9) Moving 5-year olympic average county yield.--The term
`moving 5-year Olympic average county yield' means the
weighted average yield obtained from the 5 most recent years
of yield data provided by the National Agriculture Statistics
Service obtained from data after dropping the highest and the
lowest yields.
``(10) Noninsurable commodity.--The term `noninsurable
commodity' means a crop for which the eligible producers on a
farm are
[[Page 33641]]
eligible to obtain assistance under the noninsured crop
assistance program.
``(11) Noninsured crop assistance program.--The term
`noninsured crop assistance program' means the program
carried out under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333).
``(12) Qualifying natural disaster declaration.--The term
`qualifying natural disaster declaration' means a natural
disaster declared by the Secretary for production losses
under section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)).
``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``(14) State.--The term `State' means--
``(A) a State;
``(B) the District of Columbia;
``(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
``(D) any other territory or possession of the United
States.
``(15) Trust fund.--The term `Trust Fund' means the
Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund established under
section 902.
``(16) United states.--The term `United States' when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
``(b) Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary from the Trust Fund to make crop disaster
assistance payments to eligible producers on farms in
disaster counties that have incurred crop production losses
or crop quality losses, or both, during the crop year.
``(2) Amount.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall provide crop disaster assistance payments
under this section to an eligible producer on a farm in an
amount equal to 52 percent of the difference between--
``(i) the disaster assistance program guarantee, as
described in paragraph (3); and
``(ii) the total farm revenue for a farm, as described in
paragraph (4).
``(B) Limitation.--The disaster assistance program
guarantee for a crop used to calculate the payments for a
farm under subparagraph (A)(i) may not be greater than 90
percent of the sum of the expected revenue, as described in
paragraph (5) for each of the crops on a farm, as determined
by the Secretary.
``(3) Supplemental revenue assistance program guarantee.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the supplemental assistance program guarantee
shall be the sum obtained by adding--
``(i) for each insurable commodity on the farm, the product
obtained by multiplying--
``(I) the greatest of--
``(aa) the actual production history yield;
``(bb) 90 percent of the moving 5-year Olympic average
county yield; and
``(cc) the counter-cyclical program payment yield for each
crop;
``(II) the percentage of the crop insurance yield
guarantee;
``(III) the percentage of crop insurance price elected by
the eligible producer;
``(IV) the crop insurance price; and
``(V) 115 percent; and
``(ii) for each noninsurable commodity on a farm, the
product obtained by multiplying--
``(I) the weighted noninsured crop assistance program yield
guarantee;
``(II) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 100 percent
of the noninsured crop assistance program established price;
and
``(III) 115 percent.
``(B) Supplemental buy-up noninsured assistance program.--
Beginning on the date that the Secretary makes available
supplemental buy-up coverage under the noninsured assistance
program in accordance with subsection (h), the percentage
described in subclause (II) of subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be
equal to the percentage of the noninsured assistance program
price guarantee elected by the producer.
``(C) Adjustment insurance guarantee.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), in the case of an insurable commodity for
which a plan of insurance provides for an adjustment in the
guarantee, such as in the case of prevented planting, the
adjusted insurance guarantee shall be the basis for
determining the disaster assistance program guarantee for the
insurable commodity.
``(D) Adjusted assistance level.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), in the case of a noninsurable commodity for
which the noninsured crop assistance program provides for an
adjustment in the level of assistance, such as in the case of
prevented harvesting, the adjusted assistance level shall be
the basis for determining the disaster assistance program
guarantee for the noninsurable commodity.
``(E) Equitable treatment for non-yield based policies.--
The Secretary shall establish equitable treatment for non-
yield based policies and plans of insurance, such as the
Adjusted Gross Revenue Lite insurance program.
``(F) Public managed land.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), if rangeland is managed by a Federal agency and the
carrying capacity of the managed rangeland is reduced as a
result of a disaster in the preceding year that was the basis
for a qualifying natural disaster declaration--
``(i) the calculation for the supplemental assistance
program guarantee determined under subparagraph (A) as the
guarantee applies to the managed rangeland shall be not less
than 75 percent of the guarantee for the preceding year; and
``(ii) the requirement for a designation by the Secretary
for the current year is waived.
``(4) Farm revenue.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
total farm revenue for a farm, shall equal the sum obtained
by adding--
``(i) the estimated actual value for grazing and for each
crop produced on a farm by using the product obtained by
multiplying--
``(I) the actual crop acreage grazed or harvested by an
eligible producer on a farm;
``(II) the estimated actual yield of the grazing land or
crop production; and
``(III) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the average
market price received or value of the production during the
first 5 months of the marketing year for the county in which
the farm or portion of a farm is located;
``(ii) 20 percent of amount of any direct payments made to
the producer under section 1103 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913) or of any fixed
direct payments made at the election of the producer in lieu
of that section or a subsequent section;
``(iii) the amount of payments for prevented planting on a
farm;
``(iv) the amount of crop insurance indemnities received by
an eligible producer on a farm for each crop on a farm,
including indemnities for grazing losses;
``(v) the amount of payments an eligible producer on a farm
received under the noninsured crop assistance program for
each crop on a farm, including grazing losses; and
``(vi) the value of any other natural disaster assistance
payments provided by the Federal Government to an eligible
producer on a farm for each crop on a farm for the same loss
for which the eligible producer is seeking assistance.
``(B) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the average
market price received by the eligible producer on a farm--
``(i) to reflect the average quality discounts applied to
the local or regional market price of a crop, hay, or forage
due to a reduction in the intrinsic characteristics of the
production resulting from adverse weather, as determined
annually by the State office of the Farm Service Agency; and
``(ii) to account for a crop the value of which is reduced
due to excess moisture resulting from a disaster-related
condition.
``(C) Maximum amount for certain crops.--With respect to a
crop for which an eligible producer on a farm receives
assistance under the noninsured crop assistance program, the
average market price received or value of the production
during the first 5 months of the marketing year for the
county in which the farm or portion of a farm is located
shall be an amount not more than 100 percent of the price of
the crop established under the noninsured crop assistance
program.
``(5) Expected revenue.--The expected revenue for each crop
on a farm shall equal the sum obtained by adding--
``(A) the expected value of grazing;
``(B) the product obtained by multiplying--
``(i) the greatest of--
``(I) the actual production history yield of the eligible
producer on a farm;
``(II) the moving 5-year Olympic average county yield; and
``(III) the counter-cyclical program payment yield;
``(ii) the acreage planted or intended to be planted for
each crop; and
``(iii) 100 percent of the insurance price guarantee; and
``(C) the product obtained by multiplying--
``(i) 100 percent of the noninsured crop assistance program
yield; and
``(ii) 100 percent of the noninsured crop assistance
program price for each of the crops on a farm.
``(c) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary from the Trust Fund to make livestock indemnity
payments to eligible producers on farms that have incurred
livestock death losses in excess of the normal mortality due
to adverse weather, as determined by the Secretary, during
the calendar year, including losses due to hurricanes,
floods, blizzards, disease, wildfires, extreme heat, and
extreme cold.
``(2) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to an eligible
producer on a farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a
rate of 75 percent of the market value of the applicable
livestock on the day before the date of death of the
livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and
Farm-Raised Fish.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use up to
$35,000,000 per year from the Trust Fund to provide emergency
relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey bees, and
farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to
adverse weather or other environmental conditions, such as
blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary, that
are not covered under the authority of the Secretary to make
qualifying natural disaster declarations.
[[Page 33642]]
``(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this
subsection shall be used to reduce losses caused by feed or
water shortages, disease, or other factors as determined by
the Secretary.
``(3) Availability of funds.--Any funds made available
under this subsection and not used in a crop year shall
remain available until expended.
``(e) Tree Assistance Program.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Eligible orchardist.--The term `eligible orchardist'
means a person that--
``(i) produces annual crops from trees for commercial
purposes; or
``(ii) produces nursery, ornamental, fruit, nut, or
Christmas trees for commercial sale.
``(B) Natural disaster.--The term `natural disaster' means
plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze,
flood, earthquake, lightning, or other occurrence, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(C) Tree.--The term `tree' includes a tree, bush, and
vine.
``(2) Eligibility.--
``(A) Loss.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
shall provide assistance under paragraph (3) to eligible
orchardists that planted trees for commercial purposes but
lost the trees as a result of a natural disaster, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(B) Limitation.--An eligible orchardist shall qualify for
assistance under subparagraph (A) only if the tree mortality
of the eligible orchardist, as a result of damaging weather
or related condition, exceeds 15 percent (adjusted for normal
mortality).
``(3) Assistance.--The assistance provided by the Secretary
to eligible orchardists for losses described in paragraph (2)
shall consist of--
``(A)(i) reimbursement of 75 percent of the cost of
replanting trees lost due to a natural disaster, as
determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent
mortality (adjusted for normal mortality); or
``(ii) at the option of the Secretary, sufficient seedlings
to reestablish a stand; and
``(B) reimbursement of 50 percent of the cost of pruning,
removal, and other costs incurred by an eligible orchardist
to salvage existing trees or, in the case of tree mortality,
to prepare the land to replant trees as a result of damage or
tree mortality due to a natural disaster, as determined by
the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent damage or mortality
(adjusted for normal tree damage and mortality).
``(f) Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster
Prevention.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Early plant pest detection and surveillance.--The
term `early plant pest detection and surveillance' means the
full range of activities undertaken to find newly introduced
plant pests, whether the plant pests are new to the United
States or new to certain areas of the United States, before--
``(i) the plant pests become established; or
``(ii) the plant pest infestations become too large and
costly to eradicate or control.
``(B) Plant pest.--The term `plant pest' has the meaning
given such term in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 7702).
``(C) Specialty crop.--The term `specialty crop' has the
meaning given the term in section 3 of the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law
108-465).
``(D) State department of agriculture.--The term `State
department of agriculture' means an agency of a State that
has a legal responsibility to perform early plant pest
detection and surveillance activities.
``(2) Early plant pest detection and surveillance
improvement program.--
``(A) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary shall enter
into a cooperative agreement with each State department of
agriculture that agrees to conduct early plant pest detection
and surveillance activities.
``(B) Consultation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the
Secretary shall consult with--
``(i) the National Plant Board;
``(ii) the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture; and
``(iii) stakeholders.
``(C) Funds under agreements.--Each State department of
agriculture with which the Secretary enters into a
cooperative agreement under this paragraph shall receive
funding for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 in an
amount to be determined by the Secretary.
``(D) Use of funds.--
``(i) Plant pest detection and surveillance activities.--A
State department of agriculture that receives funds under
this paragraph shall use the funds to carry out early plant
pest detection and surveillance activities to prevent the
introduction of a plant pest or facilitate the eradication of
a plant pest, pursuant to a cooperative agreement.
``(ii) Subagreements.--Nothing in this paragraph prevents a
State department of agriculture from using funds received
under subparagraph (C) to enter into subagreements with
political subdivisions of the State that have legal
responsibilities relating to agricultural plant pest and
disease surveillance.
``(iii) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of carrying out a cooperative agreement under this
section may be provided in-kind, including through provision
of such indirect costs of the cooperative agreement as the
Secretary considers to be appropriate.
``(E) Special funding considerations.--The Secretary shall
provide funds to a State department of agriculture if the
Secretary determines that--
``(i) the State department of agriculture is in a State
that has a high risk of being affected by 1 or more plant
pests; and
``(ii) the early plant pest detection and surveillance
activities supported with the funds will likely--
``(I) prevent the introduction and establishment of plant
pests; and
``(II) provide a comprehensive approach to compliment
Federal detection efforts.
``(F) Reporting requirement.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of completion of an early plant pest detection and
surveillance activity conducted by a State department of
agriculture using funds provided under this subsection, the
State department of agriculture shall submit to the Secretary
a report that describes the purposes and results of the
activities.
``(3) Threat identification and mitigation program.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (referred to in this section as the `Secretary'),
shall establish a threat identification and mitigation
program to determine and prioritize foreign threats to the
domestic production of crops.
``(B) Requirements.--In conducting the program established
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
``(i) consult with the Director of the Center for Plant
Health Science and Technology;
``(ii) conduct, in partnership with States, early plant
pest detection and surveillance activities;
``(iii) develop risk assessments of the potential threat to
the agricultural industry of the United States from foreign
sources;
``(iv) collaborate with the National Plant Board on the
matters described in subparagraph (C);
``(v) implement action plans developed under subparagraph
(C)(ii)(I) immediately after development of the action
plans--
``(I) to test the effectiveness of the action plans; and
``(II) to assist in preventing the introduction and
widespread dissemination of new foreign and domestic plant
pest and disease threats in the United States; and
``(vi) as appropriate, consult with, and use the expertise
of, the Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service in
the development of plant pest and disease detection, control,
and eradication strategies.
``(C) Matters described.--The matters described in this
subparagraph are--
``(i) the prioritization of foreign threats to the
agricultural industry; and
``(ii) the development, in consultation with State
departments of agriculture and other State or regional
resource partnerships, of--
``(I) action plans that effectively address the foreign
threats, including pathway analysis, offshore mitigation
measures, and comprehensive exclusion measures at ports of
entry and other key distribution centers; and
``(II) strategies to employ if a foreign plant pest or
disease is introduced;
``(D) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall update and submit to Congress the priority
list and action plans described in subparagraph (C),
including an accounting of funds expended on the action
plans.
``(4) Specialty crop certification and risk management
systems.--The Secretary shall provide funds and technical
assistance to specialty crop growers, organizations
representing specialty crop growers, and State and local
agencies working with specialty crop growers and
organizations for the development and implementation of--
``(A) audit-based certification systems, such as best
management practices--
``(i) to address plant pests; and
``(ii) to mitigate the risk of plant pests in the movement
of plants and plant products; and
``(B) nursery plant pest risk management systems, in
collaboration with the nursery industry, research
institutions, and other appropriate entities--
``(i) to enable growers to identify and prioritize nursery
plant pests and diseases of regulatory significance;
``(ii) to prevent the introduction, establishment, and
spread of those plant pests and diseases; and
``(iii) to reduce the risk of, mitigate, and eradicate
those plant pests and diseases.
``(5) Funding.--The Secretary shall use from the Trust Fund
to carry out this subsection--
``(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(B) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(C) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(D) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
``(E) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
``(g) Risk Management Purchase Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the eligible producers on a farm shall not be
eligible for assistance under this section with respect to
[[Page 33643]]
losses to an insurable commodity or noninsurable commodity if
the eligible producers on the farm--
``(A) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain
a policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
(excluding a crop insurance pilot program under that Act) for
the crop incurring the losses; or
``(B) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file
the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the
applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable
commodity under the noninsured crop assistance program for
the crop incurring the losses.
``(2) Minimum.--To be considered to have obtained insurance
under paragraph (1), an eligible producer on a farm shall
have obtained a policy or plan of insurance with not less
than 50 percent yield coverage at 55 percent of the insurable
price for each crop grazed, planted, or intended to be
planted for harvest on a whole farm.
``(3) Waiver.--With respect to eligible producers that are
limited resource, minority, or beginning farmers or ranchers,
as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary may--
``(A) waive paragraph (1); and
``(B) provide disaster assistance under this section at a
level that the Secretary determines to be equitable and
appropriate.
``(4) Equitable relief.--The Secretary may provide
equitable relief to eligible producers on a farm that
unintentionally fail to meet the requirements of paragraph
(1) for 1 or more crops on a farm on a case-by-case basis, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(h) Supplemental Buy-up Noninsured Assistance Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
under which eligible producers on a farm may purchase under
the noninsured crop assistance program additional yield and
price coverage for a crop, including a forage, hay, or honey
crop, of--
``(A) 60 or 65 percent (as elected by the producers on the
farm) of the yield established for the crop under the
program; and
``(B) 100 percent of the price established for the crop
under the program.
``(2) Fees.--The Secretary shall establish and collect fees
from eligible producers on a farm participating in the
program established under paragraph (1) to offset all of the
costs of the program, as determined by the Secretary.
``(i) Payment Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--The total amount of disaster assistance
that an eligible producer on a farm may receive under this
section may not exceed $100,000.
``(2) AGI limitation.--Section 1001D of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a or any successor provision)
shall apply with respect to assistance provided under this
section.
``(j) Period of Effectiveness.--This section shall be
effective only for losses that are incurred as the result of
a disaster, adverse weather, or other environmental condition
that occurs on or before September 30, 2012, as determined by
the Secretary.
``SEC. 902. AGRICULTURE DISASTER RELIEF 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
`Agriculture Disaster Relief 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
Agriculture Disaster Relief 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
Agriculture Disaster Relief 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 Agriculture Disaster Relief 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 Agriculture Disaster Relief 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
Agriculture Disaster Relief 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 Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund shall be
credited to and form a part of such Trust Fund.
``(d) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the
Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund shall be available for
the purposes of making expenditures to meet those obligations
of the United States incurred under section 901.
``(e) Authority to Borrow.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated,
and are appropriated, to the Agriculture Disaster Relief
Trust Fund, as repayable advances, such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of such Trust Fund.
``(2) Repayment of advances.--
``(A) In general.--Advances made to the Agriculture
Disaster Relief Trust Fund shall be repaid, and interest on
such advances shall be paid, to the general fund of the
Treasury when the Secretary determines that moneys are
available for such purposes in such Trust Fund.
``(B) Rate of interest.--Interest on advances made pursuant
to this subsection shall be--
``(i) at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury
(as of the close of the calendar month preceding the month in
which the advance is made) to be equal to the current average
market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the
United States with remaining periods to maturity comparable
to the anticipated period during which the advance will be
outstanding, and
``(ii) compounded annually.''.
(b) Technical Provisions Relating to the Plant Protection
Act.--
(1) Section 442(c) of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7772(c)) is amended by striking ``of longer than 60 days''.
(2) Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the
Secretary of Agriculture relating to cost-sharing for animal
and plant health emergency programs (68 Fed. Reg. 40541
(2003)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
______
SA 3827. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3822 proposed by Mr. Thune (for Mr. Gregg) to the
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 the amendment, add the following:
SEC. 12103. EMERGENCY SERVICE ROUTE.
Section 1948 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law
109-59; 119 Stat. 1514) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Effective Date.--This section takes effect if and
only on the date on which the Secretary of Energy certifies
to Congress that the section will not negatively impact the
supply or availability of heating fuel, or increase the cost
of heating fuel, for consumers in the Northeastern United
States during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the
certification.''.
______
SA 3828. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3674 proposed by Mr. Gregg to the 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 the amendment add the following:
SEC. ___. USE OF AMENDED INCOME TAX RETURNS TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT RECEIPT OF CERTAIN HURRICANE-RELATED
CASUALTY LOSS GRANTS BY DISALLOWING PREVIOUSLY
TAKEN CASUALTY LOSS DEDUCTIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, if a taxpayer claims a deduction for any
taxable year with respect to a residential property casualty
loss resulting from Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita and
in a subsequent taxable year receives a grant as
reimbursement for such loss from the State of Louisiana or
the State of Mississippi, such taxpayer may file an amended
income tax return for the taxable year in which such
deduction was allowed and disallow such deduction. Any
increase in Federal income tax
[[Page 33644]]
resulting from such disallowance shall not be subject to any
penalty or interest under such Code if such tax is paid not
later than 1 year after the filing of such amended return.
______
SA 3829. Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton) 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 868, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 6___. COMPREHENSIVE RURAL BROADBAND.
(a) Comprehensive Rural Broadband Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Chairman
of the Federal Communications Commission, in coordination
with the Secretary, shall submit to the Committees on Energy
and Commerce and Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a
report describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy
that includes--
(A) recommendations--
(i) to promote interagency coordination of Federal agencies
in regards to policies, procedures, and targeted resources,
and to improve and streamline the polices, programs, and
services;
(ii) to coordinate among Federal agencies regarding
existing rural broadband or rural initiatives that could be
of value to rural broadband development;
(iii) to address both short- and long-term solutions and
needs assessments for a rapid build-out of rural broadband
solutions and applications for Federal, State, regional, and
local government policy makers; and
(iv) to identify how specific Federal agency programs and
resources can best respond to rural broadband requirements
and overcome obstacles that currently impede rural broadband
deployment; and
(B) a description of goals and timeframes to achieve the
strategic plans and visions identified in the report.
(2) Updates.--The Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, in coordination with the Secretary shall update
and evaluate the report described in paragraph (1) on an
annual basis.
(b) Rural Broadband.--Section 306(a)(20)(E) of the
Consolidated Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(20)(E))
is amended by striking ``dial-up Internet access or''.
______
SA 3830. Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Gregg)
proposed an amendment 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; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title XI, insert the following:
Subtitle __--Public Safety Officers
SEC. ___1. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act of 2007''.
SEC. ___2. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY.
The Congress declares that the following is the policy of
the United States:
(1) Labor-management relationships and partnerships are
based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, bilateral
consensual problem solving, and shared accountability. Labor-
management cooperation fully utilizes the strengths of both
parties to best serve the interests of the public, operating
as a team, to carry out the public safety mission in a
quality work environment. In many public safety agencies it
is the union that provides the institutional stability as
elected leaders and appointees come and go.
(2) State and local public safety officers play an
essential role in the efforts of the United States to detect,
prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and to respond to
natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass
casualty incidents. State and local public safety officers,
as first responders, are a component of our Nation's National
Incident Management System, developed by the Department of
Homeland Security to coordinate response to and recovery from
terrorism, major natural disasters, and other major
emergencies. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is
essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the
National interest.
(3) The Federal Government needs to encourage conciliation,
mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and encourage
employers and the representatives of their employees to reach
and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and
working conditions, and to make all reasonable efforts
through negotiations to settle their differences by mutual
agreement reached through collective bargaining or by such
methods as may be provided for in any applicable agreement
for the settlement of disputes.
(4) The absence of adequate cooperation between public
safety employers and employees has implications for the
security of employees and can affect interstate and
intrastate commerce. The lack of such labor-management
cooperation can detrimentally impact the upgrading of police
and fire services of local communities, the health and well-
being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire
and police departments. Additionally, these factors could
have significant commercial repercussions. Moreover,
providing minimal standards for collective bargaining
negotiations in the public safety sector can prevent
industrial strife between labor and management that
interferes with the normal flow of commerce.
SEC. ___3. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Federal
Labor Relations Authority.
(2) Emergency medical services personnel.--The term
``emergency medical services personnel'' means an individual
who provides out-of-hospital emergency medical care,
including an emergency medical technician, paramedic, or
first responder.
(3) Employer; public safety agency.--The terms ``employer''
and ``public safety agency'' mean any State, or political
subdivision of a State, that employs public safety officers.
(4) Firefighter.--The term ``firefighter'' has the meaning
given the term ``employee engaged in fire protection
activities'' in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(29 U.S.C. 203(y)).
(5) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization''
means an organization composed in whole or in part of
employees, in which employees participate, and which
represents such employees before public safety agencies
concerning grievances, conditions of employment, and related
matters.
(6) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' has the meaning given such term in section 1204 of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796b).
(7) Management employee.--The term ``management employee''
has the meaning given such term under applicable State law in
effect on the date of enactment of this subtitle. If no such
State law is in effect, the term means an individual employed
by a public safety employer in a position that requires or
authorizes the individual to formulate, determine, or
influence the policies of the employer.
(8) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual or a
labor organization.
(9) Public safety officer.--The term ``public safety
officer''--
(A) means an employee of a public safety agency who is a
law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or an emergency
medical services personnel;
(B) includes an individual who is temporarily transferred
to a supervisory or management position; and
(C) does not include a permanent supervisory or management
employee.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
any territory or possession of the United States.
(11) Substantially provides.--The term ``substantially
provides'' means compliance with the essential requirements
of this subtitle, specifically, the right to form and join a
labor organization, the right to bargain over wages, hours,
and conditions of employment, the right to sign an
enforceable contract, and availability of some form of
mechanism to break an impasse, such as arbitration,
mediation, or fact-finding.
(12) Supervisory employee.--The term ``supervisory
employee'' has the meaning given such term under applicable
State law in effect on the date of enactment of this
subtitle. If no such State law is in effect, the term means
an individual, employed by a public safety employer, who--
(A) has the authority in the interest of the employer to
hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough,
lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, or remove public safety
officers, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively
recommend such action, if the exercise of the authority is
not merely routine or clerical in nature but requires the
consistent exercise of independent judgment; and
(B) devotes a majority of time at work exercising such
authority.
SEC. ___4. DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) Determination.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subtitle, the Authority shall make a
determination as to whether a State substantially provides
for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection
(b). In making such determinations, the Authority shall
consider and give weight, to the maximum extent practicable,
to the opinion of affected parties.
(2) Subsequent determinations.--
(A) In general.--A determination made pursuant to paragraph
(1) shall remain in effect unless and until the Authority
issues a subsequent determination, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in subparagraph (B).
[[Page 33645]]
(B) Procedures for subsequent determinations.--Upon
establishing that a material change in State law or its
interpretation has occurred, an employer or a labor
organization may submit a written request for a subsequent
determination. If satisfied that a material change in State
law or its interpretation has occurred, the Authority shall
issue a subsequent determination not later than 30 days after
receipt of such request.
(3) Judicial review.--Any person or employer aggrieved by a
determination of the Authority under this section may, during
the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the
determination was made, petition any United States Court of
Appeals in the circuit in which the person or employer
resides or transacts business or in the District of Columbia
circuit, for judicial review. In any judicial review of a
determination by the Authority, the procedures contained in
subsections (c) and (d) of section 7123 of title 5, United
States Code, shall be followed.
(b) Rights and Responsibilities.--In making a determination
described in subsection (a), the Authority shall consider
whether State law provides rights and responsibilities
comparable to or greater than the following:
(1) Granting public safety officers the right to form and
join a labor organization, which may exclude management
employees and supervisory employees, that is, or seeks to be,
recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of such
employees.
(2) Requiring public safety employers to recognize the
employees' labor organization (freely chosen by a majority of
the employees), to agree to bargain with the labor
organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a
contract or memorandum of understanding.
(3) Permitting bargaining over hours, wages, and terms and
conditions of employment.
(4) Making available an interest impasse resolution
mechanism, such as fact-finding, mediation, arbitration, or
comparable procedures.
(5) Requiring enforcement through State courts of--
(A) all rights, responsibilities, and protections provided
by State law and enumerated in this section; and
(B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding.
(c) Failure To Meet Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If the Authority determines, acting
pursuant to its authority under subsection (a), that a State
does not substantially provide for the rights and
responsibilities described in subsection (b), such State
shall be subject to the regulations and procedures described
in section ___5.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the
date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this
subtitle.
SEC. ___5. ROLE OF FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subtitle, the Authority shall issue
regulations in accordance with the rights and
responsibilities described in section ___4(b) establishing
collective bargaining procedures for employers and public
safety officers in States which the Authority has determined,
acting pursuant to section ___4(a), do not substantially
provide for such rights and responsibilities.
(b) Role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.--The
Authority, to the extent provided in this subtitle and in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority,
shall--
(1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor
organization representation;
(2) supervise or conduct elections to determine whether a
labor organization has been selected as an exclusive
representative by a voting majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit;
(3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good
faith;
(4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor
practices;
(5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators;
(6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such
activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and
protect each employee in the exercise of such right; and
(7) take such other actions as are necessary and
appropriate to effectively administer this subtitle,
including issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary or
other evidence from any place in the United States, and
administering oaths, taking or ordering the taking of
depositions, ordering responses to written interrogatories,
and receiving and examining witnesses.
(c) Enforcement.--
(1) Authority to petition court.--The Authority may
petition any United States Court of Appeals with jurisdiction
over the parties, or the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, to enforce any final orders
under this section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a
restraining order. Any petition under this section shall be
conducted in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of
section 7123 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Private right of action.--Unless the Authority has
filed a petition for enforcement as provided in paragraph
(1), any party has the right to file suit in a State court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the
regulations issued by the Authority pursuant to subsection
(b), and to enforce compliance with any order issued by the
Authority pursuant to this section. The right provided by
this subsection to bring a suit to enforce compliance with
any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section
shall terminate upon the filing of a petition seeking the
same relief by the Authority.
SEC. ___6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED.
(a) Prohibition.--An employer, public safety officer, or
labor organization may not engage in a lockout, sickout, work
slowdown, strike, or any other action that will measurably
disrupt the delivery of emergency services and is designed to
compel an employer, public safety officer, or labor
organization to agree to the terms of a proposed contract.
(b) Mandatory Terms and Conditions.--It shall not be a
violation of subsection (a) for a public safety officer or
labor organization to refuse to carry out services that are
not required under the mandatory terms and conditions of
employment applicable to the public safety officer or labor
organization.
SEC. ___7. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND
AGREEMENTS.
A certification, recognition, election-held, collective
bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding which has
been issued, approved, or ratified by any public employee
relations board or commission or by any State or political
subdivision or its agents (management officials) and is in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subtitle shall not be invalidated by the enactment of this
subtitle.
SEC. ___8. CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLIANCE.
(a) Construction.--Nothing in this subtitle shall be
construed--
(1) to preempt or limit the remedies, rights, and
procedures of any law of any State or political subdivision
of any State or jurisdiction that provides greater or
comparable rights and responsibilities than the rights and
responsibilities described in section ___4(b);
(2) to prevent a State from enforcing a right-to-work law
that prohibits employers and labor organizations from
negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require
union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of
employment;
(3) to preempt or limit any State law in effect on the date
of enactment of this subtitle that provides for the rights
and responsibilities described in section ___4(b) solely
because such State law permits an employee to appear on the
employee's own behalf with respect to the employee's
employment relations with the public safety agency involved;
(4) to preempt or limit any State law in effect on the date
of enactment of this subtitle that provides for the rights
and responsibilities described in section ___4(b) solely
because such State law excludes from its coverage employees
of a State militia or national guard;
(5) to permit parties in States subject to the regulations
and procedures described in section ___5 to negotiate
provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in
part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty
hours;
(6) to prohibit a State from exempting from coverage under
this subtitle a political subdivision of the State that has a
population of less than 5,000 or that employs less than 25
full-time employees; or
(7) to preempt or limit the laws or ordinances of any State
or political subdivision of a State that provide for the
rights and responsibilities described in section ___4(b)
solely because such law does not require bargaining with
respect to pension, retirement, or health benefits.
For purposes of paragraph (6), the term ``employee'' includes
each and every individual employed by the political
subdivision except any individual elected by popular vote or
appointed to serve on a board or commission.
(b) Compliance.--
(1) Actions of states.--Nothing in this subtitle or the
regulations promulgated under this subtitle shall be
construed to require a State to rescind or preempt the laws
or ordinances of any of its political subdivisions if such
laws provide rights and responsibilities for public safety
officers that are comparable to or greater than the rights
and responsibilities described in section ___4(b).
(2) Actions of the authority.--Nothing in this subtitle or
the regulations promulgated under this subtitle shall be
construed to preempt--
(A) the laws or ordinances of any State or political
subdivision of a State, if such laws provide collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers that are
comparable to or greater than the rights enumerated in
section ___4(b);
(B) the laws or ordinance of any State or political
subdivision of a State that provide for the rights and
responsibilities described in section ___4(b) with respect to
certain categories of public safety officers covered by this
subtitle solely because such rights and responsibilities have
not been extended
[[Page 33646]]
to other categories of public safety officers covered by this
subtitle; or
(C) the laws or ordinances of any State or political
subdivision of a State that provides for the rights and
responsibilities described in section ___4(b), solely because
such laws or ordinances provide that a contract or memorandum
of understanding between a public safety employer and a labor
organization must be presented to a legislative body as part
of the process for approving such contract or memorandum of
understanding.
(3) Limited enforcement power.--In the case of a law
described in paragraph (2)(B), the Authority shall only
exercise the powers provided in section ___5 with respect to
those categories of public safety officers who have not been
afforded the rights and responsibilities described in section
___4(b).
(4) Exclusive enforcement provision.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this subtitle, and in the absence of a
waiver of a State's sovereign immunity, the Authority shall
have the exclusive power to enforce the provisions of this
subtitle with respect to employees of a State or political
subdivision of a State.
SEC. ___9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this subtitle.
______
SA 3831. Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 793, to provide for the expansion and improvement of traumatic brain
injury programs; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reauthorization of the
Traumatic Brain Injury Act''.
SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RESTRUCTURING.
Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the section 393B (42 U.S.C. 280b-1c)
relating to the use of allotments for rape prevention
education, as section 393A and moving such section so that it
follows section 393;
(2) by redesignating existing section 393A (42 U.S.C. 280b-
1b) relating to prevention of traumatic brain injury, as
section 393B; and
(3) by redesignating the section 393B (42 U.S.C. 280b-1d)
relating to traumatic brain injury registries, as section
393C.
SEC. 3. TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAMS OF THE CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION.
(a) Prevention of Traumatic Brain Injury.--Clause (ii) of
section 393B(b)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act, as so
redesignated, (42 U.S.C. 280b-1b) is amended by striking
``from hospitals and trauma centers'' and inserting ``from
hospitals and emergency departments''.
(b) National Program for Traumatic Brain Injury
Surveillance and Registries.--Section 393C of the Public
Health Service Act, as so redesignated, (42 U.S.C. 280b et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``SURVEILLANCE
AND'' after ``NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY'';
and
(2) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``may make grants'' and all that follows
through ``to collect data concerning--'' and inserting ``may
make grants to States or their designees to develop or
operate the State's traumatic brain injury surveillance
system or registry to determine the incidence and prevalence
of traumatic brain injury and related disability, to ensure
the uniformity of reporting under such system or registry, to
link individuals with traumatic brain injury to services and
supports, and to link such individuals with academic
institutions to conduct applied research that will support
the development of such surveillance systems and registries
as may be necessary. A surveillance system or registry under
this section shall provide for the collection of data
concerning--''.
(c) Report.--Section 393C of the Public Health Service Act
(as so redesignated) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(b) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of the Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, the
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the
National Institutes of Health and in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
shall submit to the relevant committees of Congress a report
that contains the findings derived from an evaluation
concerning activities and procedures that can be implemented
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs
to improve the collection and dissemination of compatible
epidemiological studies on the incidence and prevalence of
traumatic brain injury in the military and veterans
populations who return to civilian life. The report shall
include recommendations on the manner in which such agencies
can further collaborate on the development and improvement of
traumatic brain injury diagnostic tools and treatments.''.
SEC. 4. STUDY ON TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY.
Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
393C the following:
``SEC. 393C-1. STUDY ON TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY.
``(a) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect
to paragraph (1) and in consultation with the Director of the
National Institutes of Health and other appropriate entities
with respect to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), may conduct a
study with respect to traumatic brain injury for the purpose
of carrying out the following:
``(1) In collaboration with appropriate State and local
health-related agencies--
``(A) determining the incidence of traumatic brain injury
and prevalence of traumatic brain injury related disability
and the clinical aspects of the disability in all age groups
and racial and ethnic minority groups in the general
population of the United States, including institutional
settings, such as nursing homes, correctional facilities,
psychiatric hospitals, child care facilities, and residential
institutes for people with developmental disabilities; and
``(B) reporting national trends in traumatic brain injury.
``(2) Identifying common therapeutic interventions which
are used for the rehabilitation of individuals with such
injuries, and, subject to the availability of information,
including an analysis of--
``(A) the effectiveness of each such intervention in
improving the functioning, including return to work or school
and community participation, of individuals with brain
injuries;
``(B) the comparative effectiveness of interventions
employed in the course of rehabilitation of individuals with
brain injuries to achieve the same or similar clinical
outcome; and
``(C) the adequacy of existing measures of outcomes and
knowledge of factors influencing differential outcomes.
``(3) Identifying interventions and therapies that can
prevent or remediate the development of secondary neurologic
conditions related to traumatic brain injury.
``(4) Developing practice guidelines for the rehabilitation
of traumatic brain injury at such time as appropriate
scientific research becomes available.
``(b) Dates Certain for Reports.--If the study is conducted
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of the Reauthorization
of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, submit to Congress a
report describing findings made as a result of carrying out
such subsection (a).
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`traumatic brain injury' means an acquired injury to the
brain. Such term does not include brain dysfunction caused by
congenital or degenerative disorders, nor birth trauma, but
may include brain injuries caused by anoxia due to trauma
including near drowning. The Secretary may revise the
definition of such term as the Secretary determines
necessary.''.
SEC. 5. TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.
Section 1261 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300d-61) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``Labor and Human
Resources'' and inserting ``Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions'';
(2) in subparagraph (D) of subsection (d)(4), by striking
``head brain injury'' and inserting ``brain injury''; and
(3) in subsection (i), by inserting ``, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011''
before the period at the end.
SEC. 6. TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAMS OF THE HEALTH
RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.
(a) State Grants for Demonstration Projects Regarding
Traumatic Brain Injury.--Section 1252 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-52) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``may make grants to States'' and inserting
``may make grants to States and American Indian consortia'';
and
(B) by striking ``health and other services'' and inserting
``rehabilitation and other services'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraphs (1), (3)(A)(i), (3)(A)(iii), and
(3)(A)(iv), by striking the term ``State'' each place such
term appears and inserting the term ``State or American
Indian consortium''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``recommendations to the
State'' and inserting ``recommendations to the State or
American Indian consortium'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking the term ``State'' each
place such term appears and inserting ``State or American
Indian consortium'';
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``A State that
received'' and all that follows through the period and
inserting ``A State or American Indian consortium that
received a grant under this section prior to the date of the
enactment of the Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain
Injury Act may complete the activities funded by the
grant.'';
[[Page 33647]]
(5) in subsection (f)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and American
Indian Consortium'' after ``State'';
(B) in paragraph (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), paragraph (1)(E), paragraph (2)(A), paragraph (2)(B),
paragraph (3) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
paragraph (3)(E), and paragraph (3)(F), by striking the term
``State'' each place such term appears and inserting ``State
or American Indian consortium'';
(C) in clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(A), by striking
``children and other individuals'' and inserting ``children,
youth, and adults''; and
(D) in subsection (h)--
(i) by striking ``Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary'' and inserting
``Not less than biennially, the Secretary'';
(ii) by striking ``Commerce of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources'' and inserting ``Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions''; and
(iii) by inserting ``and section 1253'' after ``programs
established under this section,'';
(6) by amending subsection (i) to read as follows:
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) The terms `American Indian consortium' and `State'
have the meanings given to those terms in section 1253.
``(2) The term `traumatic brain injury' means an acquired
injury to the brain. Such term does not include brain
dysfunction caused by congenital or degenerative disorders,
nor birth trauma, but may include brain injuries caused by
anoxia due to trauma. The Secretary may revise the definition
of such term as the Secretary determines necessary, after
consultation with States and other appropriate public or
nonprofit private entities.''; and
(7) in subsection (j), by inserting ``, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2011'' before the period.
(b) State Grants for Protection and Advocacy Services.--
Section 1253 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300d-53) is amended--
(1) in subsections (d) and (e), by striking the term
``subsection (i)'' each place such term appears and inserting
``subsection (l)'';
(2) in subsection (g), by inserting ``each fiscal year not
later than October 1,'' before ``the Administrator shall
pay'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections
(l) and (m), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
``(i) Data Collection.--The Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration and the Commissioner of
the Administration on Developmental Disabilities shall enter
into an agreement to coordinate the collection of data by the
Administrator and the Commissioner regarding protection and
advocacy services.
``(j) Training and Technical Assistance.--
``(1) Grants.--For any fiscal year for which the amount
appropriated to carry out this section is $6,000,000 or
greater, the Administrator shall use 2 percent of such amount
to make a grant to an eligible national association for
providing for training and technical assistance to protection
and advocacy systems.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `eligible
national association' means a national association with
demonstrated experience in providing training and technical
assistance to protection and advocacy systems.
``(k) System Authority.--In providing services under this
section, a protection and advocacy system shall have the same
authorities, including access to records, as such system
would have for purposes of providing services under subtitle
C of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 2000.''; and
(5) in subsection (l) (as redesignated by this subsection)
by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 7. GAO STUDY WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study regarding members of the armed
forces who have acquired a disability resulting from a
traumatic brain injury incurred while serving in Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Such study
shall examine how these individuals are being reintegrated
into their communities, including--
(1) what is known about this population; and
(2) what challenges they may face in returning to their
communities, such as accessing employment, housing,
transportation, and community care programs, and coordinating
benefits.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives, a report summarizing the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a nomination hearing has
been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007, at 10:30
a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Jon
Wellinghoff, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, for the term expiring June 30, 2013.
For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571
or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m.,
in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct
a hearing. At this hearing, the committee will hear testimony regarding
the Science and Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and
Responsibly Enhance Water Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Finance
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on S. 1673,
the Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of
2007.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to
hold a classified briefing on Iran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to
hold a hearing entitled ``Meeting the Global Challenge of AIDS, TB, and
Malaria,'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11,
2007, at 10 a.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Mr. SCHUMER. 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 Tuesday, December 11, 2007,
at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``E-Government 2.0:
Improving Innovation, Collaboration, and Access.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Mr. SCHUMER. 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 Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in
order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Speculation in the Crude Oil
Market.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
[[Page 33648]]
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed
briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY, AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition
Policy, and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Sunshine in
Litigation Act: Does Court Secrecy Undermine Public Health and
Safety?'' on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of
the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Witness list
The Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, United States District Court Judge,
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Johnny Bradley, Jr., Pachuta, Mississippi.
Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC.
Leslie A. Bailey, Brayton-Baron Attorney, Public Justice, Oakland,
CA.
Stephen G. Morrison, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
LLP, Columbia, SC.
Richard A. Zitrin, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of California
at Hastings, San Francisco, CA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objections, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and
Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Legal Rights of
Guantanamo Detainees: What Are They, Should They Be Changed, and Is an
End in Sight?'' on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I unanimous consent that a fellow on my
staff, Jack Wells, be granted the privilege of the floor for the
duration of the debate on the farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. First, on behalf of the Presiding Officer, Senator
Salazar, I ask unanimous consent that Ben Brown, a fellow in Senator
Salazar's office, be allowed floor privileges for the remainder of the
debate on the farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
METHAMPHETAMINE REMEDIATION RESEARCH ACT OF 2007
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment
and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of
H.R. 365.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 365) to provide for a research program for
remediation of closed methamphetamine production
laboratories, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statement relating to the bill be printed in the
Record, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 365) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY ACT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 317, S. 793.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 793) to provide for the expansion and
improvement of traumatic brain injury programs.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reauthorization of the
Traumatic Brain Injury Act''.
SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RESTRUCTURING.
Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the section 393B (42 U.S.C. 280b-1c)
relating to the use of allotments for rape prevention
education, as section 393A and moving such section so that it
follows section 393;
(2) by redesignating existing section 393A (42 U.S.C. 280b-
1b) relating to prevention of traumatic brain injury, as
section 393B; and
(3) by redesignating the section 393B (42 U.S.C. 280b-1d)
relating to traumatic brain injury registries, as section
393C.
SEC. 3. TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAMS OF THE CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION.
(a) Prevention of Traumatic Brain Injury.--Clause (ii) of
section 393B(b)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act, as so
redesignated, (42 U.S.C. 280b-1b) is amended by striking
``from hospitals and trauma centers'' and inserting ``from
hospitals and emergency departments''.
(b) National Program for Traumatic Brain Injury
Surveillance and Registries.--Section 393C of the Public
Health Service Act, as so redesignated, (42 U.S.C. 280b et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``SURVEILLANCE
AND'' after ``NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY'';
and
(2) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``may make grants'' and all that follows
through ``to collect data concerning--'' and inserting ``may
make grants to States or their designees to develop or
operate the State's traumatic brain injury surveillance
system or registry to determine the incidence and prevalence
of traumatic brain injury and related disability, to ensure
the uniformity of reporting under such system or registry, to
link individuals with traumatic brain injury to services and
supports, and to link such individuals with academic
institutions to conduct applied research that will support
the development of such surveillance systems and registries
as may be necessary. A surveillance system or registry under
this section shall provide for the collection of data
concerning--''.
(c) Report.--Section 393C of the Public Health Service Act
(as so redesignated) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(b) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of the Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, the
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the
National Institutes of Health and in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
shall submit to the relevant committees of Congress a report
that contains the findings derived from an evaluation
concerning activities and procedures that can be implemented
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs
to improve the collection and dissemination of compatible
epidemiological studies on the incidence and prevalence of
traumatic brain injury in the military and veterans
populations who return to civilian life. The report shall
include recommendations on the manner in which such agencies
can further collaborate on the development and improvement of
traumatic brain injury diagnostic tools and treatments.''.
SEC. 4. STUDY ON TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY.
Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
393C the following:
``SEC. 393C-1. STUDY ON TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY.
``(a) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect
to paragraph (1) and the Director of the National Institutes
of Health with respect to paragraphs (2) and (3), shall
conduct a study with respect to traumatic brain injury for
the purpose of carrying out the following:
``(1) In collaboration with appropriate State and local
health-related agencies--
``(A) determining the incidence of traumatic brain injury
and prevalence of traumatic brain injury related disability
and the clinical aspects of the disability in all age groups
and racial and ethnic minority groups in the general
population of the United States, including institutional
settings, such as nursing homes, correctional facilities,
psychiatric hospitals, child care facilities, and residential
institutes for people with developmental disabilities; and
``(B) reporting national trends in traumatic brain injury.
[[Page 33649]]
``(2) Identifying common therapeutic interventions which
are used for the rehabilitation of individuals with such
injuries, and, subject to the availability of information,
including an analysis of--
``(A) the effectiveness of each such intervention in
improving the functioning, including return to work or school
and community participation, of individuals with brain
injuries;
``(B) the comparative effectiveness of interventions
employed in the course of rehabilitation of individuals with
brain injuries to achieve the same or similar clinical
outcome; and
``(C) the adequacy of existing measures of outcomes and
knowledge of factors influencing differential outcomes.
``(3) Identifying interventions and therapies that can
prevent or remediate the development of secondary neurologic
conditions related to traumatic brain injury.
``(4) Developing practice guidelines for the rehabilitation
of traumatic brain injury at such time as appropriate
scientific research becomes available.
``(b) Dates Certain for Reports.--Not later than 3 years
after the date of the enactment of the Reauthorization of the
Traumatic Brain Injury Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report describing findings made as a result of
carrying out subsection (a).
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`traumatic brain injury' means an acquired injury to the
brain. Such term does not include brain dysfunction caused by
congenital or degenerative disorders, nor birth trauma, but
may include brain injuries caused by anoxia due to trauma
including near drowning. The Secretary may revise the
definition of such term as the Secretary determines
necessary.''.
SEC. 5. TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.
Section 1261 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300d-61) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``Labor and Human
Resources'' and inserting ``Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions'';
(2) in subparagraph (D) of subsection (d)(4), by striking
``head brain injury'' and inserting ``brain injury''; and
(3) in subsection (i), by inserting ``, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011''
before the period at the end.
SEC. 6. TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAMS OF THE HEALTH
RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.
(a) State Grants for Demonstration Projects Regarding
Traumatic Brain Injury.--Section 1252 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-52) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``may make grants to States'' and inserting
``may make grants to States and American Indian consortia'';
and
(B) by striking ``health and other services'' and inserting
``rehabilitation and other services'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraphs (1), (3)(A)(i), (3)(A)(iii), and
(3)(A)(iv), by striking the term ``State'' each place such
term appears and inserting the term ``State or American
Indian consortium''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``recommendations to the
State'' and inserting ``recommendations to the State or
American Indian consortium'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking the term ``State'' each
place such term appears and inserting ``State or American
Indian consortium'';
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``A State that
received'' and all that follows through the period and
inserting ``A State or American Indian consortium that
received a grant under this section prior to the date of the
enactment of the Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain
Injury Act may complete the activities funded by the
grant.'';
(5) in subsection (f)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and American
Indian Consortium'' after ``State'';
(B) in paragraph (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), paragraph (1)(E), paragraph (2)(A), paragraph (2)(B),
paragraph (3) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
paragraph (3)(E), and paragraph (3)(F), by striking the term
``State'' each place such term appears and inserting ``State
or American Indian consortium'';
(C) in clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(A), by striking
``children and other individuals'' and inserting ``children,
youth, and adults''; and
(D) in subsection (h)--
(i) by striking ``Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary'' and inserting
``Not less than biennially, the Secretary'';
(ii) by striking ``Commerce of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources'' and inserting ``Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions''; and
(iii) by inserting ``and section 1253'' after ``programs
established under this section,'';
(6) by amending subsection (i) to read as follows:
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) The terms `American Indian consortium' and `State'
have the meanings given to those terms in section 1253.
``(2) The term `traumatic brain injury' means an acquired
injury to the brain. Such term does not include brain
dysfunction caused by congenital or degenerative disorders,
nor birth trauma, but may include brain injuries caused by
anoxia due to trauma. The Secretary may revise the definition
of such term as the Secretary determines necessary, after
consultation with States and other appropriate public or
nonprofit private entities.''; and
(7) in subsection (j), by inserting ``, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2011'' before the period.
(b) State Grants for Protection and Advocacy Services.--
Section 1253 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300d-53) is amended--
(1) in subsections (d) and (e), by striking the term
``subsection (i)'' each place such term appears and inserting
``subsection (l)'';
(2) in subsection (g), by inserting ``each fiscal year not
later than October 1,'' before ``the Administrator shall
pay'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections
(l) and (m), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
``(i) Data Collection.--The Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration and the Commissioner of
the Administration on Developmental Disabilities shall enter
into an agreement to coordinate the collection of data by the
Administrator and the Commissioner regarding protection and
advocacy services.
``(j) Training and Technical Assistance.--
``(1) Grants.--For any fiscal year for which the amount
appropriated to carry out this section is $6,000,000 or
greater, the Administrator shall use 2 percent of such amount
to make a grant to an eligible national association for
providing for training and technical assistance to protection
and advocacy systems.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `eligible
national association' means a national association with
demonstrated experience in providing training and technical
assistance to protection and advocacy systems.
``(k) System Authority.--In providing services under this
section, a protection and advocacy system shall have the same
authorities, including access to records, as such system
would have for purposes of providing services under subtitle
C of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 2000.''; and
(5) in subsection (l) (as redesignated by this subsection)
by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 7. GAO STUDY WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a national study regarding whether, and,
if so, to what extent, members of the armed forces who have
acquired a disability from serving in Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are being reintegrated
into their communities. Such study shall specifically include
an examination of factors affecting the reintegration of such
members of the armed forces who have acquired a traumatic
brain injury into their communities, including an analysis
of--
(1) the unavailability of suitable employment, housing, and
transportation;
(2) the existence, availability, and capacity of community
care programs; and
(3) the extent to which there is coordination of benefits
for these men and women.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives, a report summarizing the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in passing the reauthorization of the
Traumatic Brain Injury Act today, the Senate has taken an important
step toward making a difference in the lives of some of our Nation's
most deserving citizens: our soldiers and our children. It is a
privilege to have worked with my colleague, Senator Hatch, on this
legislation. It is an important and timely bill that helps an
especially deserving group of people.
Brain injuries have become the signature wound of the war in Iraq. Up
to two-thirds of our wounded soldiers may have suffered such injuries.
Here at home, an unacceptably large number of children from birth to
age 14 experience traumatic brain injuries--approximately 475,000 a
year and some of the most frequent of these injuries are to children
under the age of five. In Massachusetts alone, more than 40,000
individuals experience brain injuries each year.
As a result of such injuries, over 5.3 million Americans are now
living with a permanent disability. Today, we have taken a step toward
ensuring that these citizens and their families will receive the best
care we can provide.
The bill reauthorizes grants that assist States, Territories, and the
District of Columbia in establishing and expanding coordinated systems
of community-based services and supports for those with such injuries.
[[Page 33650]]
When Congress approved the Traumatic Brain Injury Act as part of the
Children's Health Act of 2000, we included a specific provision called
the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury
Program. This program has become essential because persons with these
injuries have an array of needs beyond treatment and health care,
including assistance in returning to work, finding a place to live,
obtaining supports and services such as attendant care and assistive
technology, and obtaining appropriate mental health, substance abuse,
and rehabilitation services.
Often these persons--especially our returning veterans--must remain
in extremely expensive institutions far longer than necessary, because
the community-based supports and services they need are not available,
even though they can lead to reduced government expenditures, increased
productivity, independence and community integration. Those who provide
such assistance must have special skills, and their work is often time-
intensive.
Our legislation allocates funds for CDC programs that will provide
important information and data on injury prevention. A recent Institute
of Medicine report showed that such programs work. Their benefit is
obvious, and we must do all we can to expand this appropriation in the
years ahead to meet the urgent and growing need for this assistance.
A recent report by the Institute of Medicine calls the current TBI
programs an ``overall success.'' It states that ``there is considerable
value in providing funding,'' and ``it is worrisome that the modestly
budgeted TBI Program continues to be vulnerable to budget cuts.''
Current estimates show that the Federal Government spends less than
$3 dollars per brain injury survivor on research and services. As the
IOM study suggests, this program must be able to grow, so that each
State has the resources necessary to maintain vital services and
advocacy for the large number of Americans who sustain such a brain
injury each year.
Today's passage of this bipartisan bill moves us closer to continuing
and strengthening these important programs which say to our Nation's
wounded soldiers and injured children: ``You deserve the best we can
provide''. I hope very much that Congress will continue to expand these
programs, so that we can truly do all we can for these deserving
individuals and their families.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the committee-reported
substitute, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be
read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in
the Record, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3831) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.''
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 793), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m.,
Wednesday, December 12; that on Wednesday, December 12, following the
prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date,
the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved
for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning
business for 3 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or their designees and Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first half under the
control of the majority and the final half under the control of the
Republicans; that at the close of morning business, the Senate then
resume consideration of H.R. 2419, as provided for under a previous
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:21 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, at 9 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
YOUSIF BOUTROUS GHAFARI, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA.
JAMES K. GLASSMAN, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, VICE
KAREN P. HUGHES.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE TERM PRESCRIBED BY
LAW, VICE MARK W. EVERSON.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STANLEY C. SUBOLESKI, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY (FOSSIL ENERGY), VICE JEFFREY D. JARRETT,
RESIGNED.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
JON WELLINGHOFF, OF NEVADA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30,
2013. (REAPPOINTMENT)
THE JUDICIARY
GLENN T. SUDDABY, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, VICE LAWRENCE E.
KAHN, RETIRED.
G. MURRAY SNOW, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, VICE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE,
RETIRED.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
GREGORY G. KATSAS, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, VICE PETER D. KEISLER, RESIGNED.
KEVIN J. O'CONNOR, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, VICE ROBERT D. MCCALLUM, JR.
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. BRUCE A. LITCHFIELD, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COLONEL MARK A. EDIGER, 0000
COLONEL RICHARD A. HERSACK, 0000
COLONEL DANIEL O. WYMAN, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. CHRISTOPHER F. BURNE, 0000
COL. DWIGHT D. CREASY, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADES INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 531(A):
To be lieutenant colonel
JOHN R. SHAW, 0000
To be major
GREGORY S.F. MCDOUGAL, 0000
NATALIE L. RESTIVO, 0000
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUAL FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE
CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 531 AND 3064:
To be lieutenant colonel
QUINDOLA M. CROWLEY, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADES INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL CORPS
UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 531 AND 3064:
To be lieutenant colonel
PAUL A. MABRY, 0000
To be major
JON E. LUTZ, 0000
ROBERT PERITO, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be colonel
JOSEPH M. ADAMS, 0000
MICHAEL A. BALSER, 0000
BRETT A. BARRACLOUGH, 0000
ROGER S. BASNETT, 0000
DAVID G. BASSETT, 0000
THOMAS C. BEANE, JR., 0000
VERNON L. BEATTY, JR., 0000
TIMOTHY D. BECKNER, 0000
ALAN R. BERNARD, 0000
FRANCISCO R. BETANCOURT, 0000
MICHAEL C. BIRD, 0000
GREGG A. BLANCHARD, 0000
GEORGE W. BOND, 0000
MICHAEL T. BOONE, 0000
WILLIAM K. BOYETT, 0000
LEO E. BRADLEY III, 0000
WILLIAM B. BRENTS, 0000
BRIAN P. BRINDLEY, 0000
STEVEN R. BUSCH, 0000
DOUGLAS B. BUSHEY, 0000
KENNETH G. CARRICK, 0000
ANTHONY K. CHAMBERS, 0000
DOUGLAS G. CHAMBERS, 0000
DANIEL M. CHARTIER, 0000
MARCUS C. CHERRY, 0000
LARY E. CHINOWSKY, 0000
[[Page 33651]]
LINWOOD B. CLARK, JR., 0000
EMMA K. COULSON, 0000
STEVEN F. CUMMINGS, 0000
DEBRA D. DANIELS, 0000
WILLIAM J. DAVISSON, 0000
JAMES V. DAY, 0000
ROBERT W. DEJONG, 0000
BARRY A. DIEHL, 0000
RICHARD B. DIX, 0000
DAVID B. DYE, 0000
STEVEN M. ELKINS, 0000
RONALD P. ELROD, 0000
KENNETH E. EVANS, JR., 0000
CHRISTOPHER R. FARLEY, 0000
MICHAEL P. FLANAGAN, 0000
JEFFERY D. FORD, 0000
DARLENE S. FREEMAN, 0000
LAWRENCE W. FULLER, 0000
ROBERT E. GAGNON, 0000
MARIO V. GARCIA, JR., 0000
TODD GARLICK, 0000
KEVIN E. GENTZLER, 0000
LESLIE A. GERALD, 0000
CHARLES C. GIBSON, 0000
MAXINE C. GIRARD, 0000
MICHELE L. GODDETTE, 0000
NANCY J. GRANDY, 0000
KATHRYN R. HALL, 0000
SEAN T. HANNAH, 0000
DEBRA A. HANNEMAN, 0000
LEO R. HAY, 0000
ERIC J. HESSE, 0000
KENNETH E. HICKINS, 0000
MARK R. HICKS, 0000
MICHAEL D. HOSKIN, 0000
MICHAEL C. HOWITZ, 0000
KENNETH D. HUBBARD, 0000
WILLIAM B. HUGHES, 0000
MICHAEL L. HUMMEL, 0000
RONALD JACOBS, JR., 0000
GRANT A. JACOBY, 0000
ROBERT G. JOHNSON, 0000
JACK T. JUDY, 0000
KEVIN K. KACHINSKI, 0000
ALLEN W. KIEFER, 0000
JOHN C. KILGALLON, 0000
JAMES D. KINKADE, 0000
RONALD KIRKLIN, 0000
LENNY J. KNESS, 0000
ROBERT D. KNOCK, JR., 0000
RICHARD J. KRAMER, 0000
DREFUS LANE, 0000
THOMAS J. LANGOWSKI, 0000
JOHN M. LAZAR, 0000
JOHN R. LEAPHART, 0000
STANLEY M. LEWIS, 0000
EUGENE W. LILLIEWOOD, JR., 0000
SCOTT J. LOFREDDO, 0000
KERRY J. MACINTYRE, 0000
ROBERT L. MARION, 0000
PATRICK H. MASON, 0000
PATRICIA A. MATLOCK, 0000
THOMAS D. McCARTHY, 0000
MARK A. MCCORMICK, 0000
TRACY E. MCLEAN, 0000
JOHN H. MCPHAUL, JR., 0000
PHILLIP A. MEAD, 0000
HOWARD L. MERRITT, 0000
THOMAS MINTZER, 0000
CONRADO B. MORGAN, 0000
JEFFREY S. MORRIS, 0000
MICHAEL S. OUBRE, 0000
FRANCIS S. PACELLO, 0000
GUST W. PAGONIS, 0000
PATRICK V. PALLATTO, 0000
RICHARD B. PARKER, 0000
THOMAS L. PAYNE, 0000
BRENT A. PENNY, 0000
BROC A. PERKUCHIN, 0000
MICHAEL P. PETERMAN, 0000
DIANNA ROBERSON, 0000
HARVEY R. ROBINSON, 0000
KENNETH P. RODGERS, 0000
RONALD J. ROSS, 0000
WILLIAM I. RUSH, 0000
KURT J. RYAN, 0000
WILLIAM A. SANDERS, 0000
LYNN W. SANNICOLAS, 0000
LISA R. SCHLEDERKIRKPATRICK, 0000
THOMAS S. SCHORR, JR., 0000
MICHAEL J. SCHROEDER, 0000
RICHARD L. SHEPARD, 0000
JOE K. SLEDD, 0000
JAMES H. SMITH, 0000
JEANNE C. SMITHHOOPER, 0000
JOHNNY W. SOKOLOSKY, 0000
JEFFREY K. SOUDER, 0000
LOUIS F. STEINBUGL, 0000
VANCE F. STEWART III, 0000
DEBORAH S. STUART, 0000
WAYNE L. STULTZ, 0000
JOHN P. SULLIVAN, 0000
JOHN H. SUTTON, 0000
MICHAEL R. SWITZER, 0000
MARK E. TALKINGTON, 0000
JOEL C. TAYLOR, 0000
DANNY F. TILZEY, 0000
FERNANDO L. TORRENT, 0000
EVELYN M. TORRES, 0000
JOHN S. TURNER, 0000
DAVID E. VANSLAMBROOK, 0000
JOEL D. WEEKS, 0000
FRANKLIN L. WENZEL, 0000
HARRY F. WILKES, 0000
CURTIS WILLIAMS, JR., 0000
KELVIN R. WOOD, 0000
REED F. YOUNG, 0000
MICHAEL E. ZARBO, 0000
JOHN V. ZAVARELLI, 0000
0000
0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be colonel
ANTHONY J. ABATI, 0000
DAVID P. ANDERS, 0000
BRUCE P. ANTONIA, 0000
ANDREW W. BACKUS, 0000
ROBERT A. BAER, 0000
JUNIOOMARU BARBER, 0000
DAVID B. BATCHELOR, 0000
MARK A. BERTOLINI, 0000
KENNETH J. BILAND, 0000
ALAN C. BLACKWELL, 0000
MARK A. BLAIR, 0000
MARLON D. BLOCKER, 0000
BRADLEY D. BLOOM, 0000
DONALD C. BOLDUC, 0000
JOHN R. BOULE II, 0000
PATRICK P. BREWINGTON, 0000
DARRYL J. BRIGGS, 0000
ERIC W. BRIGHAM, 0000
GARY M. BRITO, 0000
THOMAS H. BRITTAIN, 0000
MICHAEL W. BROBECK, 0000
JEFFREY M. BRODEUR, 0000
MICHAEL A. BROWDER, 0000
KEVIN P. BROWN, 0000
ROBERT S. BROWN, 0000
ROSS A. BROWN, 0000
VINCENT D. BRYANT, 0000
WILLARD M. BURLESON II, 0000
FRANCIS B. BURNS, 0000
DAVID A. BUSHEY, 0000
WILLIAM C. BUTCHER, 0000
MIKE A. CARTER, 0000
CHRISTOPHER G. CAVOLI, 0000
ROBERT P. CERJAN, 0000
RANDALL K. CHEESEBOROUGH, 0000
FREDRICK S. CHOI, 0000
PERRY C. CLARK, 0000
JOSEPH S. COALE, 0000
DAVID C. COGDALL, 0000
CRAIG A. COLLIER, 0000
LYDIA D. COMBS, 0000
ERIC R. CONRAD, 0000
LEONARD A. COSBY, 0000
KENNETH J. CRAWFORD, 0000
REGINALD R. DAVIS, 0000
BRANT V. DAYLEY, 0000
EDMUND J. DEGEN, 0000
TIMOTHY P. DEVITO, 0000
BARRY S. DIRUZZA, 0000
BRIAN J. DISINGER, 0000
MICHAEL J. DOMINIQUE, 0000
SCOTT E. DONALDSON, 0000
GEORGE T. DONOVAN, JR., 0000
TERENCE M. DORN, 0000
KENNETH E. DOWNER, 0000
STEVEN W. DUKE, 0000
BRIAN P. DUNN, 0000
JOHN C. DVORACEK, 0000
CHESTER F. DYMEK III, 0000
CHARLES N. EASSA, 0000
MARK L. EDMONDS, 0000
GEOFFREY D. ELLERSON, 0000
MICHAEL T. ENDRES, 0000
MALCOLM B. FROST, 0000
MICHAEL J. GAWKINS, 0000
WILLIAM K. GAYLER, 0000
STEPHEN J. GAYTON, JR., 0000
RAY D. GENTZYEL, 0000
BERTRAND A. GES, 0000
MICHAEL L. GIBLER, 0000
CARL L. GILES, 0000
MARK J. GORTON, 0000
DEWEY A. GRANGER, 0000
THOMAS C. GRAVES, 0000
WAYNE A. GREEN, 0000
PAUL S. GREENHOUSE, 0000
GREGORY J. GUNTER, 0000
MICHAEL J. HARRIS, 0000
ROBERT D. HAYCOCK, 0000
ASHTON L. HAYES, 0000
KYLE D. HICKMAN, 0000
THOMAS E. HIEBERT, 0000
MICHAEL S. HIGGINBOTTOM, 0000
BRYAN C. HILFERTY, 0000
ADAM R. HINSDALE, 0000
TERRY D. HODGES, 0000
PATRICK B. HOGAN, 0000
JAMES A. HOWARD, 0000
WILLIAM P. HUBER, 0000
PAUL G. HUMPHREYS, 0000
MARC B. HUTSON, 0000
MICHAEL J. INFANTI, 0000
JAMES P. INMAN, 0000
JOSEPH D. JACKY, 0000
JAMES H. JENKINS III, 0000
JACK J. JENSEN, 0000
BARRY A. JOHNSON, 0000
FRED W. JOHNSON, 0000
MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, 0000
MICIOTTO O. JOHNSON, 0000
HARVEY B. JONES III, 0000
ROGER T. JONES, 0000
ARTHUR A. KANDARIAN, 0000
THOMAS L. KELLY, 0000
PATRICK J. KILROY, 0000
SCOTT D. KIMMELL, 0000
WILLIAM E. KING IV, 0000
REINHARD W. KOENIG, 0000
STEVEN T. KOENIG, 0000
CHRISTOPHER D. KOLENDA, 0000
FRED T. KRAWCHUK, JR., 0000
RYAN J. KUHN, 0000
JOHN F. LAGANELLI, 0000
JAMES E. LARSEN II, 0000
LOUIS J. LARTIGUE, JR., 0000
TERRY M. LEE, 0000
JON N. LEONARD II, 0000
DAVID J. LIDDELL, 0000
TIMOTHY J. LONEY, 0000
VICTOR H. LOSCH II, 0000
VIET X. LUONG, 0000
LATONYA D. LYNN, 0000
CHARLES C. MACK, 0000
SCOTT F. MALCOM, 0000
SAMUEL P. MANSBERGER, 0000
FRED V. MANZO, JR., 0000
JAMES P. MARSHALL, 0000
JEFFREY R. MARTINDALE, 0000
PATRICK E. MATLOCK, 0000
SEAN W. MCCAFFREY, 0000
JOHN C. MCCLELLAN, JR., 0000
DAN MCELROY, 0000
BRIAN S. MCFADDEN, 0000
SHAWN P. MCGINLEY, 0000
JOHN M. MCHUGH, 0000
ROBERT F. MCLAUGHLIN, 0000
KEVIN W. MILTON, 0000
JAMES B. MINGO, 0000
JAMES J. MINGUS, 0000
JAMES M. MIS, 0000
LENTFORT MITCHELL, 0000
MARK E. MITCHELL, 0000
STEPHEN P. MONIZ, 0000
JOHN J. MULBURY, 0000
ROBERT M. MUNDELL, 0000
RICHARD J. MURASKI, JR., 0000
FRANK M. MUTH, 0000
DEBORAH A. MYERS, 0000
DONALD H. MYERS, 0000
BARRY A. NAYLOR, 0000
ANDREW B. NELSON, 0000
CRAIG M. NEWMAN, 0000
JAMES D. NICKOLAS, 0000
NOEL T. NICOLLE, 0000
GARY R. NICOSON, 0000
KIRK H. NILSSON, 0000
EDWARD T. NYE, 0000
ALFRED A. PANTANO, JR., 0000
PAUL M. PAOLOZZI, 0000
ROBERT J. PAQUIN, 0000
JOHN A. PEELER, 0000
WARREN M. PERRY, 0000
JAMES A. PETERSON, 0000
JEFFREY D. PETERSON, 0000
JODY L. PETERY, 0000
KURT J. PINKERTON, 0000
DANIEL A. PINNELL, 0000
MARK B. POMEROY, 0000
MICHAEL L. POPOVICH, 0000
ANDREW P. POPPAS, 0000
WILLIAM W. PRIOR, 0000
BRIAN M. PUGMIRE, 0000
MICHAEL D. PYOTT, 0000
VINCENT V. QUARLES, 0000
STEPHEN M. QUINN, 0000
VINCENT M. REAP, 0000
JOHN G. REILLY, 0000
PAUL K. REIST, 0000
JOHN S. RENDA, 0000
DARYL S. REY, 0000
TERRY L. RICE, 0000
TIMOTHY J. RICHARDS, 0000
RICHARD S. RICHARDSON, 0000
GLENN S. RICHIE, 0000
STEPHEN J. RICHMOND, 0000
JAMES M. ROBERTSON, 0000
JOHN R. ROBINSON, 0000
DAVID A. RODDENBERRY, 0000
ROBERT R. ROGGEMAN, 0000
ROBERT J. RUCH, 0000
BRYAN L. RUDACILLE, JR., 0000
OLIVER S. SAUNDERS, 0000
DANIEL P. SAUTER III, 0000
ERIC O. SCHACHT, 0000
GEORGE T. SHEPARD, JR., 0000
MILTON L. SHIPMAN, 0000
WILSON A. SHOFFNER, JR., 0000
GEORGE B. SHUPLINKOV, 0000
STEPHEN J. SICINSKI, 0000
GEORGE SIMON III, 0000
JOSEPH A. SIMONELLI, JR., 0000
JOHN D. SIMS, 0000
LAURA L. SINGER, 0000
MICHAEL K. SKINNER, 0000
AVANULAS R. SMILEY, 0000
KURT L. SONNTAG, 0000
WILLIAM E. SPADIE, 0000
JAMES R. SPANGLER II, 0000
WILLIAM T. STEELE, 0000
[[Page 33652]]
RUSSELL STINGER, 0000
MARK W. SUICH, 0000
GEORGE L. SWIFT, 0000
SEAN P. SWINDELL, 0000
JAMES F. SWITZER, 0000
ROBERT M. TARADASH, 0000
VINCENT J. TEDESCO III, 0000
PATRICK R. TERRELL, 0000
DAVID T. THEISEN, 0000
DAVID E. THOMPSON II, 0000
EDWARD W. TIMMONS, SR., 0000
KEITRON A. TODD, 0000
MICHAEL A. TODD, 0000
CHRISTOPHER R. TONER, 0000
WILLIAM A. TURNER, 0000
JOHN C. VALLEDOR, 0000
DOUGLAS L. VICTOR, 0000
JEFFREY E. VUONO, 0000
JOSEPH D. WAWRO, 0000
CHARLES R. WEBSTER, JR., 0000
DAVE WELLONS, 0000
RANDOLPH C. WHITE, JR., 0000
STEVEN J. WHITMARSH, 0000
DANIEL T. WILLIAMS, 0000
THEARON M. WILLIAMS, 0000
STEVEN C. WILLIAMSON, 0000
ERIC J. WINKIE, 0000
BRIAN E. WINSKI, 0000
JAMES M. WOLAK, 0000
JAMES J. WOLFF, 0000
0000
0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be colonel
DAVID P. ACEVEDO, 0000
CHARLES T. AMES, 0000
KEVIN J. AUSTIN, 0000
BERNARD B. BANKS, 0000
ROBERT A. BARKER, 0000
PETER J. BEIM, 0000
KIRK C. BENSON, 0000
BURT A. BIEBUYCK, 0000
KENNETH C. BLAKELY, 0000
ALFRED L. BROOKS, 0000
TODD D. BROWN, 0000
TIMOTHY S. BURNS, 0000
KIMBERLY L. CARDEN, 0000
THOMAS E. CARTLEDGE, JR., 0000
MICHAEL R. CHILDERS, 0000
MICHAEL J. CHINN, 0000
BRIAN J. CLARK, 0000
ALEXANDER S. COCHRAN III, 0000
JOHN P. CODY, SR., 0000
MARK F. CONROE, 0000
SYLVESTER COTTON, 0000
JOSEPH M. COX, 0000
JUAN A. CUADRADO, 0000
MICHAEL L. CURRENT, 0000
ANTHONY J. DATTILO, JR., 0000
DENNIS J. DAY, 0000
KEVIN J. DEGNAN, 0000
DAVID F. DIMEO, 0000
MARK A. EASTMAN, 0000
BRIAN K. EBERLE, 0000
MARK R. ELLINGTON, 0000
PAUL A. ENGLISH, 0000
KEVIN W. FARRELL, 0000
MICHAEL A. FARUQUI, 0000
TIMOTHY L. FAULKNER, 0000
JOSEPH H. FELTER III, 0000
JAMES C. FLOWERS, 0000
KEVIN D. FOSTER, 0000
VINCENT L. FREEMAN, JR., 0000
PATRICIA A. FROST, 0000
GARY J. GARAY, 0000
ANTHONY D. GARCIA, 0000
KATHLEEN A. GAVLE, 0000
GIAN P. GENTILE, 0000
JESSE L. GERMAIN, 0000
LEE P. GIZZI, 0000
MATTHEW P. GLUNZ, 0000
MATTHEW B. GRECO, 0000
JOHN B. HALSTEAD, 0000
DEBORAH L. HANAGAN, 0000
WILLIAM H. HARMAN, 0000
CHARLES E. HARRIS III, 0000
KEITH B. HAUK, 0000
ERIC P. HENDERSON, 0000
CHRISTOPHER M. HILL, 0000
TIMOTHY D. HODGE, 0000
SCOTT T. HORTON, 0000
JOE G. HOWARD, JR., 0000
PHILIP A. HOYLE, 0000
KEVIN L. HUGGINS, 0000
RODERICK E. HUTCHINSON, 0000
MICHAEL P. JACKSON, 0000
GARY W. JOHNSTON, 0000
BRADLEY E. JONES, 0000
MICHAEL T. KELL, 0000
GLENN A. KENNEDY II, 0000
MITCHELL L. KILGO, 0000
ROBERT C. KNUTSON, 0000
DONNA K. KORYCINSKI, 0000
ANTHONY D. KROGH, 0000
MARK D. LANDERS, 0000
STEVEN E. LANDIS, 0000
WILLIAM B. LANGAN, 0000
LARRY R. LARIMER, 0000
JOSEPH K. LAYTON, 0000
EDWARD D. LOEWEN, 0000
CHRISTOPHER D. LONG, 0000
STEPHEN J. MARIANO, 0000
DANIEL R. MATCHETTE, 0000
PETER J. MATTES, 0000
BRENDAN B. MCALOON, 0000
TAREK A. MEKHAIL, 0000
THOMAS J. MOFFATT, 0000
LOUISE M. MORONEY, 0000
DAVID W. MORRISON, 0000
JAY P. MURRAY, 0000
VINCENT P. OCONNOR, 0000
RICHARD J. ODONNELL, 0000
DEREK T. ORNDORFF, 0000
ORLANDO W. ORTIZ, 0000
LEO R. PACHER, 0000
CECIL R. PETTIT, JR., 0000
CHARLES A. PFAFF, 0000
BRADLEY W. PIPPIN, 0000
LISA K. PRICE, 0000
RICHARD B. PRICE, 0000
JAMES W. PURVIS, 0000
BURL W. RANDOLPH, JR., 0000
KIMBERLY A. RAPACZ, 0000
PATRICK D. REARDON, 0000
SEAN P. RICE, 0000
RANDOLPH E. ROSIN, 0000
EDWARD C. ROTHSTEIN, 0000
BRIDGET M. ROURKE, 0000
JOHN D. RUFFING, 0000
ARNOLD L. RUMPHREY II, 0000
MARIA D. RYAN, 0000
RONALD A. RYNNE, 0000
ROBERT W. SADOWSKI, 0000
JACINTO SANTIAGO, JR., 0000
PHILIP H. SARNECKI, 0000
JEFFREY B. SCHAMBURG, 0000
SCOTT SCHUTZMEISTER, 0000
GLENN G. SCHWEITZER, 0000
DAVID W. SEELY, 0000
STEPHEN S. SEITZ, 0000
RICHARD L. SHELTON, 0000
THOMAS E. SHEPERD, 0000
DAVID W. SHIN, 0000
MICHAEL S. SIMPSON, 0000
DAVID F. SMITH, 0000
TIMOTHY J. STARKE, JR., 0000
ROBERT P. STAVNES, 0000
JOHN M. SWARTZ, 0000
DANA S. TANKINS, 0000
RANDY S. TAYLOR, 0000
PERRY W. TEAGUE, 0000
JOHN M. THACKSTON, 0000
DAVID W. TOHN, 0000
OTILIO TORRES, JR., 0000
PHILIP VANWILTENBURG, 0000
FREDERICK L. WASHINGTON, 0000
RICHARD B. WHITE, 0000
WILLIAM E. WHITNEY III, 0000
ANDRE L. WILEY, 0000
CHARLES H. WILSON III, 0000
AUBREY L. WOOD III, 0000
GREGORY D. WRIGHT, 0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 5721:
To be lieutenant commander
STEPHEN W. ALDRIDGE, 0000
RICHARD BETANCOURT, 0000
WILLIAM F. BUNDY, JR., 0000
DAVID M. DONSELAR, 0000
ROBERT J. GELINAS, 0000
DAVID C. GRATTAN, 0000
TRAVIS W. HAIRE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. HIGHLEY, 0000
HEATH E. JOHNMEYER, 0000
JASON V. JULAO, 0000
CRAIG E. LITTY, 0000
ERIK T. LUNDBERG, 0000
KEITH MARINICS, 0000
JEREMY A. MILLER, 0000
EDWIN E. OSTROOT II, 0000
LUKE D. SCHMIDT, 0000
JACKIE A. SCHWEITZER, 0000
COLBY W. SHERWOOD, 0000
BRENT C. SPILLNER, 0000
BRIAN C. STOUGH, 0000
CHARLES W. TURNER, 0000
WILLIAM E. WELCH II, 0000
KRISTOFER J. WESTPHAL, 0000
____________________
WITHDRAWAL
Executive Message transmitted by the President to the Senate on
December 11, 2007 withdrawing from further Senate consideration the
following nomination:
JAMES K. GLASSMAN, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST
13, 2010. (REAPPOINTMENT), WHICH WAS SENT TO THE SENATE ON
APRIL 26, 2007.
[[Page 33653]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Clay).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
December 11, 2007.
I hereby appoint the Hon. William Lacy Clay to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2007, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5
minutes.
____________________
IRAQI REFUGEE CRISIS
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the largest humanitarian crisis in the
world continues to unfold in Iraq. Over 4 million displaced people,
more than the crisis in Darfur, two million or more, have fled their
country; and the rest are displaced within. They have fled to Syria, to
Jordan, throughout the Middle East and beyond. It is brutal, not just
for the refugees themselves, and the displaced people, but it places a
great strain on the host country.
Late last summer, Ambassador Ryan Crocker pointed out the problems
that this refugee crisis is posing for the United States itself when he
expressed deep concerns that if we don't do a better job of helping to
protect the people whose lives are at risk because they have worked for
the United States, if we turn our back on them when they flee the
country, than people will be less willing to work with us, and we won't
be able to rely on those who make such a difference in terms of
services of interpreters and guides and others providing essential
services for United States activities in Iraq.
I have been deeply concerned about this problem over the course of
the last year, finding out how far we have fallen short of the mark
when I was working with a group of high school students in Oregon and
returning U.S. Oregon National Guard troops. They were fighting to
bring to the United States their interpreter, a young woman who had
been marked for death in Iraq because of her cooperation with the
United States. It was frustrating over the course of the months that we
worked with them because I really had no good explanation for these
young people, the Guard and the high school students, about why it
should be so hard for the United States to help people who helped us.
It is not just people who had helped the United States who have fled
the country, it is not just those that are concerned about Sunni and
Shia violence; the Mandean, an ancient people, a small Christian sect,
are caught in the crossfire of this civil war in Iraq, and they are at
risk of being wiped out in their entirety for all time.
Having been inspired by these young Oregonians, having been inspired,
by other dedicated advocates, for example, Kirk Johnson, a former AID
staff member, who chronicled the plight of over 600 people at risk, of
whom less than 10 had been resettled, we introduced legislation to deal
with the mismatch between the scope of the problem and the limited
resources the United States Government has put into addressing it.
Indeed, after we ``won the war in Iraq,'' the situation became worse
on the ground, and we witnessed the explosion of this crisis. For 2005
and 2006, the numbers of people we helped were miniscule. Out of the 4
million people who have left their homes, we allowed 198 Iraqis in the
United States in 2005, and 202 last year, almost entirely people who
were being reunited with their families, who had been made refugees in
1991.
There were glimmers of hope this year, with the administration
promising, to allow 25,000 people into the United States, which was the
same number of refugees that the Prime Minister of Sweden told me that
Sweden was willing to accept. Later, the U.S. number fell to 7,000, and
then ultimately we only let 1,800 Iraqis in throughout the entire last
fiscal year. Even that was after a last-minute rush, because the first
6 months we had only allowed 69 Iraqi refugees.
There is good news, however, because due to an amendment by Senator
Kennedy that was adopted in the Senate for the Defense authorization
bill, largely taken from provisions in our House legislation, we are
actually going to be able to make some real progress. We will be able
to process some of these refugees in their own country. Until now,
people had been forced to leave Iraq. Even though we have the largest
embassy in the history of the planet, they had to leave Iraq before
they could apply for refugee status. We have an opportunity to increase
to 5,000 a year those people who are at risk because they have helped
us. These are important steps, and I hope they are approved.
But much more needs to be done. First, we have to actually do what is
authorized. Second, we need to put some real money into it, not just
the $250 million for refugee assistance that is currently pending. That
is rounding error, given the billions that we have spent in Iraq that
we can't even account for.
It is important for us to scale our commitment to make sure that we
meet the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath of our war in Iraq.
____________________
``TECHNICALITIES''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2007, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is
recognized during morning-hour debate for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to my
colleagues' remarks from last week that ``technically, the troops are
funded right now,'' as if the bottom line on the budget report is
sufficient for some in this chamber to ensure that our war fighters
have all the resources that they need.
Well, war is a serious business, Mr. Speaker, and we are indeed a
Nation at war. Our men and women in harm's way don't have time for our
political games or ``technicalities.'' Clever word play isn't going to
turn DOD ink from red to black. There is nothing ``technical'' about
the risk our war fighters face every day. They are not fighting an
enemy that ``technically'' wants to do us harm. Instead, they are
fighting a lethal terrorist network actually bent on spreading real
Islamist totalitarianism in Iraq and across the globe.
Mr. Speaker, the success of the surge strategy in Iraq is not making
things ``technically'' better. We are seeing actual results and real
improvement on
[[Page 33654]]
the ground. Even the most liberal newspapers admit that the improvement
is real. IED attacks are not ``technically'' down; they are actually
fewer in number, fewer bombs being placed to attack our troops and
Iraqi allies. Casualties rates are not ``technically'' down. We are
actually losing fewer Americans as the security conditions improve.
These improving conditions are not ``technically'' creating
reconciliation. Iraqis across the country are really beginning to
bridge age-old divides as they unite to secure their future. By playing
political games with vital war funding, we are not ``technically''
sending a message to our war fighters in harm's way, we are actually
putting all of the progress that they have made in very real jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, is that a message we choose to send?
My own constituents, civilian and soldiers alike, work at Fort
Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne. This holiday season, two brigades
of the 101st are serving in Afghanistan and two more in Iraq. They are
supported by the men and women at Fort Campbell, and their families are
embraced by the citizens of Clarksville and Montgomery County,
Tennessee.
This Christmas, if we don't actually provide DOD the funding they
need, my constituents will begin to get furlough letters in the mail.
There is nothing ``technical'' about being laid off. There is nothing
``technical'' about being told that in 60 days you won't get a
paycheck. It is very real.
Before this Chamber actually adjourns so that we can spend happy and
comfortable holidays with our families, I would ask my colleagues to
please remember these constituents of Clarksville, Tennessee, who are
actually in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are actually
worried about being laid off next year.
I urge my colleagues not to return home until we actually give the
troops the very real funding that they need. Our men and women are not
``technicalities,'' they are indeed our sons, our daughters, our
neighbors, our constituents. They are the bravest among us. They need
our support and they deserve a Congress who will honor their service
and who will do our job.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 41 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pastor) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God, Founders of this Nation destined for greatness called upon
Your Divine Providence to guide their efforts to establish freedom
under the governance of law.
In our own day, we call upon Your Holy Name for the divine light of
truth and wisdom.
Heal our wounds, protect us from evil, forgive our sins, and rebuild
the walls of justice and integrity that identify Your goodness in the
Nation.
May this end time of this session of Congress as well as the
approaching celebration of holidays and holy days bring joy and peace
to this Nation and allow the world to witness anew the advent
prophesied by Isaiah: ``Open the gates to let a righteous nation in, a
nation that keeps faith.''
For this we long and pray both now and forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA 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.
____________________
BELIEF UNDER SIEGE IN BRITAIN
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the freedom of religion is under attack in
Great Britain.
Last week British news reported that the daughter of a British Imam,
we will call her Hannah, is living under police protection after
receiving death threats from her father and brother because she
converted to Christianity.
Hannah was born in Britain to immigrant Pakistani parents. She
renounced the Muslim faith when she was a teenager and has been in
hiding for over 10 years.
After multiple death threats and an attempt on her life by 40 men,
led by her father, brandishing axes, hammers, and knives, Hannah has
sought protection from the British Government.
According to her, her father believes that the Koran teaches that
anyone who walks away from Islam should be killed. Well, murder is bad
enough, but murder in the name of religion is worse, and it's legal, at
least in a free state where all religions are to be tolerated, even
Christianity.
Democracy values the freedom of other people's faith; it does not
restrict it. That is the difference in a democracy and a government
that is controlled by a religion.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m.
today.
____________________
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS COVENANT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3079) to amend the Joint Resolution Approving the
Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3079
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS IMMIGRATION, SECURITY, AND LABOR ACT
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Northern Mariana Islands
Immigration, Security, and Labor Act''.
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.
(a) Immigration and Growth.--In recognition of the need to
ensure uniform adherence to long-standing fundamental
immigration policies of the United States, it is the
intention of the Congress in enacting this title--
(1) to ensure that effective border control procedures are
implemented and observed, and that national security and
homeland security issues are properly addressed, by extending
the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(17)), to
apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(referred to in this title as the ``Commonwealth''), with
special provisions to allow for--
(A) the orderly phasing-out of the nonresident contract
worker program of the Commonwealth; and
(B) the orderly phasing-in of Federal responsibilities over
immigration in the Commonwealth; and
(2) to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable,
potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of phasing-out
the Commonwealth's nonresident contract worker program and to
maximize the Commonwealth's
[[Page 33655]]
potential for future economic and business growth by--
(A) encouraging diversification and growth of the economy
of the Commonwealth in accordance with fundamental values
underlying Federal immigration policy;
(B) recognizing local self-government, as provided for in
the Covenant To Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in Political Union With the United States of
America through consultation with the Governor of the
Commonwealth;
(C) assisting the Commonwealth in achieving a progressively
higher standard of living for citizens of the Commonwealth
through the provision of technical and other assistance;
(D) providing opportunities for individuals authorized to
work in the United States, including citizens of the freely
associated states; and
(E) providing a mechanism for the continued use of alien
workers, to the extent those workers continue to be necessary
to supplement the Commonwealth's resident workforce, and to
protect those workers from the potential for abuse and
exploitation.
(b) Avoiding Adverse Effects.--In recognition of the
Commonwealth's unique economic circumstances, history, and
geographical location, it is the intent of the Congress that
the Commonwealth be given as much flexibility as possible in
maintaining existing businesses and other revenue sources,
and developing new economic opportunities, consistent with
the mandates of this title. This title, and the amendments
made by this title, should be implemented wherever possible
to expand tourism and economic development in the
Commonwealth, including aiding prospective tourists in
gaining access to the Commonwealth's memorials, beaches,
parks, dive sites, and other points of interest.
SEC. 103. IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR THE COMMONWEALTH.
(a) Amendment to Joint Resolution Approving Covenant
Establishing Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.--
The Joint Resolution entitled ``A Joint Resolution to approve
the `Covenant To Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of
America', and for other purposes'', approved March 24, 1976
(Public Law 94-241; 90 Stat. 263), is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 6. IMMIGRATION AND TRANSITION.
``(a) Application of the Immigration and Nationality Act
and Establishment of a Transition Program.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),
effective on the first day of the first full month commencing
1 year after the date of the enactment of the Northern
Mariana Islands Immigration, Security, and Labor Act
(hereafter referred to as the `transition program effective
date'), the provisions of the `immigration laws' (as defined
in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) shall apply to the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (referred to in this section as
the `Commonwealth'), except as otherwise provided in this
section.
``(2) Transition period.--There shall be a transition
period beginning on the transition program effective date and
ending on December 31, 2013, except as provided in
subsections (b) and (d), during which the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the
Secretary of the Interior, shall establish, administer, and
enforce a transition program to regulate immigration to the
Commonwealth, as provided in this section (hereafter referred
to as the `transition program').
``(3) Delay of commencement of transition period.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
the Secretary's sole discretion, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Governor of
the Commonwealth, may determine that the transition program
effective date be delayed for a period not to exceed more
than 180 days after such date.
``(B) Congressional notification.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall notify the Congress of a
determination under subparagraph (A) not later than 30 days
prior to the transition program effective date.
``(C) Congressional review.--A delay of the transition
program effective date shall not take effect until 30 days
after the date on which the notification under subparagraph
(B) is made.
``(4) Requirement for regulations.--The transition program
shall be implemented pursuant to regulations to be
promulgated, as appropriate, by the head of each agency or
department of the United States having responsibilities under
the transition program.
``(5) Interagency agreements.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, and
the Secretary of the Interior shall negotiate and implement
agreements among their agencies to identify and assign their
respective duties so as to ensure timely and proper
implementation of the provisions of this section. The
agreements should address, at a minimum, procedures to ensure
that Commonwealth employers have access to adequate labor,
and that tourists, students, retirees, and other visitors
have access to the Commonwealth without unnecessary delay or
impediment. The agreements may also allocate funding between
the respective agencies tasked with various responsibilities
under this section.
``(6) Certain education funding.--In addition to fees
charged pursuant to section 286(m) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) to recover the full costs
of providing adjudication services, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall charge an annual supplemental fee of $150 per
nonimmigrant worker to each prospective employer who is
issued a permit under subsection (d) of this section during
the transition period. Such supplemental fee shall be paid
into the Treasury of the Commonwealth government for the
purpose of funding ongoing vocational educational curricula
and program development by Commonwealth educational entities.
``(7) Asylum.--Section 208 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) shall not apply during the
transition period to persons physically present in the
Commonwealth or arriving in the Commonwealth (whether or not
at a designated port of arrival), including persons brought
to the Commonwealth after having been interdicted in
international or United States waters.
``(b) Numerical Limitations for Nonimmigrant Workers.--An
alien, if otherwise qualified, may seek admission to Guam or
to the Commonwealth during the transition program as a
nonimmigrant worker under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H))
without counting against the numerical limitations set forth
in section 214(g) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)). This
subsection does not apply to any employment to be performed
outside of Guam or the Commonwealth. Not later than 3 years
following the transition program effective date, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a report to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Natural
Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives projecting the number of asylum claims the
Secretary anticipates following the termination of the
transition period, the efforts the Secretary has made to
ensure appropriate interdiction efforts, provide for
appropriate treatment of asylum seekers, and prepare to
accept and adjudicate asylum claims in the Commonwealth.
``(c) Nonimmigrant Investor Visas.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the treaty requirements
in section 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), during the transition period,
the Secretary of Homeland Security may, upon the application
of an alien, classify an alien as a CNMI-only nonimmigrant
under section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii)) if the alien--
``(A) has been admitted to the Commonwealth in long-term
investor status under the immigration laws of the
Commonwealth before the transition program effective date;
``(B) has continuously maintained residence in the
Commonwealth under long-term investor status;
``(C) is otherwise admissible; and
``(D) maintains the investment or investments that formed
the basis for such long-term investor status.
``(2) Requirement for regulations.--Not later than 60 days
before the transition program effective date, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall publish regulations in the Federal
Register to implement this subsection.
``(d) Special Provision to Ensure Adequate Employment;
Commonwealth Only Transitional Workers.--An alien who is
seeking to enter the Commonwealth as a nonimmigrant worker
may be admitted to perform work during the transition period
subject to the following requirements:
``(1) Such an alien shall be treated as a nonimmigrant
described in section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)), including the ability
to apply, if otherwise eligible, for a change of nonimmigrant
classification under section 248 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1258)
or adjustment of status under this section and section 245 of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1255).
``(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish,
administer, and enforce a system for allocating and
determining the number, terms, and conditions of permits to
be issued to prospective employers for each such nonimmigrant
worker described in this subsection who would not otherwise
be eligible for admission under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). In adopting and
enforcing this system, the Secretary shall also consider, in
good faith and not later than 30 days after receipt by the
Secretary, any comments and advice submitted by the Governor
of the Commonwealth. This system shall provide for a
reduction in the allocation of permits for such workers on an
annual basis, to zero, during a period not to extend beyond
December 31, 2013, unless extended pursuant to paragraph 5 of
this subsection, and shall take into account the number of
petitions granted under subsection (i). In no event shall a
permit be valid beyond the expiration of the transition
[[Page 33656]]
period. This system may be based on any reasonable method and
criteria determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
promote the maximum use of, and to prevent adverse effects on
wages and working conditions of, workers authorized to be
employed in the United States, including lawfully admissible
freely associated state citizen labor. No alien shall be
granted nonimmigrant classification or a visa under this
subsection unless the permit requirements established under
this paragraph have been met.
``(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall set the
conditions for admission of such an alien under the
transition program, and the Secretary of State shall
authorize the issuance of nonimmigrant visas for such an
alien. Such a visa shall not be valid for admission to the
United States, as defined in section 101(a)(38) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38)),
except admission to the Commonwealth. An alien admitted to
the Commonwealth on the basis of such a visa shall be
permitted to engage in employment only as authorized pursuant
to the transition program.
``(4) Such an alien shall be permitted to transfer between
employers in the Commonwealth during the period of such
alien's authorized stay therein, without permission of the
employee's current or prior employer, within the alien's
occupational category or another occupational category the
Secretary of Homeland Security has found requires alien
workers to supplement the resident workforce.
``(5)(A) Not later than 180 days prior to the expiration of
the transition period, or any extension thereof, the
Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Interior, and the
Governor of the Commonwealth, shall ascertain the current and
anticipated labor needs of the Commonwealth and determine
whether an extension of up to 5 years of the provisions of
this subsection is necessary to ensure an adequate number of
workers will be available for legitimate businesses in the
Commonwealth. For the purpose of this subparagraph, a
business shall not be considered legitimate if it engages
directly or indirectly in prostitution, trafficking in
minors, or any other activity that is illegal under Federal
or local law. The determinations of whether a business is
legitimate and to what extent, if any, it may require alien
workers to supplement the resident workforce, shall be made
by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's
sole discretion.
``(B) If the Secretary of Labor determines that such an
extension is necessary to ensure an adequate number of
workers for legitimate businesses in the Commonwealth, the
Secretary of Labor may, through notice published in the
Federal Register, provide for an additional extension period
of up to 5 years.
``(C) In making the determination of whether alien workers
are necessary to ensure an adequate number of workers for
legitimate businesses in the Commonwealth, and if so, the
number of such workers that are necessary, the Secretary of
Labor may consider, among other relevant factors--
``(i) government, industry, or independent workforce
studies reporting on the need, or lack thereof, for alien
workers in the Commonwealth's businesses;
``(ii) the unemployment rate of United States citizen
workers residing in the Commonwealth;
``(iii) the unemployment rate of aliens in the Commonwealth
who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
``(iv) the number of unemployed alien workers in the
Commonwealth;
``(v) any good faith efforts to locate, educate, train, or
otherwise prepare United States citizen residents, lawful
permanent residents, and unemployed alien workers already
within the Commonwealth, to assume those jobs;
``(vi) any available evidence tending to show that United
States citizen residents, lawful permanent residents, and
unemployed alien workers already in the Commonwealth are not
willing to accept jobs of the type offered;
``(vii) the extent to which admittance of alien workers
will affect the compensation, benefits, and living standards
of existing workers within those industries and other
industries authorized to employ alien workers; and
``(viii) the prior use, if any, of alien workers to fill
those industry jobs, and whether the industry requires alien
workers to fill those jobs.
``(6) The Secretary of Homeland Security may authorize the
admission of a spouse or minor child accompanying or
following to join a worker admitted pursuant to this
subsection.
``(e) Persons Lawfully Admitted Under the Commonwealth
Immigration Law.--
``(1) Prohibition on removal.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), no alien
who is lawfully present in the Commonwealth pursuant to the
immigration laws of the Commonwealth on the transition
program effective date shall be removed from the United
States on the grounds that such alien's presence in the
Commonwealth is in violation of section 212(a)(6)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)),
until the earlier of the date--
``(i) of the completion of the period of the alien's
admission under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth; or
``(ii) that is 2 years after the transition program
effective date.
``(B) Limitations.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to prevent or limit the removal under subparagraph
212(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(6)(A)) of such an alien at any time, if the alien
entered the Commonwealth after the date of the enactment of
the Northern Mariana Islands Immigration, Security, and Labor
Act, and the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined
that the Government of the Commonwealth has violated section
103(i) of the Northern Mariana Islands Immigration, Security,
and Labor Act.
``(2) Employment authorization.--An alien who is lawfully
present and authorized to be employed in the Commonwealth
pursuant to the immigration laws of the Commonwealth on the
transition program effective date shall be considered
authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be
employed in the Commonwealth until the earlier of the date--
``(A) of expiration of the alien's employment authorization
under the immigration laws of the Commonwealth; or
``(B) that is 2 years after the transition program
effective date.
``(3) Registration.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may
require any alien present in the Commonwealth on or after the
transition period effective date to register with the
Secretary in such a manner, and according to such schedule,
as he may in his discretion require. Paragraphs (1) and (2)
of this subsection shall not apply to any alien who fails to
comply with such registration requirement. Notwithstanding
any other law, the Government of the Commonwealth shall
provide to the Secretary all Commonwealth immigration records
or other information that the Secretary deems necessary to
assist the implementation of this paragraph or other
provisions of the Northern Mariana Islands Immigration,
Security, and Labor Act. Nothing in this paragraph shall
modify or limit section 262 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1302) or other provision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act relating to the registration
of aliens.
``(4) Removable aliens.--Except as specifically provided in
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, nothing in this
subsection shall prohibit or limit the removal of any alien
who is removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
``(5) Prior orders of removal.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security may execute any administratively final order of
exclusion, deportation or removal issued under authority of
the immigration laws of the United States before, on, or
after the transition period effective date, or under
authority of the immigration laws of the Commonwealth before
the transition period effective date, upon any subject of
such order found in the Commonwealth on or after the
transition period effective date, regardless whether the
alien has previously been removed from the United States or
the Commonwealth pursuant to such order.
``(f) Effect on Other Laws.--The provisions of this section
and of the immigration laws, as defined in section 101(a)(17)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(17)), shall, on the transition program effective
date, supersede and replace all laws, provisions, or programs
of the Commonwealth relating to the admission of aliens and
the removal of aliens from the Commonwealth.
``(g) Accrual of Time for Purposes of Section 212(a)(9)(B)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--No time that an
alien is present in the Commonwealth in violation of the
immigration laws of the Commonwealth shall be counted for
purposes of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)).
``(h) Report on Nonresident Guestworker Population.--The
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and the Governor of the Commonwealth,
shall report to the Congress not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Northern Mariana Islands
Immigration, Security, and Labor Act. The report shall
include--
``(1) the number of aliens residing in the Commonwealth;
``(2) a description of the legal status (under Federal law)
of such aliens;
``(3) the number of years each alien has been residing in
the Commonwealth;
``(4) the current and future requirements of the
Commonwealth economy for an alien workforce; and
``(5) such recommendations to the Congress, as the
Secretary may deem appropriate, related to whether or not the
Congress should consider permitting lawfully admitted guest
workers lawfully residing in the Commonwealth on such
enactment date to apply for long-term status under the
immigration and nationality laws of the United States.''.
(b) Waiver of Requirements for Nonimmigrant Visitors.--The
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 214(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1))--
(A) by striking ``Guam'' each place such term appears and
inserting ``Guam or the
[[Page 33657]]
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
(B) by striking ``fifteen'' and inserting ``45'';
(2) in section 212(a)(7)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(B)), by
amending clause (iii) to read as follows:
``(iii) Guam and northern mariana islands visa waiver.--For
provision authorizing waiver of clause (i) in the case of
visitors to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, see subsection (l).''; and
(3) by amending section 212(l) (8 U.S.C. 1182(l)) to read
as follows:
``(l) Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver
Program.--
``(1) In general.--The requirement of subsection
(a)(7)(B)(i) may be waived by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in the case of an alien applying for admission as a
nonimmigrant visitor for business or pleasure and solely for
entry into and stay in Guam or the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands for a period not to exceed 45 days,
if the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of State,
the Governor of Guam and the Governor of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, determines that--
``(A) an adequate arrival and departure control system has
been developed in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands; and
``(B) such a waiver does not represent a threat to the
welfare, safety, or security of the United States or its
territories and commonwealths.
``(2) Alien waiver of rights.--An alien may not be provided
a waiver under this subsection unless the alien has waived
any right--
``(A) to review or appeal under this Act an immigration
officer's determination as to the admissibility of the alien
at the port of entry into Guam or the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands; or
``(B) to contest, other than on the basis of an application
for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of this
Act or under the Convention Against Torture, or an
application for asylum if permitted under section 208, any
action for removal of the alien.
``(3) Regulations.-- All necessary regulations to implement
this subsection shall be promulgated by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of State, on or before the 180th
day after the date of the enactment of the Northern Mariana
Islands Immigration, Security, and Labor Act. The
promulgation of such regulations shall be considered a
foreign affairs function for purposes of section 553(a) of
title 5, United States Code. At a minimum, such regulations
should include, but not necessarily be limited to--
``(A) a listing of all countries whose nationals may obtain
the waiver also provided by this subsection, except that such
regulations shall provide for a listing of any country from
which the Commonwealth has received a significant economic
benefit from the number of visitors for pleasure within the
one-year period preceding the date of the enactment of the
Northern Mariana Islands Immigration, Security, and Labor
Act, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines
that such country's inclusion on such list would represent a
threat to the welfare, safety, or security of the United
States or its territories; and
``(B) any bonding requirements for nationals of some or all
of those countries who may present an increased risk of
overstays or other potential problems, if different from such
requirements otherwise provided by law for nonimmigrant
visitors.
``(4) Factors.--In determining whether to grant or continue
providing the waiver under this subsection to nationals of
any country, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of State, shall consider all factors that the
Secretary deems relevant, including electronic travel
authorizations, procedures for reporting lost and stolen
passports, repatriation of aliens, rates of refusal for
nonimmigrant visitor visas, overstays, exit systems, and
information exchange.
``(5) Suspension.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
monitor the admission of nonimmigrant visitors to Guam and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under this
subsection. If the Secretary determines that such admissions
have resulted in an unacceptable number of visitors from a
country remaining unlawfully in Guam or the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, unlawfully obtaining entry to
other parts of the United States, or seeking withholding of
removal or asylum, or that visitors from a country pose a
risk to law enforcement or security interests of Guam or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or of the United
States (including the interest in the enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States), the Secretary shall
suspend the admission of nationals of such country under this
subsection. The Secretary of Homeland Security may in the
Secretary's discretion suspend the Guam and Northern Mariana
Islands visa waiver program at any time, on a country-by-
country basis, for other good cause.
``(6) Addition of countries.--The Governor of Guam and the
Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
may request the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Homeland Security to add a particular country to the list
of countries whose nationals may obtain the waiver provided
by this subsection, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
may grant such request after consultation with the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of State, and may
promulgate regulations with respect to the inclusion of that
country and any special requirements the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in the Secretary's sole discretion, may
impose prior to allowing nationals of that country to obtain
the waiver provided by this subsection.''.
(c) Special Nonimmigrant Categories for Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.--The Governor
of Guam and the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (referred to in this subsection as ``CNMI'')
may request that the Secretary of Homeland Security study the
feasibility of creating additional Guam or CNMI-only
nonimmigrant visas to the extent that existing nonimmigrant
visa categories under the Immigration and Nationality Act do
not provide for the type of visitor, the duration of
allowable visit, or other circumstance. The Secretary of
Homeland Security may review such a request, and, after
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
the Interior, shall issue a report to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
with respect to the feasibility of creating those additional
Guam or CNMI-only visa categories. Consideration of such
additional Guam or CNMI-only visa categories may include, but
are not limited to, special nonimmigrant statuses for
investors, students, and retirees, but shall not include
nonimmigrant status for the purpose of employment in Guam or
the CNMI.
(d) Inspection of Persons Arriving From the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands; Guam and Northern Mariana
Islands-Only Visas Not Valid for Entry Into Other Parts of
the United States.--Section 212(d)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(7)) is amended by inserting
``the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after
``Guam,''.
(e) Technical Assistance Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Governor of the Commonwealth, the
Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Commerce, and as
provided in the Interagency Agreements required to be
negotiated under section 6(a)(4) of the Joint Resolution
entitled ``A Joint Resolution to approve the `Covenant To
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in
Political Union with the United States of America', and for
other purposes'', approved March 24, 1976 (Public Law 94-
241), as added by subsection (a), shall provide--
(A) technical assistance and other support to the
Commonwealth to identify opportunities for, and encourage
diversification and growth of, the economy of the
Commonwealth;
(B) technical assistance, including assistance in
recruiting, training, and hiring of workers, to assist
employers in the Commonwealth in securing employees first
from among United States citizens and nationals resident in
the Commonwealth and if an adequate number of such workers
are not available, from among legal permanent residents,
including lawfully admissible citizens of the freely
associated states; and
(C) technical assistance, including assistance to identify
types of jobs needed, identify skills needed to fulfill such
jobs, and assistance to Commonwealth educational entities to
develop curricula for such job skills to include training
teachers and students for such skills.
(2) Consultation.--In providing such technical assistance
under paragraph (1), the Secretaries shall--
(A) consult with the Government of the Commonwealth, local
businesses, regional banks, educational institutions, and
other experts in the economy of the Commonwealth; and
(B) assist in the development and implementation of a
process to identify opportunities for and encourage
diversification and growth of the economy of the Commonwealth
and to identify and encourage opportunities to meet the labor
needs of the Commonwealth.
(3) Cost-sharing.--For the provision of technical
assistance or support under this paragraph (other than that
required to pay the salaries and expenses of Federal
personnel), the Secretary of the Interior shall require a
non-Federal matching contribution of 10 percent.
(f) Operations.--
(1) Establishment.--At any time on and after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Labor may establish
and maintain offices and other operations in the Commonwealth
for the purpose of carrying out duties under--
(A) the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.); and
[[Page 33658]]
(B) the transition program established under section 6 of
the Joint Resolution entitled ``A Joint Resolution to approve
the `Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of
America', and for other purposes'', approved March 24, 1976
(Public Law 94-241), as added by subsection (a) of this
section.
(2) Personnel.--To the maximum extent practicable and
consistent with the satisfactory performance of assigned
duties under applicable law, the Attorney General, Secretary
of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Labor shall
recruit and hire personnel from among qualified United States
citizens and national applicants residing in the Commonwealth
to serve as staff in carrying out operations described in
paragraph (1).
(g) Conforming Amendments to Public Law 94-241.--
(1) Amendments.--Public Law 94-241 is amended as follows:
(A) In section 503 of the covenant set forth in section 1,
by striking subsection (a) and redesignating subsections (b)
and (c) as subsections (a) and (b), respectively.
(B) By striking section 506 of the covenant set forth in
section 1.
(C) In section 703(b) of the covenant set forth in section
1, by striking ``quarantine, passport, immigration and
naturalization'' and inserting ``quarantine and passport''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the transition program effective date
described in section 6 of Public Law 94-241 (as added by
subsection (a)).
(h) Reports to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 1 of the first year
that is at least 2 full years after the date of the enactment
of this title, and annually thereafter, the President shall
submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report that
evaluates the overall effect of the transition program
established under section 6 of the Joint Resolution entitled
``A Joint Resolution to approve the `Covenant To Establish a
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political
Union with the United States of America', and for other
purposes'', approved March 24, 1976 (Public Law 94-241), as
added by subsection (a) of this section, and the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) on the
Commonwealth.
(2) Contents.--In addition to other topics otherwise
required to be included under this title or the amendments
made by this title, each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include a description of the efforts that have been
undertaken during the period covered by the report to
diversify and strengthen the local economy of the
Commonwealth, including efforts to promote the Commonwealth
as a tourist destination. The report by the President shall
include an estimate for the numbers of nonimmigrant workers
described under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)) necessary to avoid
adverse economic effects in Guam and the Commonwealth.
(3) GAO report.--The Government Accountability Office shall
submit a report to the Congress not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this title, to include, at a
minimum, the following items:
(A) An assessment of the implementation of this title and
the amendments made by this title, including an assessment of
the performance of Federal agencies and the Government of the
Commonwealth in meeting congressional intent.
(B) An assessment of the short-term and long-term impacts
of implementation of this title and the amendments made by
this title on the economy of the Commonwealth, including its
ability to obtain workers to supplement its resident
workforce and to maintain access to its tourists and
customers, and any effect on compliance with United States
treaty obligations mandating non-refoulement for refugees.
(C) An assessment of the economic benefit of the investors
``grandfathered'' under subsection (c) of section 6 of the
Joint Resolution entitled ``A Joint Resolution to approve the
`Covenant To Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands in Political Union with the United States of
America', and for other purposes'', approved March 24, 1976
(Public Law 94-241), as added by subsection (a) of this
section, and the Commonwealth's ability to attract new
investors after the date of the enactment of this title.
(D) An assessment of the number of illegal aliens in the
Commonwealth, including any Federal and Commonwealth efforts
to locate and repatriate them.
(4) Reports by the local government.--The Governor of the
Commonwealth may submit an annual report to the President on
the implementation of this title, and the amendments made by
this title, with recommendations for future changes. The
President shall forward the Governor's report to the Congress
with any Administration comment after an appropriate period
of time for internal review, provided that nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to require the President to
provide any legislative recommendation to the Congress.
(5) Report on federal personnel and resource
requirements.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consulting with the Secretary of the Interior and other
departments and agencies as may be deemed necessary, shall
submit a report to the Committee on Natural Resources, the
Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate, on the current and planned
levels of Transportation Security Administration, United
States Customs and Border Protection, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and United States Coast
Guard personnel and resources necessary for fulfilling
mission requirements on Guam and the Commonwealth in a manner
comparable to the level provided at other similar ports of
entry in the United States. In fulfilling this reporting
requirement, the Secretary shall consider and anticipate the
increased requirements due to the proposed realignment of
military forces on Guam and in the Commonwealth and growth in
the tourism sector.
(i) Required Actions Prior to Transition Program Effective
Date.--During the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending on the transition program
effective date described in section 6 of Public Law 94-241
(as added by subsection (a)), the Government of the
Commonwealth shall--
(1) not permit an increase in the total number of alien
workers who are present in the Commonwealth as of the date of
the enactment of this Act; and
(2) administer its nonrefoulement protection program--
(A) according to the terms and procedures set forth in the
Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States
Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs, executed
on September 12, 2003 (which terms and procedures, including
but not limited to funding by the Secretary of the Interior
and performance by the Secretary of Homeland Security of the
duties of ``Protection Consultant'' to the Commonwealth,
shall have effect on and after the date of the enactment of
this Act), as well as CNMI Public Law 13-61 and the
Immigration Regulations Establishing a Procedural Mechanism
for Persons Requesting Protection from Refoulement; and
(B) so as not to remove or otherwise effect the involuntary
return of any alien whom the Protection Consultant has
determined to be eligible for protection from persecution or
torture.
(j) Conforming Amendments to the Immigration and
Nationality Act.--The Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 101(a)(15)(D)(ii), by inserting ``or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'' after ``Guam''
each time such term appears;
(2) in section 101(a)(36), by striking ``and the Virgin
Islands of the United States'' and inserting ``the Virgin
Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands'';
(3) in section 101(a)(38), by striking ``and the Virgin
Islands of the United States'' and inserting ``the Virgin
Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands'';
(4) in section 208, by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.--The
provisions of this section and section 209(b) of this Act
shall apply to persons physically present in the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands or arriving in the
Commonwealth (whether or not at a designated port of arrival
and including persons who are brought to the Commonwealth
after having been interdicted in international or United
States waters) only on or after January 1, 2014.''; and
(5) in section 235(b)(1), by adding at the end the
following:
``(G) Commonwealth of the northern mariana islands.--
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or
require any person described in section 208(e) of this Act to
be permitted to apply for asylum under section 208 of this
Act at any time before January 1, 2014.''.
(k) Availability of Other Nonimmigrant Professionals.--The
requirements of section 212(m)(6)(B) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(m)(6)(B)) shall not apply to a
facility in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, or the Virgin Islands.
SEC. 104. FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 94-241.
Public Law 94-241, as amended, is further amended in
section 4(c)(3) by striking the colon after ``Marshall
Islands'' and inserting the following: ``, except that
$200,000 in fiscal year 2009 and $225,000 annually for fiscal
years 2010 through 2018 are hereby rescinded; Provided, That
the amount rescinded shall be increased by the same
percentage as that
[[Page 33659]]
of the annual salary and benefit adjustments for Members of
Congress''.
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.
SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as specifically provided in this
section or otherwise in this Act, this title and the
amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this title.
(b) Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.--The
amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act made by
this Act, and other provisions of this Act applying the
immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))) to
the Commonwealth, shall take effect on the transition program
effective date described in section 6 of Public Law 94-241
(as added by section 103(a) of this Act), unless specifically
provided otherwise in this Act.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments
made by this Act shall be construed to make any residence or
presence in the Commonwealth before the transition program
effective date described in section 6 of Public Law 94-241
(as added by section 103(a) of this Act) residence or
presence in the United States, except that, for the purpose
only of determining whether an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))) has
abandoned or lost such status by reason of absence from the
United States, such alien's presence in the Commonwealth
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act
shall be considered to be presence in the United States.
TITLE II--NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS DELEGATE ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Northern Mariana Islands
Delegate Act''.
SEC. 202. DELEGATE TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be
represented in the United States Congress by the Resident
Representative to the United States authorized by section 901
of the Covenant To Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in Political Union With the United States of
America (approved by Public Law 94-241 (48 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.)). The Resident Representative shall be a nonvoting
Delegate to the House of Representatives, elected as provided
in this title.
SEC. 203. ELECTION OF DELEGATE.
(a) Electors and Time of Election.--The Delegate shall be
elected--
(1) by the people qualified to vote for the popularly
elected officials of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands; and
(2) at the Federal general election of 2008 and at such
Federal general election every 2d year thereafter.
(b) Manner of Election.--
(1) In general.--The Delegate shall be elected at large and
by a plurality of the votes cast for the office of Delegate.
(2) Effect of establishment of primary elections.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, acting pursuant
to legislation enacted in accordance with the Constitution of
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, provides
for primary elections for the election of the Delegate, the
Delegate shall be elected by a majority of the votes cast in
any general election for the office of Delegate for which
such primary elections were held.
(c) Vacancy.--In case of a permanent vacancy in the office
of Delegate, the office of Delegate shall remain vacant until
a successor is elected and qualified.
(d) Commencement of Term.--The term of the Delegate shall
commence on the 3d day of January following the date of the
election.
SEC. 204. QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE OF DELEGATE.
To be eligible for the office of Delegate a candidate
shall--
(1) be at least 25 years of age on the date of the
election;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for at least 7
years prior to the date of the election;
(3) be a resident and domiciliary of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands for at least 7 years prior to
the date of the election;
(4) be qualified to vote in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands on the date of the election; and
(5) not be, on the date of the election, a candidate for
any other office.
SEC. 205. DETERMINATION OF ELECTION PROCEDURE.
Acting pursuant to legislation enacted in accordance with
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands may determine the order of names on the
ballot for election of Delegate, the method by which a
special election to fill a permanent vacancy in the office of
Delegate shall be conducted, the method by which ties between
candidates for the office of Delegate shall be resolved, and
all other matters of local application pertaining to the
election and the office of Delegate not otherwise expressly
provided for in this title.
SEC. 206. COMPENSATION, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES.
Until the Rules of the House of Representatives are amended
to provide otherwise, the Delegate from the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands shall receive the same
compensation, allowances, and benefits as a Member of the
House of Representatives, and shall be entitled to whatever
privileges and immunities are, or hereinafter may be, granted
to any other nonvoting Delegate to the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 207. LACK OF EFFECT ON COVENANT.
No provision of this title shall be construed to alter,
amend, or abrogate any provision of the covenant referred to
in section 202 except section 901 of the covenant.
SEC. 208. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this title, the term ``Delegate'' means the
Resident Representative referred to in section 202.
SEC. 209. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO
MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES BY DELEGATE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.
(a) United States Military Academy.--Section 4342(a)(10) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``resident representative'' and inserting ``Delegate in
Congress''.
(b) United States Naval Academy.--Section 6954(a)(10) of
such title is amended by striking ``resident representative''
and inserting ``Delegate in Congress''.
(c) United States Air Force Academy.--Section 9342(a)(10)
of such title is amended by striking ``resident
representative'' and inserting ``Delegate in Congress''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
General Leave
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 3079 is legislation which I introduced, along with Natural
Resources Chairman Nick Rahall, on July 18 of this year. The Insular
Subcommittee held two hearings on the matters addressed in this bill.
The first, in April, was an oversight hearing on the current
economic, social, and security conditions in the Northern Marianas. The
second, in August, was a legislative field hearing held in the CNMI. It
was the first time a congressional committee convened officially in the
U.S. territory.
H.R. 3079 responds to a number of outstanding issues that have been a
concern of this Congress, the people of the CNMI as well, and
successive administrations beginning with President Reagan. It is no
secret that beginning in the 1990s, the CNMI came under great criticism
for its immigration policies which left the territory with a
nationwide, if not also an international, reputation.
Undercover investigations by national media, reports by human rights
organizations, complaints received from foreign governments, and a
report issued by the former chairman and ranking member, George Miller,
detailed a miscarriage of CNMI immigration policy which left foreign
guest workers open to abuse by their employers.
Though congressional efforts to reform local immigration control
throughout the 1990s were unsuccessful, Congress was able to establish
a Federal ombudsman office in the islands to educate foreign guest
workers of their rights under both Federal and local laws and to
liaison between such populations and the CNMI government.
Today, national security is prominent to the argument to extend
Federal immigration laws to the CNMI. Located just 40 miles to the
south of the CNMI is Guam, her sister territory. As we know, since the
end of World War II, Pacific islands have played a significant role in
our strategy to secure our Nation. Most notable, however, amongst all
such islands is Guam,
[[Page 33660]]
as it is the home to many military bases.
Currently, an agreement between the U.S. and Japan would add $15
billion to Guam's existing multi-billion-dollar military infrastructure
and would relocate to the island the Third Marine Expeditionary Forces,
comprising 8,000 active-duty soldiers, as well as the stationing of a
Global Hawk surveillance unit, the establishment of a U.S. Army air
defense battalion, and other operations critical to U.S. Naval regional
presence.
Guam has been described by military officials as the ``tip of the
spear.'' As both Guam and the CNMI make up the Mariana Islands chain,
if Guam is the ``tip of the spear,'' then the CNMI is part of the same
blade. If one would be interested in preserving national security, then
you would want to support this legislation.
Lastly, this legislation would provide a nonvoting delegate for the
only U.S. jurisdiction in our country without any form of
representation in Congress. Similar legislation has been favorably
reported by the Natural Resources Committee in three previous
Congresses and received no further consideration by the House. It is
time that we provide the same level of representation afforded to other
U.S. territories.
In closing, H.R. 3079 is legislation necessary on several fronts. The
bill would provide a stable immigration policy to rebuild the CNMI
economy, augment current efforts to diversify and strengthen the future
economy, increase the opportunities and skills of local residents to
fill private sector employment needs, safeguard the existing foreign
guest worker population from employer abuse, and secure the region in
the interest of national security and give the CNMI representation in
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 3079, as amended, has received much support from the Bush
administration, as well as the Northern Marianas elected resident
representative, a Republican, Pedro Tenorio. Mr. Tenorio has worked
hard to bring forth a bill which has consensus from both sides of the
aisle.
This bill brings about unified border control and immigration to the
Marianas region, which will benefit our national security. In addition,
the bill will foster economic development on the islands by providing
local businesses and the military with ready access to labor to support
the tourist industry and military base construction.
I appreciate the assistance of our colleagues from the Judiciary
Committee. I believe that their efforts have helped to improve the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record
Chairman Conyers' letter on behalf of the Judiciary Committee and
Chairman Rahall's letter on behalf of the Natural Resources Committee
regarding this legislation.
December 10, 2007.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rahall: This is to advise you that, as a
result of your agreeing to make requested revisions to
provisions in H.R. 3079, the Northern Mariana Islands
Covenant Implementation Act, that fall within the rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able
to waive any sequential referral of the bill to our committee
in order that the bill may proceed without delay to the House
floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3079 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation. We also
reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this important legislation, and request your support if such
a request is made.
I would appreciate your including this letter in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the
House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request,
and for the cooperative relationship between our two
committees.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.
____
December 10, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding provisions of H.R. 3079, the Northern Marianas
Islands Covenant Implementation Act, that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate
your willingness to waive sequential referral of the bill so
that it may proceed to the House floor for consideration
without delay.
I understand that this waiver is not intended to prejudice
any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or
similar language. I also understand that you reserve the
right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on
the Judiciary on these provisions, and would support such a
request if it were made.
This letter will be entered into the Congressional Record
during consideration of H.R. 3079 on the House floor. Thank
you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked
regarding this matter and others between our respective
committees.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely,
Nick J. Rahall II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
Ms. BORDALLO. I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, for her hard work on this
legislation and for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 3079. The bill represents
a very important opportunity for this Congress to advance the political
relationship between the United States and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands and its U.S. citizens, to strengthen homeland
security in the Western Pacific region, and to bring about needed
economic and labor reforms for the benefit of both the people of Guam
and the CNMI.
Mr. Speaker, I especially thank the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on
Insular Affairs, Mrs. Christensen, and the ranking member, Mr. Fortuno,
as well as Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Member Don Young of the
full committee, for working with me throughout this process to address
concerns important to my constituents and my district. I also thank the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, and the
Immigration Subcommittee chairwoman, Zoe Lofgren, for the assistance
that they have provided in addressing the bill's immigration
provisions. I also want to thank my dear friend Eni Faleomavaega of
American Samoa for his assistance.
Guam is geographically a part of the Mariana Islands chain, and we
share, Mr. Speaker, a common Chamorro heritage and culture. The
Northern Marianas is comprised of the 14 islands north of Guam, and
Guam is the southernmost of the Mariana Islands. I have traveled to the
Northern Marianas many times over the years and have witnessed our
communities on Guam and the CNMI advance both politically and
economically. I listened intently to the concerns and the views of the
community during the subcommittee's hearing held on Saipan in August.
Revisions were made to this bill based upon the input the subcommittee
received at the hearings on Guam and Saipan this summer and from
stakeholders in the weeks since those hearings.
{time} 1215
I want to highlight a few provisions important to Guam.
First is the establishment of a unified, regional visa waiver program
for both Guam and the CNMI. This program is to be modeled off of the
highly successful Guam-only visa waiver program which Congress
authorized in 1986. Our islands are marketed together in Asia as a
regional destination, and a unified program makes sense from a homeland
security and marketing viewpoint. Additionally, the bill allows for
sufficient flexibility to expand participation under the program in
future years.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for important relief in
terms of ability to authorize entry of temporary skilled and unskilled
workers to Guam and the CNMI to meet the demands associated with the
military buildup and economic growth in the civilian sector in the
years ahead.
[[Page 33661]]
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore my emphatic and strong
support for title II of this bill, which would provide for
representation for the people of the CNMI in this House of Congress. A
delegate from the CNMI would help Congress respond to the needs and
concerns of the people of the CNMI. A delegate or representative from
the CNMI is in keeping with the traditions of this House of Congress
and our American democratic form of government. A delegate from the
CNMI would aid us in our work to legislate on matters affecting the
CNMI and the insular areas. Up to this point, Mr. Speaker, I have been
representing the CNMI. This is long overdue, and it's unfair. We have
U.S. citizens living in a U.S. commonwealth without a voice in
Congress.
So, I urge my colleagues to right this wrong, and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, at this time I don't have anyone
coming down to speak on the bill, but I anticipate they may. So, until
the gentlelady is finished, I will continue to reserve my time.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5
minutes to the former Chair and former ranking member of the Committee
on Natural Resources, George Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I want to congratulate her on this legislation.
This is an important piece of legislation, and I'm delighted that we
were able to work it out in the committee on a bipartisan basis. And I
want to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle.
Since the early 1990s, I've tried to bring legislation to the floor
of this Congress to reform the abusive labor practices and the broken
immigration policies of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, an American territory in the Pacific.
I sought these changes so that we could put a stop to the well-
documented and widespread abuse of poor men and women in the garment
and tourism industry in the CNMI and to better secure America's
borders. But for more than a decade, a lobbyist by the name of Jack
Abramoff joined then-Majority Leader Tom Delay and others here in
Congress to block my reform efforts, even though they passed on a
bipartisan basis in the Senate and in the Senate committee twice.
Ten years ago this month, in fact, Tom Delay visited the Mariana
Islands and declared that our Federal reforms ``had no future'' as long
as he was in control of the House of Representatives, but there is a
new Congress in town. We have new Republican leadership and we have new
Democratic leadership, and we're moving quickly under the leadership of
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands to right the wrongs of the
past.
Earlier this year, we raised the minimum wage across the country, and
for the first time in almost a decade we gave the workers of the
Northern Marianas a raise as well. Thanks to that minimum wage
increase, workers in the Marianas make $3.55 an hour, up from barely $3
that workers were paid for these past years. And what's more, the
minimum wage will continue to rise in the CNMI until their wage is
equal to that of other American territories.
Today, my friend and committee colleague from the Virgin Islands has
brought this legislation to the floor to fix the other long-standing
problem in the CNMI. The broken local immigration program in the CNMI
has allowed unscrupulous recruiters to exploit and abuse thousands of
workers and their families, and it helped the CNMI's sweatshop-based
economy to persist for decades. The legislation we are considering
today brings the CNMI within the Federal immigration system so that we
can put an end to that exploitation and abuse. The bill was drafted by
the Bush administration and improved by the Natural Resources
Committee.
I want to congratulate Chairman Rahall and Chairwoman Donna
Christensen for bringing this legislation to the floor. As I said
earlier, I also want to thank Congressman Conyers, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, for helping to improve this. And I thank the
cooperation of the Republicans, Don Young, and the subcommittee of the
Resources Committee.
Today, Jack Abramoff is in prison and Tom Delay has resigned in
disgrace. And today we pass a bill that restores the human rights to
those individuals working in the CNMI. And today we strengthen the
borders of America.
With these two pieces of legislation soon to become law, the minimum
wage, which is already the law, and this legislation, to repair the
immigration, I think now we can comfortably consider and support the
notion of a delegate from the CNMI to the Congress. And I want to thank
the gentlewoman for her persistence, the gentlewoman from Guam, and the
gentleman from American Samoa for that effort. As they know, this is
legislation that I have been deeply concerned about for a very, very
long time that unfortunately brought about a lot of bad practices in
the CNMI. But I am convinced with this legislation that we're doing the
right thing, and we can open a new chapter, hopefully, of economic
prosperity and of representation for the CNMI in the Congress of the
United States.
And again, I thank the gentlewoman very much for your tireless effort
on this legislation.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 8 minutes remaining.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands, our distinguished chairman of our Insular Affairs
Subcommittee, Mrs. Christensen, for allowing me to speak concerning
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 3079, and I want to
commend the chairman of our committee, Mr. Nick Rahall, and also the
chairlady of our Insular Affairs Subcommittee, Mrs. Donna Christensen,
for their leadership and service, and above all, their commitment and
willingness to go through some of the provisions in the bill which I
have concerns with.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman, former chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee and now chairman of our Education and
Labor Committee, the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr.
Miller, not only for his leadership, but throughout the years that he
has been very diligent in bringing attention to our colleagues and our
Nation about the serious problems involving the situation there in the
Northern Mariana Islands.
I recall distinctly that because of the violations of Federal labor
laws, the garment factories that were instituted by this one gentleman
that was fined by some $9 million, just to show without even
questioning or even taking the matter to court some of the problems
that we had faced within the CNMI.
Mr. Speaker, I support the concerns of the administration and House
Members supporting the bill, but we should also be mindful that there
is a GAO study currently under way in reviewing CNMI's immigration
problems that hopefully will shed more light on the current situation
in CNMI. It is my sincere hope that the GAO study will give us more
information on CNMI's overall economic and political development, and
the bill we're about to pass will complement the findings of the GAO
report that will be completed in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, we ought not to put the blame on the current
administration, Governor Ben Fitial, for the failures and misdeeds of
his predecessors. Since becoming Governor of CNMI, Governor Fitial has
addressed several concerns that had plagued previous administrations.
For example, with the closures of most of the government factories in
CNMI, the number of alien guest workers has declined from its peak of
about 30,000 now to about 20,000 by the end of this year. This will
further decrease to about 15,000 by next year.
[[Page 33662]]
Governor Fitial has instituted an effective and fair system for
handling complaints by alien guest workers. The new system implemented
by the Governor has eliminated a backlog of some 3,400 pending labor
cases carried over from previous administrations.
Under Governor Fitial's administration, the CNMI Government has
implemented a new computerized system for tracking arrivals and
departures of alien guest workers, leading to a more effective control
of CNMI's immigration problems.
I am especially pleased, Mr. Speaker, for the removal of a certain
provision that would have legalized the status of illegal overstayers
in CNMI. I want to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairwoman Christensen and
Ranking Member Don Young for the spirit of bipartisanship that has
authorized CNMI to also have a delegate in the U.S. Congress, as stated
in the bill. I cannot stress enough the importance of the unique
political relationship between the United States and CNMI, especially
in the interest of our national security. The significance of this
political relationship has elevated since the closures of the Clarke
Air Force Base and our Naval Base in Subic Bay in the Philippines.
I cannot help but mention the name of the late Congressman Phil
Burton, Mr. Speaker, who played a most critical role in the development
of this unique political relationship between CNMI and the United
States. Furthermore, the pending transfer of some 9,000 U.S. marines
and their families from Okinawa to Guam, and likely also to CNMI, has
made this relationship even more critical and important to our
strategic and military interests in this region of the world.
Overall, we have a very important military interest in these islands,
and our Nation is grateful that Guam and CNMI are members of our
American family.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3079 is supported by the
administration and also received bipartisan support during
consideration by the Natural Resources Committee. In addition, since
reporting the measure, our committee has worked very closely with the
House Judiciary Committee, as you've heard, to address other concerns.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Rahall for making
this issue a priority at the start of this Congress, as well as thank
our ranking member, Mr. Young. And we appreciate the collaboration of
our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Conyers, Ranking
Member Smith and Subcommittee Chairman Lofgren and Ranking Member King,
as well as the Judiciary Committee staff.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have another
speaker who wishes to come here, so I appreciate this opportunity just
to say a short word on behalf of this bill. And I appreciate the many
speakers who have spoken already who have spoken to the bipartisan
nature in which this bill has proceeded.
At this time, I think we need to thank the Judiciary Committee, and I
believe the chairman wishes to say something about this particular
bill, for the way in which they've worked in a bipartisan way. I am
also very grateful to be a part of the Natural Resources Committee,
which I think has worked in a bipartisan way to present this bill.
I have to admit that the only thing that would really make me happier
is if we were discussing this bill in October rather than this close to
Christmas. But other than that, I am very much appreciative of those
people who worked for this bill, especially the administration, who is
supportive of it, and the resident representative from this particular
area.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the Speaker and the leaders, the floor managers
on this provision. I want to thank first of all the ranking member,
Lamar Smith; the Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee on the Judiciary
Committee, Zoe Lofgren; and in particular, my friend, Chairman Nick
Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee because we have all worked
together in making important refinements to the bill. There was a great
deal of cooperation.
As it is now clear, what we are dealing with now is the fact that the
minimum wage question, the immigration standards, and the taxes to the
islands are of great consequence. I commend all of my colleagues here
this afternoon for the tremendous work that has occurred.
Labor unions and human rights groups have long called attention to
these abuses. And both the Clinton and Bush administration Justice
Departments have brought prosecutions under the 13th amendment.
I do also want to commend this administration for the excellent work
they have done in this regard.
The decision in the 1976 Covenant establishing the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands to leave decisions on minimum wages,
immigration standards, and taxes to the Islands has had tragic
consequences.
Wide-open guestworker programs, and utter lack of basic labor
protections, turned the Northern Marianas into a haven for sweatshops.
But modern slavery didn't just occur by day, in the garment factories.
It also occurred by night, as cruel brothel owners used deceit and
brutality to gratify the demand for prostitutes.
Labor unions and human rights groups have long called attention to
these abuses, and both the Clinton and Bush Administration Justice
Departments have brought prosecutions under the Thirteenth Amendment
against some of the most notorious offenders. But these efforts have
been blunted at every turn by the factory owners and their high-paid
lobbyists.
A more fundamental effort is clearly needed, and long overdue, and
this legislation will finally provide it. It brings the Commonwealth
under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with a balanced approach
that will help the Islands through the transition. Workers in the
Islands will no longer be kept in the shadows, where they have been too
readily prey to abuse.
We can see how this effort is already having a result. Just this
weekend on Saipan, as many as 15,000 workers and their supporters
marched for unity and justice. Fifteen thousand marched on an island of
only 60,000 people. We owe it to them to act.
The fundamental immigration policy and human freedom issues at stake
are of obvious importance to the Judiciary Committee, and I deeply
appreciate the openness of the Natural Resources Committee, under the
leadership of Chairman Rahall, in working with us on important
refinements to the bill.
Immigration Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren and I have also had
tremendous help from Ranking Member Lamar Smith, in making these
improvements in a bipartisan fashion. Finally, I would like to thank
the Administration for its constructive role in bringing us to this
point.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3079 would apply the
Nation's immigration laws to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI). For too long, the CNMI has managed its own immigration
system outside of the constraints and protections of Federal law. The
result has been a massive influx of exploited workers and victims of
human trafficking, with concomitant increases in sex slavery and other
abusive labor practices.
Recent investigations and prosecutions have uncovered terrible
stories of enslavement and forced labor. Thousands of young women and
girls lured to the CNMI with promises of good jobs with good pay only
to be enslaved and forced into prostitution. Others forced to toil in
harsh conditions and for little money in garment sweatshops, made
profitable by their ability to exploit cheap labor yet still use the
``Made in the USA'' label.
And to understand the depth of the problem, one only has to look at
the statistics. For years, foreign workers have actually outnumbered
the indigenous population. It is like the United States bringing in
over 300 million foreign workers to the mainland, without giving them
any rights or protections.
We have known about these problems since the 1990s, but we have done
nothing about them. It is time to change that. H.R. 3079 would extend
the protections of the country's immigration laws to the CNMI, using a
balanced approach that takes into account the CNMI's vulnerable economy
as well as past
[[Page 33663]]
abuses. It would reign in the islands' lax immigration policies while
appropriately considering the labor needs of legitimate businesses. It
would also provide for a regional visa waiver program along with Guam,
which would provide both increased security and the tourists needed to
help sustain the economies of both territories.
This bill is strongly needed to break from the abuses of the past. It
is backed by the Administration, and it has bipartisan support in the
House and Senate.
I want to thank Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee
and Chairwoman Christensen of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs for
caring deeply about this issue and shepherding this bill through
Congress. I also want to thank Chairman Conyers for his leadership, as
well as Mr. Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
for working with us in a bipartisan fashion to improve the bill. I urge
its passage.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3079, a
bill which would extend U.S. immigration laws to the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands and also authorize a non-voting Delegate
from the Northern Marianas to the U.S. House of Representatives.
At the start of the 110th Congress, as the Chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, I set out an agenda which included revisiting the
CNMI's control and enforcement over immigration policy. Many in this
House will recall that for at least two decades, our government and
this Congress expressed our concerns with how immigration policy in the
CNMI was envisioned and implemented.
When the Northern Marianas was transitioned from being a trust
territory of the United Nations to a U.S. territory under our stars and
stripes, temporary control over immigration and minimum wage laws were
placed in the hands of the new local government. This was done in light
of their small, mostly indigenous, population and their undeveloped
economy. Their control was never meant to be a permanent fixture of
their government.
Throughout the 1990s the CNMI economy grew by taking advantage of its
control over immigration and wage policy. A garment industry, much of
it owned by nationals of China, saw fit to make the CNMI their new
home. In so doing, the industry was able to fill practically every
position in their operations with a foreign worker at a minimal cost to
their operations.
In 2000, garment exports from the CNMI to the U.S. were estimated to
be worth about $1 billion annually. To support this industry, the U.S.
Census estimated the foreign guest worker population at 40,000
outnumbering the local population by at least 10,000 and because of lax
protections of foreign guest workers under CNMI law many were subject
to abuses by their employers. Much of this abuse had been documented by
our national media, human rights organizations, and our Committee's
former Chairman George Miller.
In that decade of the 90s and into the 21st century, despite the
clear need to reform the system in the CNMI, any attempts at extending
U.S. immigration law or minimum wage laws were met with resistance in
Congress.
I loathe thinking that Members of this body would want such a system
to flourish. Or that anyone would view what occurred in the CNMI as an
economic experiment, grown in a ``petri dish'' because of the CNMI's
distance and relative isolation from the U.S. mainland.
Mr. Speaker, with the enactment of H.R. 3079, the dismal and
degrading decade of the 90's will be put to rest--never to repeat
itself again.
H.R. 3079 would also authorize a non-voting Delegate from the CNMI to
be a Member of the House of Representatives. In previous Congresses,
similar legislation has passed the Natural Resources Committee more
than once and with broad bipartisan support. This goodwill and
collaboration has continued in this Congress with the inclusion of the
Northern Mariana Island Delegate Act as Title II of H.R. 3079.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentle lady from the Virgin Islands, Mrs.
Christensen, for her leadership throughout this process. As the
chairman of Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, she took on this very
complex issue at the start of this Congress. Her Subcommittee has been
very active on this issue and made every attempt to address concerns
raised by different interests in the CNMI before bringing this
legislation to the Floor.
I would also like to thank the leadership of the Judiciary Committee
who collaborated with us on this legislation. We do appreciate their
involvement with this bill and their constructive input as we prepared
to have it considered under the suspension calendar.
I support H.R. 3079 and urge its passage.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Having no other speakers on our side, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
and I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3079.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3079, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the joint
resolution that approved the covenant establishing the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1230
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND AUTHORIZATION ACT
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 123) to authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel
Basin Restoration Fund, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 123
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND.
Section 110 of division B of the Miscellaneous
Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763A-222), as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554, as amended by
Public Law 107-66), is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by inserting after clause
(iii) the following:
``(iv) Non-federal match.--After $85,000,000 has
cumulatively been appropriated under subsection (d)(1), the
remainder of Federal funds appropriated under subsection (d)
shall be subject to the following matching requirement:
``(I) San gabriel basin water quality authority.--The San
Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority shall be responsible
for providing a 35 percent non-Federal match for Federal
funds made available to the Authority under this Act.
``(II) Central basin municipal water district.--The Central
Basin Municipal Water District shall be responsible for
providing a 35 percent non-Federal match for Federal funds
made available to the District under this Act.'';
(2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Interest on funds in restoration fund.--No amounts
appropriated above the cumulative amount of $85,000,000 to
the Restoration Fund under subsection (d)(1) shall be
invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in interest-bearing
securities of the United States.''; and
(3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Restoration Fund established under subsection (a)
$146,200,000. Such funds shall remain available until
expended.
``(2) Set-aside.--Of the amounts appropriated under
paragraph (1), no more than $21,200,000 shall be made
available to carry out the Central Basin Water Quality
Project.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 123 was introduced by our colleague and good friend, Congressman
David Dreier of California, to provide additional funds for the San
Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. This bill, which is a very important
bill for my whole area, has worked to clean up a contamination, a
Superfund site, that has cleaned up much of the contamination in an
area that comprises probably
[[Page 33664]]
around 30 cities, and as amended will raise the appropriation ceiling
by an additional $61.2 million.
We need this to further continue to provide the cleanup on this water
to millions of people in dozens of cities. This bill has been worked on
in a bipartisan basis. Both my colleague, Mr. Dreier, myself, our
staffs have worked diligently for a long time to carry this bill to
where it is.
When H.R. 123 was introduced earlier this year, it only included
funds for cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin. Since then, my staff,
committee staff and Congressman Dreier's staff have worked together to
amend the bill to include additional funds for cleanup in the central
basin as well. While this legislation provides a central basin with
access to much-needed additional funds, all funds left under the
original authorization should remain dedicated to the Water Quality
Authority, the entity which is responsible for coordinating cleanup
efforts in the San Gabriel Basin.
Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this noncontroversial,
bipartisan bill and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 123, as
amended.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 123 was introduced by our
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California, the
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, David Dreier; and
it extends a highly successful water cleanup effort in Southern
California. This legislation as amended authorizes additional Federal
dollars for groundwater remediation aquifers that provide drinking
water to the Los Angeles area residents.
As explained by the Democrat bill manager, this amended bill will
allow the central basin water authorities to pursue their own
appropriations while not harming what remains of the original San
Gabriel Restoration Fund. This aspect of the bill is very important
when it comes to protecting the San Gabriel water supply. This bill has
enjoyed bipartisan support and dialogue throughout the legislative
process, and I urge my colleagues to support this result-oriented bill.
I will reserve at this moment.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers waiting. I still
remain committed to reserving my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is only right that I yield as much time as he
chooses to consume to the gentleman from California, the sponsor of
this wonderful piece of legislation, Mr. Dreier.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by rising to compliment my
distinguished California colleague, the Chair of the subcommittee, for
her amazing and festive outfit which includes shoes and earrings which
I hope very much our colleagues will seize the opportunity to see
during this holiday season.
The importance of stating that is matched by my praise for her work
and the work of her staff on this important legislation. It has been
nearly a decade, actually back in 1999, that we were able to first pass
legislation designed to deal with a horrendous tragedy that came in the
aftermath of the Cold War. It was during the Cold War that we had a
wide range of defense contractors, some of which are in business today,
and some of which no longer are in business; but during that period of
time, they legally disposed of spent rocket fuel. They did it legally.
No one knew what the ramifications of that would be at the time.
And so, Mr. Speaker, what happened? Well, in the mid-1990s there was
this discovery of perchlorate which was a byproduct of the disposal of
that spent rocket fuel. Unfortunately, it created the potential to
contaminate the water for as many as 7 million Californians.
That is why I want to join in praising Mrs. Napolitano for her work
in expanding this cleanup effort, and I want to thank all the members
of her staff. I also want to express appreciation to our colleague,
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who also has worked very hard on this. And I
know that the discovery of perchlorate is something that has hit other
parts of the country.
Well, we in the San Gabriel Valley have put together what clearly is
the best model for not only our area, Mr. Speaker, but for other parts
of the country, Dallas, Texas, other parts of California, where this
has been found. What does that partnership consist of? It is the
Federal Government, and there was a lot of litigation that was
initiated in the 1990s over this problem. I decided back then in the
1990s, why should we wait for litigation to go through the courts when
perchlorate was seeping into the groundwater when it was very clear
that the Federal Government had contracted with these people and we won
the Cold War.
And so it was obvious that this was a Federal responsibility for us
to step up to the plate. But there, obviously, were a lot of others who
did want to take on some of the responsibility, so companies like
Aerojet and other companies did agree to participate in the cleanup
effort. And the State of California and local governments as well have
been part of this process.
Again, our bipartisan staffs have worked so closely together on this
issue that to me, Mr. Speaker, it is a great demonstration of the
willingness of Chairwoman Napolitano to reach out and work on an issue
where we could find areas of agreement. Again, I can't thank her enough
for that. And I will say that as we look at this challenge down the
road, we hope very much that it is taken care of. But I am well aware
of the fact that we will see further environmental difficulties in the
future, and I believe that this legislation, H.R. 123, will be a model
that can be utilized for many of the other environmental challenges
that we face beyond the issue of water in the future.
So again I thank all of my colleagues who have been involved, Mr.
Speaker, and I thank those in our local area, the Water Quality
Authority and other entities that have stepped up and are working with
us, because they really were key in putting together this model; and I
urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's resolution here.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, my colleague has very well outlined the
background of the bill. Due to his vision, this started over a decade
over ago, brought all the parties together, had many hurdles that were
accomplished only when people were brought to the table and were able
to seek the solution to be more expediently cleaning up that area. And
I can tell you that this has been, as he has outlined, a very hard-
worked, joint effort, not only at the local level with the State, the
locals, the Fed, the EPA, all the water districts, but also our staffs
who have run into difficulties and had been able to work to iron them
out. So kudos also, Mr. Speaker, to Chairman Dreier's staff in being
willing to work with our staff in bringing this to the solution where
we are now.
I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We have no other speakers, Mr. Speaker. I did not
have the opportunity of giving my life history on the last bill, and I
really am disappointed Mr. Dreier didn't give his life history in his
bill; but beside that disappointment, I also am grateful to be here
with the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman who is dressed in as
festive an outfit for this time of year as is possible to do, and we
simply yield back the balance of our time in urging my colleagues to
approve this piece of legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments about my
dress and demeanor. I only feel that we are hoping to wrap it up this
week and not be here through Christmas.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill's
passage. H.R. 123 is an important continuation of the successful
federal-state-local partnership that already exists in providing one of
the most basic necessities of life--clean drinking water. The bill
extends the current authorization of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration
Fund by a total of $61.2 million--$50 million for the San Gabriel Basin
Water Quality Authority (WQA), and $11.2 million for the Central Basin
Municipal Water District (Central Basin).
The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund was created because of the
critical need to quickly implement a plan that would address the
contaminated groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley. Before important
environmental laws were put into place, the Federal Government had
contracted with defense companies
[[Page 33665]]
that were, at that time, legally permitted to dispose of spent-rocket
fuel without proper safeguards for groundwater. There had already been
clean-up efforts in the region for other contaminants but in 1997,
perchlorate contamination was discovered in the groundwater in the San
Gabriel Valley. Unfortunately, at the time of discovery, many of those
contractors and other responsible parties had either moved their
businesses to other locations, or had simply gone out of business. The
region's groundwater remained threatened while mounting litigation
between the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties
potentially responsible for the contamination delayed any hope for a
solution.
In 1999, the Federal Government rightfully stepped in with the
creation of the Restoration Fund to provide a mechanism for those
responsible for the contamination to partner with local, state and
federal agencies to solve the crisis and immediately implement the
clean-up. The willingness of the Federal Government to partner with
local and state agencies proved to be the impetus for private
investment and participation in the ongoing cleanup efforts.
I am proud to say that this partnership is an example of good
stewardship of taxpayer money. Initially in 1999, when we first began
the process for creating the Restoration Fund, the total cost of
cleaning up the basin was estimated at $320 million. Congress created
the Restoration Fund in 2000, with an initial authorization of $85
million, or a 25 percent investment. To date, a little over $70 million
has been appropriated, with approximately 83 percent of the cleanup
provided by local sources and responsible parties, with about 12
percent federal funding.
After recent evaluation of the total project, accounting for
increased levels of detected contamination, increased energy costs and
inflation, the total cost of cleanup now, almost a decade later, is
approximately $1 billion. With a modest increase of $61.2 million,
bringing the total federal investment to $146.2 million, or
approximately 14 percent, the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
can continue jointly administering this cleanup program.
Their outstanding work is why this project is cost effective and such
a huge success. In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation over the past decade on this regional solution, there is no
doubt that this increase is warranted and will be utilized in the most
effective way to continue to provide safe drinking water.
The cost-effectiveness of the original authorization of the
Restoration Fund is clear. And without a doubt, that cost-effective use
of the federal investment will be continued in this new authorization.
The federal partnership will continue to hold the coalition of local
water agencies and private parties together to finish the job that we
started a decade ago.
It is important to note that this bill, while originally introduced
to authorize additional funds for the WQA, was amended to include
additional funding for the Central Basin. The WQA and Central Basin
were jointly authorized to implement the cleanup by the original
Restoration Fund. These two agencies have worked side by side for many
years to ensure that the millions of residents in our region have safe
drinking water. While the Central Basin has realized its full
authorization under the Restoration Fund, there are funds yet to be
appropriated to the WQA under the original authorization. Therefore,
the WQA is not responsible to provide the Central Basin with any
further appropriations that are secured under the original $85 million
ceiling.
However, we all recognize Central Basin's desire to seek additional
funds beyond what they have already been fully provided under the
original authorization to ensure the safety of the region's
groundwater. Central Basin has stepped forward in committing to
providing the 35 percent local cost share on any future appropriations
they secure. Once the WQA receives its full appropriation under the
original authorization, should the WQA and Central Basin decide to
pursue and split a single appropriation as they've done in the past,
then the WQA and the Central Basin have mutually agreed that the WQA
will receive 90 percent, and Central Basin will receive 10 percent of
any annual appropriation to the Restoration Fund under the new
authorization ceiling outlined in this bill. I want to commend the
cooperation between these two agencies in working out the details of
the implementation of this bill and for their continued service to the
residents of the San Gabriel Valley.
This bill is a product of strong bipartisan cooperation with the
Chair of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Ms. Napolitano, an original cosponsor of the bill and great partner
throughout the years in addressing the very serious challenge of
keeping our groundwater supply safe for southern Californians. I am
very proud to have the support of our friends Gary Miller, Lucille
Roybal-Allard, Adam Schiff, Hilda Solis and Linda Sanchez. I also want
to thank Ranking Member Cathy McMorris-Rodgers for her support
throughout the legislative process as well as recognize the hard work
of the very able Majority and Minority subcommittee staff including
Steve Lanich, Kiel Weaver, Emily Knight and from Chairwoman
Napolitano's personal office, Daniel Chao.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this
legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 123, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENTS ACT MODIFICATION
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3739) to amend the Arizona Water Settlements Act to
modify the requirements for the statement of findings.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3739
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION TO REQUIREMENTS FOR STATEMENT OF
FINDINGS.
Section 302 of the Arizona Water Settlements Act (Public
Law 108-451; 118 Stat. 3571) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (b)(5), by striking ``proceedings,'' and
all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting ``proceedings;''.
(2) In subsection (c), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 3739, as introduced by our friend and colleague, Congressman
Raul Grijalva of Arizona, our colleague on the Natural Resources
Committee and chairman of the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests
and Public Lands, amends the 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act to
modify one technical, enforceability condition necessary to implement
the water settlement for the Tohono O'odham Nation.
Mr. Speaker, we support this bill. It was passed through our
committee on a bipartisan basis, and we look forward to working with
other tribes who have similar concerns in the future; and I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. My colleague from the majority has adequately
described this technical correction bill. We have no objection. We urge
its passage.
I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I will only
mention that it was a pleasure working with my ranking member, Cathy
McMorris Rodgers, and some of my colleagues on the other side to get
this very important piece of legislation for the tribe.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3739.
[[Page 33666]]
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1245
EXPRESSING SYMPATHY TO THE VICTIMS OF CYCLONE SIDR IN SOUTHERN
BANGLADESH
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 842) expressing sympathy to and
pledging the support of the House of Representatives and the people of
the United States for the victims of Cyclone Sidr in southern
Bangladesh, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 842
Whereas on November 15, 2007, Cylcone Sidr hit the coast of
southern Bangladesh with 155 mile-an-hour winds that smashed
tens of thousands of homes, damaged roads and buildings, and
caused a 15-foot tidal surge that ruined thousands of
hectares of crops;
Whereas early reports have branded the destruction from
Cyclone Sidr as the worst in Bangladesh in 16 years;
Whereas the resulting damage from the cyclone affected more
than 8,000,000 people through loss of their homes and
livelihoods;
Whereas over half of the affected internally displaced
population are children;
Whereas Bangladesh's Disaster Ministry estimates that the
cyclone damaged or destroyed 1,500,000 houses;
Whereas the death toll from the cyclone stands at more than
3,000;
Whereas as the 4 districts in southern Bangladesh that were
most drastically affected by the cyclone are Patuakhali,
Bagerhat, Barisal, and Pirojpur;
Whereas one relief worker commented that Bagerhat looked
like a ``valley of death'' in the days after the storm;
Whereas an entire island in Barisal, another district of
southern Bangladesh, was submerged under at least 6 feet of
water and houses were blown away by winds;
Whereas the capital, Dhaka, which is located over 130 miles
away from the devastated southern coastline, was also
impacted by the storm, losing access to power and water for
days;
Whereas a massive tidal wave that was caused by Cyclone
Sidr hit the Sunderbans, the world's biggest mangrove forest
that is home to the endangered Royal Bengal tiger, leaving a
wake of death and destruction that have caused experts to
declare the forest an ``ecological disaster'';
Whereas officials at the United Nations World Food Program
have appealed for international aid to help save lives in
Bangladesh, noting that food supplies have been severely
disrupted by the cyclone; and
Whereas, due to the limited access to water supply and
sanitation facilities that millions of Bangladeshis will
face, health officials have warned against the possibility of
cholera, dysentery, and other waterborne diseases: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims of
Cyclone Sidr, which has affected southern Bangladesh;
(2) conveys its sincere support to the people of
Bangladesh;
(3) supports the United States Government's efforts to
immediately make available all appropriate assistance
requested by Bangladeshi authorities; and
(4) reaffirms its commitment to provide relief aid to the
victims as the effects of the cyclone continue to unfold.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Rothman from New
Jersey, for introducing this timely resolution. More than 2 years ago,
Hurricane Katrina struck our gulf coast with a fury rarely seen.
Katrina caused severe loss of life and property to the citizens of
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and our Nation continues to deal
with the enormous human and financial consequences of this devastating
storm.
Unfortunately, halfway across the world, our friends in Bangladesh
are undergoing their own nightmare scenario in the aftermath of Cyclone
Sidr. Cyclone Sidr struck on November 15, with 155-mile-an-hour winds
and 15-foot tidal waves. The destruction that this cyclone left in its
wake is the worst Bangladesh has seen in 16 years, and that is not a
trivial statement, considering that Bangladesh is a nation that
suffered through horrific droughts, floods and other natural disasters
on almost an annual basis.
The numbers from Cyclone Sidr are astounding: 3,300 dead, over 800
missing, and 1.5 million houses damaged or destroyed. All told, at
least 8.7 million people have been affected, and the economic and
social impacts will undoubtedly loom large for years to come.
Just as the world offered their help to us during Hurricane Katrina,
Bangladesh needs immediate support from the international community. In
that regard, I am proud of the way that the United States Government
has responded to this disaster. The U.S. Agency for International
Development has already dispatched millions in emergency assistance,
and our United States Navy is busy airlifting necessary food and
supplies to those that have been affected.
This resolution supports our efforts and reaffirms our commitment to
our friends in Bangladesh. I strongly support this resolution and
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 842, as amended, expressing
sympathy and support for the victims of Cyclone Sidr in southern
Bangladesh. At the outset, I would like to commend the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for introducing this timely measure, and also
extend my appreciation to Chairman Lantos, as well as Ranking Member
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for helping to expedite its consideration before
the House today.
As my colleagues may know, on the 15th of November a powerful,
category five-equivalent tropical cyclone struck low-lying areas of
Bangladesh from the Bay of Bengal. Mr. Speaker, in the West we call
these tropical storms hurricanes, and in the Far East they call them
cyclones. Be that as it may, they both have destructive power. Being
from southeast Texas on the gulf coast, we call the area ``hurricane
alley,'' and we are not unfamiliar with hurricanes. Even this year,
Hurricane Humberto, and Hurricane Rita 2 years ago hit my area of the
State of Texas.
So, the effects of hurricanes and cyclones are devastating. The
effects of Cyclone Sidr has been extremely devastating to the people.
Some 6.8 million people have been affected by this disaster, 3,000
people have died, 1,000 people are unaccounted for, and approximately
15,000 people have been injured. In the immediate aftermath of this
storm, President and Mrs. Bush offered condolences to the victims,
especially those who lost loved ones, people who lost homes and
livelihoods in this tragedy.
The United States immediately conveyed to the authorities in Dhaka
its willingness to assist in responding to this natural disaster. The
United States Agency for International Development provided more than
$19 million in emergency funds to support relief and early recovery
activities, including shelter and water, sanitation, hygiene programs
and emergency food assistance. The United States Department of Defense
has also provided invaluable assistance, with 2,400 United States
marines and sailors helping the Bangladesh Government provide clean
water, medical aid, food, and other relief supplies to the victims of
this cyclone. Indeed, more than 162,000 pounds of relief supplies have
been delivered to Bangladesh by USS Kearsarge and the 22nd Marine
Expeditionary Unit as of early this month.
[[Page 33667]]
Mr. Speaker, Bangladesh and the United States have been close friends
since 1971. Our hearts go out to those who have suffered so grievously
during this disaster, and on behalf of the American people it is
fitting that we reiterate our commitment to assist the people of
Bangladesh as they recover from this devastating storm, and I urge
support of this resolution.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support
of H. Res. 842, expressing sympathy to and pledging the support of the
House of Representatives and the people of the United States for the
victims of Cyclone Sidr in southern Bangladesh, introduced by my
distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Representative Rothman. This
important resolution reaffirms the commitment of the United States to
the people of Bangladesh in the wake of the devastation of Cyclone
Sidr.
Mr. Speaker, Bangladesh has long been a valued ally of the United
States; and a key Muslim democracy in a region where adherence to
democratic principles is at a premium. Recently, I met with Mr. Don
Haque, nephew of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. After listening to
his concerns and insights, it is my hope that Bangladesh will move
swiftly toward regaining its status as a thriving, emerging democracy
and set an example for its neighbors and the rest of the world.
The region has been undergoing serious political and economic
changes, with several nations undergoing significant political
upheaval. Key among these is Bangladesh, where emergency rule was
declared by President Iajuddin Ahmed following opposition protests
during the run-up to the January 2007 elections. This military-backed
caretaker government, currently headed by Fakhruddin Ahmed, is expected
to continue to hold power through 2008, though some observers have
estimated that elections will not actually take place until 2009 or
later.
It is my sincere hope that the military-backed caretaker government
currently in power in Bangladesh will promptly lift the state of
emergency and move expeditiously toward holding free and fair
elections. It would also be my expectation that the caretaker
government will abide by internationally recognized standards of human
rights and due process in its activities. I am personally concerned by
reported events in Bangladesh, including the ban on political and union
activity; the restrictions on free movement, free assembly, free
association, free speech and a free press; and the denial of bail and
other due process rights to more than 200,000 jailed individuals,
according to some accounts.
In this key period of political change, one that will hopefully
ensure a more free and fair democratic Bangladesh, the nation has been
hit by an unthinkable natural disaster that has affected all ways of
life. On November 15, the southern coast of Bangladesh was struck by
Cyclone Sidr with raging winds of 155 miles-per-hour smashing tens of
thousands of homes, damaging roads and buildings, and causing a 16 foot
tidal surge that has destroyed thousands of hectares of crops.
This natural disaster is estimated to have affected over 4 million
people thus far, with millions being evacuated from their homes due to
loss or damage. The Bangladesh Disaster Ministry now estimates that
some 750,000 homes were damaged or destroyed in the aftermath of
Cyclone Sidr. As a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and
Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am especially concerned
by the internal displacement of millions of Bangladeshis, over 400,000
of whom are children below the age of five. The catastrophic death toll
has already reached 3,500, though the Bangladesh Red Crescent has
warned that the number of deaths may climb as high as 10,000 in what is
being called the greatest destruction from a cyclone in Bangladesh in
16 years.
It appears we are only just beginning to see the effects of this
great human catastrophe. While Cyclone Sidr is responsible for
widespread destruction, the five provinces of Patuakhali, Barguna,
Bagerhat, Barisal, and Pirojpur that sit on the southern coast of
Bangladesh were the most drastically affected. The nation's capital,
Dhaka, which is located over 130 miles away from the country's
devastated coastline, still lost access to power and food for days
following the storm. Hundreds of thousands of people in southern
Bangladesh's remote areas have been cut off from relief operations
leading to massive suffering and starvation due to the current lack of
access to drinking water and medicines. One relief worker in Bagerhat
went so far as to say that the region looked like a ``valley of
death.'' Unfortunately, the worst may be yet to come. Health officials
have begun to warn against the serious threat posed by cholera,
dysentery, and other waterborne diseases as a result of the limited
access to water supplies and sanitation facilities that millions of
Bangladeshis will face.
As a member of the international community, the United States must
offer its support and assistance to a nation that has been devastated
by such a tremendous natural disaster. The United Nations World Food
Program has appealed to the international community to provide aid to
the peoples of Bangladesh, noting that food supplies have been severely
disrupted by the cyclone leading to an increased and very real threat
of famine. This resolution is significant because it reaffirms the
commitment of the United States to provide relief aid to the victims of
Cyclone Sidr as its effects continue to unfold. Furthermore, this
resolution calls upon the United States to immediately make available
any and all appropriate assistance that has been requested by the
Bangladeshi authorities.
I believe that it is imperative that the United States government
express its heartfelt sympathy and support to the people of Bangladesh
in the wake of this terrific disaster, which is why I am a proud
cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in
strongly supporting this legislation, and to call for still more to be
done.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 842, a
resolution that I introduced. This legislation expresses sympathy to
and pledges the support of the House of Representatives and the people
of the United States to help the victims of Cyclone Sidr in Southern
Bangladesh.
Cyclone Sidr struck southern Bangladesh with 155-mile-an-hour winds
on November 15th. Since then, its impact has been felt by more than 8.7
million Bangladeshis--more than 3,000 of whom were killed by this
storm, 1.5 million who have lost their homes and livelihoods, and
thousands of children who have lost one or more parents, their schools
and their access to food and water.
The damage caused by Cyclone Sidr was widespread. In fact, the
southern districts of Bangladesh were so devastated by the cyclone that
one relief worker commented that Bagerhat--one of the districts most
damaged--looked like a ``valley of death'' in the days after the storm.
Even Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh that is located more than 130
miles away from the southern coastline, was impacted by the storm--
losing access to power and water for days.
In addition to the human loss of life and livelihood caused by this
storm, another great loss was felt by the flora and fauna of
Bangladesh. During the cyclone, a massive tidal wave hit the
Sunderbans, the world's biggest mangrove forest and the home of the
endangered Royal Bengal tiger. While researchers have yet to verify how
many of these endangered tigers were killed in the storm, the damage
that resulted from the cyclone has led experts to declare the forest an
``ecological disaster.''
However, in the midst of this death and destruction, the U.S.
government has been doing invaluable work to help the people of
Bangladesh. That is why this resolution also expresses support for the
U.S. government's efforts to provide emergency assistance to the people
of Bangladesh. In fact, I want to single out the work of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), which has thus far
provided the people of Bangladesh with more than $19.5 million in
emergency food aid and other humanitarian assistance. USAID has also--
in collaboration with the government of Bangladesh--quickly reached
over 8 million of the most vulnerable people in the wake of this
disaster to provide assistance and help relieve human suffering.
Mr. Speaker, while Cyclone Sidr took away thousands of lives in
Bangladesh, it has brought out the best in both American and
Bangladeshi aid workers--enabling them to work together to help
millions of people hurt by this storm and provide them with
humanitarian assistance. I commend them for their efforts and call on
my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation so that we
may express the House's strong sympathy and support for the people of
Bangladesh in their time of crisis.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 842, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
[[Page 33668]]
Mr. MEEKS of New York. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF LUCIANO PAVAROTTI
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 708) honoring the life and
accomplishments of Luciano Pavarotti and recognizing the significant
and positive impact of his astounding musical talent, his achievement
in raising the profile of opera with audiences around the world, and
his commitment to charitable causes.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 708
Whereas Luciano Pavarotti was born on October 12, 1935, in
the outskirts of Modena, Italy;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti first began singing in a church choir
at the age of 9;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti was trained as a teacher and taught
second grade in Italy before deciding to pursue his music
full time;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti began serious voice training at the
age of 19 under Arrigo Pola, a respected teacher and
professional tenor in Modena, Italy;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti made his operatic debut on April 29,
1961, as Rodolfo in La Boheme by Giacomo Puccini, at the
opera house in Reggio Emilia;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti made his American debut with the
Greater Miami Opera in February of 1965 as a last minute
replacement in Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti's February 17, 1972, performance in
Donizetti's La Fille du Regiment at New York's Metropolitan
Opera, included nine high C's during the signature aria and
helped him break through to American audiences;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti made frequent television performances
which attracted some of the largest audiences ever recorded
for televised opera events;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti, with Placido Domingo and Jose
Carreras, made their debut as ``The Three Tenors'' in Rome
during the 1990 World Cup;
Whereas ``The Three Tenors'' recording from their debut
concert became the biggest selling classical record of all
time;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti earned five Grammy awards and a
Grammy Legend Award;
Whereas on December 12, 1998, Mr. Pavarotti became the
first and, so far, only opera singer to perform on ``Saturday
Night Live'';
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti organized and hosted annual
``Pavarotti and Friends'' charity concerts in his home town
of Modena in Italy, to raise money for worthy United Nations'
causes;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti sang at numerous benefit concerts to
help victims of natural and manmade tragedies;
Whereas in 1998 Mr. Pavarotti was named the United Nations
Messenger of Peace;
Whereas in 2001 Mr. Pavarotti received the Nansen Medal
from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for his
efforts raising money on behalf of refugees worldwide;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti received the Kennedy Center Honors in
2001;
Whereas on February 10, 2006, Mr. Pavarotti sang ``Nessun
Dorma'' as the final act of the 2006 Winter Olympics Opening
Ceremony in Turin, Italy;
Whereas Mr. Pavarotti's immense talent, and passion for his
art encouraged people around the world to embrace opera; and
Whereas Luciano Pavarotti died on September 6, 2007 in a
hospital in Modena, Italy: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the life
and accomplishments of Luciano Pavarotti and recognizes the
significant and positive impact of his astounding musical
talent, his achievement in raising the profile of opera with
audiences around the world, and his commitment to charitable
causes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my good friend and colleague from
California, Representative Loretta Sanchez, for introducing this timely
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, there is literally no one who has done more to expand
world audiences for opera than the late Luciano Pavarotti. He achieved
this with a combination of inimitable talent, determination, and an
untiring and affable manner. Just as important, he parlayed this fame
into an international presence, which he used to push for a host of
important causes. This resolution honors his life, his talent, his
commitment to those causes.
Like many an Italian boy, Pavarotti dreamed of becoming a soccer star
and was better at it than most of his later fans would ever know. But
his father, himself an amateur singer, and his recording of the great
Italian tenors soon put young Luciano on a path which would catapult
him to fame.
From his operatic debut in 1961 to his U.S. debut a few years later
opposite Joan Sutherland in Lucia di Lammermoor, Pavarotti soon became
known for the sheer beauty of his voice. But the world was wowed in
1972 when Pavarotti struck nine unwavering high C's at New York's
Metropolitan Opera House, earning him a title the ``King of High C's.''
Roughly 20 years later, he recorded the biggest selling classical
music album of all time, when he teamed up with Placido Domingo and
Jose Carreras as the Three Tenors. It must have caused the man who once
dreamed of soccer stardom great joy to have debuted this project for
the 1990 Soccer World Cup in Italy.
He shared the stage with rock stars, including U2's lead singer,
Bono, Eric Clapton, and even pop stars like Celine Dion and the Spice
Girls. Pavarotti also won humanitarian awards during the Bosnia war, as
well worked alongside Diana, Princess of Wales, to raise money to ban
land mines, was named a U.N. Messenger of Peace in 1998, and received
the Nansen Medal from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in 2001.
He never tired of bringing his voice to rally around causes that make
us all proud. When he died this year, his wife, sister, four daughters,
nephews, and close relatives and friends were all at his side.
Mr. Speaker, Luciano Pavarotti was a man blessed with an unusual
talent, a talent he used to promote not only opera, but a myriad of
other causes that helped men and women all throughout the world. This
resolution seeks to cast a small light on a soaring life, and I urge
its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to rise in support of H. Res. 708, which honors the life
and accomplishments of Luciano Pavarotti and recognizes the significant
and positive impact of his amazing and astounding musical talent, his
achievement in raising the profile of opera with audiences around the
world and his commitment to charitable causes.
On September 6th of this year, a legend of the opera would take his
final curtain call. When the great Luciano Pavarotti passed away in
September, the world lost one of its most beautiful voices. Those with
a love of all kinds of music, everyone from opera singers to
instrumentalists and pop singers, grieved at the loss of such a great
talent. One of those musicians, the rock singer Bono of the group U2,
described Pavarotti as, and I quote, ``a great volcano of a man who
sang fire but spilled over with a love of life in all its complexity.''
From the time that he made his first debut in 1961, Luciano Pavarotti
was an inspiration, not just for the unmatched quality of God-given
voice and talent, but for his generosity. Indeed, he used immense
talent to raise funds for many worthy causes, including his concerts on
behalf of refugees throughout the world.
[[Page 33669]]
In 1998, he was named United Nations Messenger of Peace. In 2001, the
same year that he received the Kennedy Center Honors, he received a
medal from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for his
fundraising efforts on behalf of refugees throughout the world.
In memory of this giant man of music, beloved by all those who enjoy
the great opera, I ask my colleagues to join in supporting H. Res. 708,
introduced by our colleague from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
{time} 1300
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank my good friend from New
York.
I am pleased that today the House of Representatives is considering
House Resolution 708, honoring the life and accomplishments of Luciano
Pavarotti. As the sponsor of this legislation, I would like to thank
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, especially the chairman, Mr. Lantos,
for his assistance in bringing this before the end of the year, the
year 2007, the year in which Mr. Pavarotti died.
He was born on October 12, 1935, and he died on September 6, 2007, in
Modena, Italy. I know, because I was in the Veneto that day when his
death was announced by his family. And during his life, Mr. Pavarotti
shared his incredible talent and passion for opera with the entire
world. During his life, he actually began as a second grade teacher
before he decided to turn to his pursuit of music full time. After
devoting himself to serious voice training for over 7 years, Mr.
Pavarotti made his operatic debut in the role of Rodolfo in Puccini's
``La Boheme.''
From that initial performance, Pavarotti continued to follow his
dream of performing opera around the world. And after many years of
hard work, of course, he became really one of opera's premier
performers. But in addition to his incredible voice and his talent on
stage; Mr. Pavarotti made frequent television performances, and as a
result he really opened up the world of opera to a whole new audience.
Mr. Pavarotti, with Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras, entered into one
of the most famous collaborations in music, and The Three Tenors
continued to bring opera music to more and more people around the
world. As an established opera star, he decided to use his talent and
his connections to benefit charities, and he began hosting the annual
Pavarotti and Amici, or Pavarotti and Friends, concerts in Modena,
Italy, to raise money for worthy United Nations causes.
Mr. Pavarotti's appeal to opportunities, he got an opportunity to see
things that are rarely enjoyed by most of us. He earned five Grammy
Awards and a Grammy Legend Award, and he became the first and so far
the only opera singer to perform on ``Saturday Night Live.'' Mr.
Pavarotti also received numerous honors for his charitable work
including being named the United Nations' Messenger of Peace and
receiving the Nansen Medal from the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees in honor of his efforts to raise money on behalf of refugees
around the world.
Mr. Pavarotti's career is an inspiration to aspiring young artists
around the world, and it encourages them to continue to go after their
dream. In addition, Mr. Pavarotti's commitment to charitable causes
provides an important example of how artists can raise awareness in
funding for people in need.
Mr. Speaker, since his death, the world has missed his talent and his
passion. And although we will always have recordings of his beautiful
music, we will continue to miss his presence and his love for life. And
I know that in the last 10 years of his life he filled his life and was
very fulfilled. But we should remember that Mr. Pavarotti once said:
``A life in music is a life beautifully spent, and this is what I have
devoted my life to.''
Mr. Pavarotti's life was indeed a life beautifully spent, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 708 to honor
his life and his achievements.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 708.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTMAS AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 847) recognizing the importance of
Christmas and the Christian faith, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 847
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to
Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is
celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United
States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in
the United States, making Christianity the religion of over
three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians
throughout the world, making Christianity the largest
religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of
the world population;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed
greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a
constitutional republic in the traditions of western
civilization, finds much in its history that points observers
back to its Judeo-Christian roots;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American
Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the
birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a
recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the
United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas
as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great
religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the
United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical
importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians
and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in
the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against
Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians
and Christians throughout the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first thank our colleague from Iowa, Steve King, for
introducing this important and timely resolution.
Mr. Speaker, along with people of other faiths, our Christian friends
and neighbors around the world mark this time of year as a special
festive season. As Kwanzaa approaches and Hanukkah draws to a close, it
is notably the
[[Page 33670]]
Christmas season. We are in the midst of Advent, and this discussion
today is bracketed by two holidays observed by many Catholics who make
up the majority of Christiandom: the Feast of the Immaculate
Conception, and Our Lady of Guadalupe. There are approximately 2
billion Christians, making Christianity the largest religion of the
world and the faith of about one-third of the global population.
On December 25, Christians will celebrate Jesus the Christ, whom they
have embraced as their savior. For believers, this holiday is a
recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and grace. For Christians and
non-Christians alike, Christmas is also a time to serve others. The
celebration of Christmas requires devotion to faith, community, and
family, truly universal values we all can share.
It is both fitting and important for the United States House of
Representatives to mark this event. This legislation expresses the deep
respect we feel for Christians in the United States and throughout the
world. The House must reject bigotry and persecution directed against
Christians, both in the United States and worldwide. We must affirm the
values of religious freedom in this country and abroad. I strongly
support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as original cosponsor, to rise in support
of this timely resolution recognizing the significance of Christmas and
the contribution of the Christian faith to the United States and to
other nations throughout the world. While Christmas does not have the
same religious meaning for all citizens, it nevertheless invokes the
values of friendship and goodwill that are common to all nations.
December 25, or Christmas, as we say, commemorates a birth that
influenced the world in an unmatched way. Christ's life, his teachings,
his example, his sacrifice, and his death brought to life one of the
great religions of the world, one which underpins the foundations of
democracy in our own United States of America and even other countries
throughout the world.
Even in complex times such as those in which we live at this time,
the simple central message of Christianity endures: ``love thy neighbor
as thyself.''
For many, Christmas invokes the images of Santa Claus and exchanging
of gifts. This comes from the patron St. Nicholas, who helped poor
children hundreds of years ago by giving them presents. But
Christianity is more. It is the birth of the Christian religion and
commemorates the birth of its founder, Jesus, on Christmas day.
At its core are the fundamental important ideals of ``Peace on Earth,
Goodwill toward men.'' The poor, the suffering, those left alone or far
from their families, and those departed who were dear to us whom we
remember from time to time are all recognized in this great religion of
Christianity, and, through it, all have been offered hope.
At this time of year in this season of Christmas, I ask my colleagues
to join in supporting House Resolution 847 introduced by our colleague,
Mr. King of Iowa, recognizing the importance of Christmas and the
Christian faith.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) such time as he may consume.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise today in support of House Resolution 847, which recognizes the
importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
While there may be some who bristle at the idea of the House of
Representatives considering this resolution or any similar resolution,
I would note that though the first amendment states that the Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the first
amendment also states that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders had the foresight to realize that a state-
run church of America would do more harm to the perseverance of faith
and the hearts of our citizenry, and it would certainly lead to
irreconcilable division. However, at the same time, the Founders and
writers of the Constitution also recognized that the success of this
great American experiment, this historic social contract, was
contingent upon a moral and a religious people and the recognition that
we had inalienable rights, because those rights are given to us by our
Creator. If these rights are given to us by a Creator, then no human
being can take them away. And this is the foundation of our system of
justice, the foundation of our American society.
And so today we take just a few minutes to consider this resolution
which respects the faith and the beliefs of a vast majority of this
country and a plurality of the world, stating that, and I quote:
``Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the
salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their
savior, Jesus Christ, the son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the
gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in
accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible.''
So I hope that no Member of this Congress, no individual anywhere
takes offense to this debate and this resolution, because none is
intended. This resolution simply offers recognition to a faith and the
values of that faith which has sustained hundreds of millions of people
throughout the world, not just the United States. And after more than
two millennia, we once again approach the commemoration of a birth that
many recognize as holy but all recognize as historic.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that just this past weekend I took
my granddaughters, 9-year-old, almost 10 they would want me to say,
identical twin granddaughters with my wife, and we were in
Representative Meeks' great City of New York and we had an opportunity
to take our grandchildren to the Radio City Music Hall to see that
annual Christmas performance. That 1\1/2\ hour performance, Mr.
Speaker, was absolutely wonderful and a great tribute to the city, a
great tribute to Representative Meeks and all of our colleagues from
New York.
In that performance, Mr. Speaker, they had a nativity scene, the most
beautiful nativity scene that I have had the opportunity to witness.
And it meant so much to my granddaughters for me to explain about our
Christian faith and heritage. So if it is good enough for New York City
and Radio City Music Hall, it is good enough for this Congress. And, by
golly, I want to encourage all my speakers to support the resolution of
Representative King from Iowa. He was detained because of inclement
weather; otherwise, he would be on this floor. But I commend and thank
my colleague from New York, Representative Meeks, and also my colleague
from Texas, Representative Poe, for allowing me time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the author of this resolution, Mr. King from
Iowa, is already having a white Christmas. He is stuck in Iowa because
of the snow. He could not be here.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, this just shows how great our
Nation is as we celebrate holidays, as we indicated Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
we look at other religions, Islam and Ramadan. It shows the diversity
and it shows the tolerance that we have for all. And as we enter this
great holiday season, this is the example I think that we show around
the world, that we celebrate each other's religion in great joy here,
recognizing with respect whom they worship.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the
Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from
Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for her support and help in getting this
important measure to the House floor for a vote.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House today to discuss
the importance and relevance of Christmas, the Christian holiday
celebrating the birth of our savior Jesus Christ.
As this resolution notes, there are approximately 225 million
Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of
over
[[Page 33671]]
three-fourths of the American population. Beyond that, there are
approximately 2 billion Christians throughout the world, making
Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of
about one-third of the world population.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, in recent decades there have been some who have
undertaken efforts to diminish the significance of this great religion,
and these efforts are no more apparent than during this time of
Christmas.
It is not hard to look out over this great country of ours and find
those who, for one reason or another, have engaged in a highly-
politicized and highly-publicized crusade to rid the public square of
any reference to the religious underpinnings of the Christmas holiday.
These are individuals who have subscribed to a radical interpretation
of our Constitution's free exercise and establishment clauses and have
sought to impose their secular views and beliefs on the nation as a
whole.
In many respects, it is this ongoing effort to bring about the
secularization of Christmas--and all of our everyday lives for that
matter--that motivated me to bring this resolution before the House
today.
Regardless of how others may define it, Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a
religious holiday. It is the day on which Christians--those who
identify themselves as believers in the salvation from sin offered to
them through the death and resurrection of their savior, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation,
commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the
teachings of the Holy Bible--celebrate the birth of their savior. For
Christians, the birth of Jesus is cause for great celebration. As the
Son of God, Jesus was sent to earth, by our Heavenly Father, to become
a human being, live a sinless life, be crucified on a cross for our
sins, and rise from the dead three days later. The purpose of this, as
you well know, Mr. Speaker, was to save sinners from eternal death--the
price to be paid for their sin.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the birth of Christ, as celebrated by Christians
on Christmas is a truly important and significant day because it is
celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy and Grace.
The importance of Christmas, however, does not end with the tenets of
Christianity. Because Christmas is one of the most important holidays
on the Christian calendar, I believe that its annual passage should
serve as an opportunity for all Americans, Christian or not, religious
or not, to recognize the important role played by Christianity in the
formation of our nation and in the founding of our civilization.
It is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that courthouses throughout this
country proudly display the Ten Commandments. It is no accident that,
in this very chamber, it is the face of Moses, the human author of
those divinely dictated commandments, that looks down upon you, keeping
close watch on all that transpires in this chamber. Mr. Speaker the
framework of our laws and the fabric of our society is heavily
dependent upon the maxims of Christianity, and I believe that as we
Christians begin our annual celebration of the birth of our savior, the
one from whom Christianity derives its name, it is wholly appropriate
for us, as a nation and as members of this House, to take the time to
acknowledge the contributions that the Christian religion has made to
our country and our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all can agree that virtually any American,
whether Christian, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, when confronted
with the fact that he has in some way wronged his neighbor, will
rightly respond in one universal way--knock on his door, confess to
him, repent, and ask for forgiveness. The neighbor would then forgive
them as Christ has taught us. True and simple as this may seem, it is
important to ask why we as Americans naturally react in such a way. The
answer of course is that in this ``conditioned behavior'' we see very
clearly the positive effect that Christianity has had on the
development of our country and culture.
There are few places in the United States--if any--that you can visit
where the laws ``do not steal'' and ``do not murder'' do not apply.
Likewise, there are few households in this great country in which moral
character is developed in young children without the invocation of the
ninth and tenth amendments regarding lying and coveting that which
belongs to others.
Mr. Speaker, we as Americans live in a moral society and in a country
that is governed by moral laws. While many of these laws obviously
cannot be found in any explicit sense within the pages of the Holy
Bible, when we survey the content of that book--the document that
outlines how it is the Christians are to live their lives here on
earth--we do find much in the way of foundational principles that has
come to guide not just the development of our laws, but also the
foundation of our nation.
It was from the Bible and the example of Jesus that Pilgrims first
established government on this continent, from which the Founders
outlined the political thought that shaped our nation, and by which
Congress first intended to educate our children. Furthermore, as the
scholar David Barton and others have tirelessly pointed out, it was
from the Bible that early American leaders derived concepts like
private ownership, the free-enterprise system, an industrious work
ethic, and workfare rather than welfare. As a result, the life and
teachings of Jesus Christ have permeated every aspect of life in
America. He has shaped our culture and transformed every great leader
to rise from our population. As a testament to this, each of our
American Presidents has acknowledged God's hand on this Christian
nation that is the United States. If there never had been a Jesus
Christ, there would never have been an America.
In an address to the nation President Truman once said that, ``In
love, which is the very essence of the message of the Prince of Peace,
the world would find a solution for all its ills. I do not believe
there is one problem in this country or in the world today which could
not be settled if approached through the teaching of the Sermon on the
Mount. The poets' dream, the lesson of priest and patriarch and the
prophets' vision of a new heaven and a new earth, all are summed up in
the message delivered in the Judean hills beside the Sea of Galilee.
Would that the world would accept that message in this time of its
greatest need!''
He went on to say that, ``This is a solemn hour. In the stillness of
the Eve of the Nativity when the hopes of mankind hang on the peace
that was offered to the world nineteen centuries ago, it is but
natural, while we survey our destiny, that we give thought also to our
past--to some of the things which have gone into the making of our
Nation.''
In 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said of Christmas, ``it
is well for all humanity to remind itself that while this is in its
name a Christian celebration, it is participated in reverently and
happily by hundreds of millions of people who are members of other
religions, or belong actively to no church at all. The reason is not
far to seek. It is because the spirit of unselfish service personified
by the life and the teachings of Christ makes appeal to the inner
conscience and hope of every man and every woman in every part of the
earth.''
President Eisenhower called the nation to reflect during his remarks
at the lighting of the Nation's Christmas Tree on December, 15th 1967
when he said, ``In a few days we shall all celebrate the birth of His
Holiness on earth. We shall recreate in our minds, once more, the
ancient coming of that Spirit who remains alive for millions in our
time. We shall acknowledge the Kingdom of a Child in a world of men.''
He went on to say, ``That Child--we should remember--grew into
manhood Himself, preached and moved men in many walks of life, and died
in agony. But His death--so the Christian faith tells us--was not the
end. For Him, and for millions of men and women ever since, it marked a
time of triumph--when the spirit of life triumphed over death. So--if
this Christmas season in a time of war is to have real meaning to us,
it must celebrate more than the birth of a Baby.''
During his Radio Address to the Nation on Christmas Eve, 1983
President Reagan pointed out that ``It's been said that all the kings
who ever reigned, that all the parliaments that ever sat have not done
as much to advance the cause of peace on Earth and good will to men as
the man from Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth.''
As the words of these great men--these revered and honored presidents
of the United States of America have clearly demonstrated, it is not a
stretch to say that the precepts and principles of Jesus have so
completely permeated the culture of this nation that even an American
atheist would be hard pressed to separate his worldview from the impact
of the first Christmas.
Though we are not all Christians, Mr. Speaker, we are all Americans.
By virtue of that simple fact, I will again reiterate my belief that it
is not only appropriate but, more importantly, is necessary during this
special time of year to remember not only the birth of Jesus Christ,
the savior of the world, but also to recognize the important impact
that the Christian faith has had on the foundation and development of
our society, our nation, and our civilization.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr.
[[Page 33672]]
Meeks) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H.
Res. 847, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. POE. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
{time} 1315
BLOCK BURMESE JADE (JUNTA'S ANTI-DEMOCRATIC EFFORTS) ACT OF 2007
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3890) to amend the Burmese Freedom and Democracy
Act of 2003 to waive the requirement for annual renewal resolutions
relating to import sanctions, impose import sanctions on Burmese
gemstones, expand the number of individuals against whom the visa ban
is applicable, expand the blocking of assets and other prohibited
activities, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3890
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 ``Block Burmese JADE (Junta's
Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Burmese regime has continued and worsened its
obstruction of democratic processes and mass violation of
human rights identified in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy
Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-61; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note). In
August and September 2007, Burmese people from all walks of
life conducted their largest peaceful public protests since
1988. The peaceful public protests responded to a drastic
increase in fuel prices, as well as the Burmese regime's
ongoing denial of the democratic and human rights of the
Burmese people. On September 24, 2007, Buddhist monks
actively participated and increasingly led these peaceful
demonstrations, culminating in an estimated 100,000 people
marching through Rangoon, Burma. The protesters peacefully
demanded the release of 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for
Democracy (NLD), marching past security barricades to her
house in a show of support for Burmese democracy. The Burmese
regime continues to refuse to recognize the results of the
1990 election, won by the NLD, which gave Aung San Suu Kyi's
party the right to form a government.
(2) The Burmese regime, which calls itself the State Peace
and Development Council (SPDC), responded to these peaceful
protests with a violent crackdown leading to the reported
killing of some 200 people, including a Japanese
photojournalist, and hundreds of injuries. Human rights
groups further estimate that over 2,000 individuals have been
detained, arrested, imprisoned, beaten, tortured, or
otherwise intimidated as part of this crackdown. The Burmese
regime continues to detain, torture, and otherwise intimidate
those individuals whom it believes participated in or led the
protests and it has closed down or otherwise limited access
to several monasteries and temples that played key roles in
the protests.
(3) The Burmese regime and its supporters finance their
ongoing violations of human rights, undemocratic policies,
and military activities through financial transactions,
travel, and trade involving the United States, including the
sale of gemstones. Despite the sanctions imposed in the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, the Burmese regime
seeks out ways to evade these restrictions. Millions of
dollars in gemstones that are exported from Burma ultimately
enter the United States but the Burmese regime attempts to
conceal the origin of the gemstones in an effort to evade the
sanctions in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
For example, over 90 percent of the world's ruby supply
originates in Burma but only three percent of the rubies
entering the United States are claimed to be of Burmese
origin. The value of Burmese gemstones is more than 99
percent a function of their original quality and geological
origin, and not a result of the labor involved in cutting and
polishing the gemstones.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT
OF 2003.
(a) Prohibition on Importation of Jadeite and Rubies From
Burma and Articles of Jewelry Containing Jadeite or Rubies
From Burma.--The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003
(Public Law 108-61; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by
inserting after section 3 the following new section:
``SEC. 3A. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF JADEITE AND RUBIES
FROM BURMA AND ARTICLES OF JEWELRY CONTAINING
JADEITE OR RUBIES FROM BURMA.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
``(B) the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate.
``(2) Burmese covered article.--The term `Burmese covered
article' means--
``(A) jadeite mined or extracted from Burma;
``(B) rubies mined or extracted from Burma; or
``(C) articles of jewelry containing jadeite described in
subparagraph (A) or rubies described in subparagraph (B).
``(3) Non-burmese covered article.--The term `non-Burmese
covered article' means--
``(A) jadeite mined or extracted from a country other than
Burma;
``(B) rubies mined or extracted from a country other than
Burma; or
``(C) articles of jewelry containing jadeite described in
subparagraph (A) or rubies described in subparagraph (B).
``(4) Jadeite; rubies; articles of jewelry containing
jadeite or rubies.--
``(A) Jadeite.--The term `jadeite' means any jadeite
classifiable under heading 7103 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (in this paragraph referred to
as the `HTS').
``(B) Rubies.--The term `rubies' means any rubies
classifiable under heading 7103 of the HTS.
``(C) Articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies.--
The term `articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies'
means--
``(i) any article of jewelry classifiable under heading
7113 of the HTS that contains jadeite or rubies; or
``(ii) any article of jadeite or rubies classifiable under
heading 7116 of the HTS.
``(5) United states.--The term `United States', when used
in the geographic sense, means the several States, the
District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.
``(b) Prohibition on Importation of Burmese Covered
Articles.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, until such time as the President determines and
certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that
Burma has met the conditions described in section 3(a)(3),
beginning 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of
2007, the President shall prohibit the importation into the
United States of any Burmese covered article.
``(2) Regulatory authority.--The President is authorized
to, and shall as necessary, issue such proclamations,
regulations, licenses, and orders, and conduct such
investigations, as may be necessary to implement the
prohibition under paragraph (1).
``(3) Other actions.--Beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall take all
appropriate actions to seek the following:
``(A) The issuance of a draft waiver decision by the
Council for Trade in Goods of the World Trade Organization
granting a waiver of the applicable obligations of the United
States under the World Trade Organization with respect to the
provisions of this section and any measures taken to
implement this section.
``(B) The adoption of a resolution by the United Nations
General Assembly expressing the need to address trade in
Burmese covered articles and calling for the creation and
implementation of a workable certification scheme for non-
Burmese covered articles to prevent the trade in Burmese
covered articles.
``(c) Requirements for Importation of Non-Burmese Covered
Articles.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
until such time as the President determines and certifies to
the appropriate congressional committees that Burma has met
the conditions described in section 3(a)(3), beginning 60
days after the date of the enactment of the Block Burmese
JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2007, the
President shall require as a condition for the importation
into the United States of any non-Burmese covered article
that--
``(A) the exporter of the non-Burmese covered article has
implemented measures that have substantially the same effect
and achieve the same goals as the measures described in
clauses (i) through (iv) of paragraph (2)(B) (or their
functional equivalent) to prevent the trade in Burmese
covered articles; and
``(B) the importer of the non-Burmese covered article
agrees--
[[Page 33673]]
``(i) to maintain a full record of, in the form of reports
or otherwise, complete information relating to any act or
transaction related to the purchase, manufacture, or shipment
of the non-Burmese covered article for a period of not less
than 5 years from the date of entry of the non-Burmese
covered article; and
``(ii) to provide the information described in clause (i)
to the relevant United States authorities upon request.
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) In general.--The President may waive the requirements
of paragraph (1) with respect to the importation of non-
Burmese covered articles from any country with respect to
which the President determines and certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees has implemented the
measures described in subparagraph (B) (or their functional
equivalent) to prevent the trade in Burmese covered articles.
``(B) Measures described.--The measures referred to in
subparagraph (A) are the following:
``(i) With respect to exportation from the country of
jadeite or rubies in rough form, a system of verifiable
controls on the jadeite or rubies from mine to exportation
demonstrating that the jadeite or rubies were not mined or
extracted from Burma, and accompanied by officially-validated
documentation certifying the country from which the jadeite
or rubies were mined or extracted, total carat weight, and
value of the jadeite or rubies.
``(ii) With respect to exportation from the country of
finished jadeite or polished rubies, a system of verifiable
controls on the jadeite or rubies from mine to the place of
final finishing of the jadeite or rubies demonstrating that
the jadeite or rubies were not mined or extracted from Burma,
and accompanied by officially-validated documentation
certifying the country from which the jadeite or rubies were
mined or extracted.
``(iii) With respect to exportation from the country of
articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies, a system of
verifiable controls on the jadeite or rubies from mine to the
place of final finishing of the article of jewelry containing
jadeite or rubies demonstrating that the jadeite or rubies
were not mined or extracted from Burma, and accompanied by
officially-validated documentation certifying the country
from which the jadeite or rubies were mined or extracted.
``(iv) With respect to re-exportation from the country of
jadeite or rubies in rough form, finished jadeite or polished
rubies, or articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies,
a system of verifiable controls on the jadeite or rubies or
articles of jewelry containing jadeite or rubies ensuring
that no jadeite or rubies mined or extracted from Burma have
entered the legitimate trade in jadeite or rubies.
``(v) Verifiable recordkeeping by all entities and
individuals engaged in mining, importation, and exportation
of non-Burmese covered articles in the country, and subject
to inspection and verification by authorized authorities of
the government of the country in accordance with applicable
law.
``(vi) Implementation by the government of the country of
proportionate and dissuasive penalties against any persons
who violate laws and regulations designed to prevent trade in
Burmese covered articles.
``(vii) Full cooperation by the country with the United
Nations or other official international organizations that
seek to prevent trade in Burmese covered articles.
``(d) Inapplicability.--
``(1) In general.--The requirements of subsection (b)(1)
and subsection (c)(1) shall not apply with respect to the
importation of Burmese covered articles and non-Burmese
covered articles, respectively, that were previously exported
from the United States and reimported into the United States
by the same person, without having been advanced in value or
improved in condition by any process or other means while
outside the United States, if the person declares that the
reimportation of the Burmese covered articles or non-Burmese
covered articles, as the case may be, satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph.
``(2) Additional provision.--The requirements of subsection
(c)(1) shall not apply with respect to the importation of
non-Burmese covered articles that are imported by or on
behalf of an individual for personal use and accompanying an
individual upon entry into the United States.
``(e) Enforcement.--Burmese covered articles or non-Burmese
covered articles that are imported into the United States in
violation of any prohibition of this Act or any other
provision law shall be subject to all applicable seizure and
forfeiture laws and criminal and civil laws of the United
States to the same extent as any other violation of the
customs laws of the United States.
``(f) Sense of Congress.--
``(1) In general.--It is the sense of Congress that the
President should take the necessary steps to seek to
negotiate an international arrangement--similar to the
Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for conflict
diamonds--to prevent the trade in Burmese covered articles.
Such an international arrangement should create an effective
global system of controls and should contain the measures
described in subsection (c)(2)(B) (or their functional
equivalent).
``(2) Kimberley process certification scheme defined.--In
paragraph (1), the term `Kimberley Process Certification
Scheme' has the meaning given the term in section 3(6) of the
Clean Diamond Trade Act (Public Law 108-19; 19 U.S.C.
3902(6)).
``(g) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of the Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-
Democratic Efforts) Act of 2007, the President shall transmit
to the appropriate congressional committees a report
describing what actions the United States has taken during
the 60-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of
such Act to seek--
``(A) the issuance of a draft waiver decision by the
Council for Trade in Goods of the World Trade Organization,
as specified in subsection (b)(3)(A);
``(B) the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations
General Assembly, as specified in subsection (b)(3)(B); and
``(C) the negotiation of an international arrangement, as
specified in subsection (f)(1).
``(2) Update.--Not later than 180 days after the
transmission of the report required under paragraph (1), and
every 6 months thereafter, the President shall transmit to
the appropriate congressional committees an update of the
report describing the continued efforts of the United States
to seek the items specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C) of paragraph (1).
``(h) GAO Report.--Not later than 14 months after the date
of the enactment of the Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-
Democratic Efforts) Act of 2007, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the effectiveness of the
implementation of this section. The Comptroller General shall
include in the report any recommendations or any
modifications to this Act that may be necessary.''.
(b) Visa Ban.--Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Visa ban.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of State shall deny the
issuance of a visa and the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall deny admission to the United States to a sanctioned
person (as such term is defined in section 4(b)(8).
``(B) Waiver.--The ban described in subparagraph (A) may be
waived only if the President determines and certifies in
writing to Congress that such is in the national interests of
the United States.''.
(c) Freezing Assets of the Burmese Regime in the United
States.--Section 4 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act
of 2003 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsection
(c) and (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Blocking of Assets and Other Prohibited Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The President shall block all property
and interests in property, including all commercial,
industrial, or public utility undertakings or entities, that,
on or after the date of the enactment of the Block Burmese
JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2007--
``(A) are owned, in whole or in part, by any sanctioned
person; and
``(B) are in the United States, or in the possession or
control of the Government of the United States or of any
financial institution or financial agency organized under the
laws of a State, territory, or possession of the United
States, including any branch or office of such financial
institution or financial agency that is located outside the
United States.
``(2) Prohibited activities.--Any person who, on or after
the date of the enactment of the Block Burmese JADE (Junta's
Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2007, engages in any of the
following activities shall be subject to penalties described
in paragraph (6):
``(A) Payments or transfers of any property, or any
transactions involving the transfer of anything of economic
value by any United States person, including any financial
institution or financial agency organized under the laws of a
State, territory, or possession of the United States and any
branch or office of such financial institution or financial
agency that is located outside the United States, to any
sanctioned person.
``(B) Direct or indirect payments of any tax, cancellation
penalty, or any other amount to the Burmese Government,
including amounts paid or incurred with respect to any joint
production agreement relating to the Yadana or Shwe gas
fields or pipelines. Any such payment made by or on behalf of
a United States person after the date of the enactment of the
Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of
2007 shall be deemed a willful violation of this Act for
purposes of penalties described in paragraph (6) and any
other related provision of law.
``(C) The export or reexport to any entity owned,
controlled, or operated by a sanctioned person directly or
indirectly, of any goods, technology, or services by a United
States person.
``(D) The performance by any United States person of any
contract, including a
[[Page 33674]]
contract providing a loan or other financing, in support of
an industrial, commercial, or public utility operated,
controlled, or owned by a sanctioned person.
``(3) Extension of authority.--
``(A) Blocking of property.--The President may block all
property and interests in property of the following entities
and persons, to the same extent as property and interests in
property of a foreign person determined to have committed
acts of terrorism for purposes of Executive Order No. 13224
of September 21, 2001, (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) may be blocked:
``(i) The Burmese Government, the Burmese military, or a
sanctioned person, including entities owned or effectively
controlled by the Burmese Government, the Burmese military,
or a sanctioned person.
``(ii) Persons otherwise associated with the Burmese
Government, the Burmese military, or a sanctioned person.
``(B) Conditions on certain accounts.--The President may
prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining
in the United States of a correspondent account or payable-
through account by any financial institution or financial
agency that is organized under the laws of a State,
territory, or possession of the United States, if the
President determines that such an account might be used--
``(i) by a person or entity that holds property or an
interest in property belonging to the Burmese Government, the
Burmese military, or a sanctioned person; or
``(ii) to conduct a transaction on behalf of or for the
benefit of the Burmese Government, the Burmese military, or a
sanctioned person.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to prohibit any contract or other
financial transaction with any nongovernmental humanitarian
organization in Burma.
``(5) Exceptions.--The prohibitions and restrictions
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall not apply to
medicine, medical equipment or supplies, food, or any other
form of humanitarian assistance provided to Burma as relief
in response to a humanitarian crisis.
``(6) Penalties.--Any person who violates any prohibition
or restriction described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall
be subject to the penalties under section 6 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705)
to the same extent as for a violation under that Act.
``(7) Listing of sanctioned persons.--The Secretary of
State and Secretary of the Treasury shall update and publish
in the Federal Register new lists of sanctioned persons as
additional information becomes available. The Secretary of
State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall devote
sufficient resources to the identification of information
concerning sanctioned persons to carry out the purposes
described in this Act.
``(8) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Correspondent account; payable-through account.--The
terms `correspondent account' and `payable-through account'
have the meanings given such terms in section 5318A(e)(1) of
title 31, United States Code.
``(B) Financial agency.--The term `financial agency' has
the meaning given such term in section 5312 of title 31,
United States Code.
``(C) Financial institution.--The term `financial
institution' has the meaning given such term in section 5312
of title 31, United States Code.
``(D) United states person.--The term `United States
person' means--
``(i) any United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence to the United States;
``(ii) any person in the United States;
``(iii) any entity organized under the laws of the United
States, any State or territory thereof, or the District of
Columbia, and any foreign branch or subsidiary of such an
entity; or
``(iv) any entity organized under the laws of the United
States, any State or territory thereof, or the District of
Columbia, in which an individual or entity described in
clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) owns, directly or indirectly,
more than 50 percent of the outstanding capital stock or
other beneficial interest in such entity.
``(E) Sanctioned person.--The term `sanctioned person'
means--
``(i) any individual who is a member of the former or
present leadership of the SPDC or the union Solidarity
Development Association;
``(ii) any member of the Burmese military involved in the
violent repression of the public protests in Burma in August,
September, and October 2007 (regardless of when such
repression occurred);
``(iii) any Burmese official who has engaged in, ordered,
or facilitated acts of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights (as defined in section 502B(d)(1) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)),
either as an individual or as a member of a group or
government; or
``(iv) any member of the immediate family of any individual
described in clauses (i), (ii), or (iii).''.
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE IN BURMA.
(a) In General.--The President is authorized to use all
available resources to assist Burma democracy activists and
humanitarian aid workers in their efforts to promote freedom,
democracy, and human rights in Burma.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $20,000,000 to the Secretary of State for
each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for the following
purposes:
(1) To provide aid to democracy and human rights activists
and organizations inside and outside of Burma working to
bring a transition to democracy inside Burma, including to
individuals and groups that--
(A) promote democracy and human rights;
(B) represent the ethnic minorities of Burma;
(C) broadcast radio and television programs into Burma that
promote democracy and report on human rights conditions
inside Burma; or
(D) compile evidence of human rights violations by the SPDC
and its civilian militia, the Union Solidarity and
Development Association (USDA), and of the SPDC and its
entities' efforts to repress peaceful activities.
(2) To provide aid to humanitarian workers who--
(A) provide food, medical, educational, or other assistance
to refugees and internally displaced persons;
(B) assist women and girls after incidents of rape and
other forms of sexual violence; or
(C) assist in the rehabilitation of child soldiers.
(c) Preventing Funds From Enriching the SPDC.--None of the
funding made available under this section may be provided to
SPDC-controlled entities, entities working with or providing
cash or resources to the SPDC, including organizations
affiliated with the United Nations, or entities requiring the
approval of the SPDC to operate within the borders of Burma.
SEC. 5. REPORT ON MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE AID TO BURMA.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a report containing a list of countries, companies,
and other entities that provide military or intelligence aid
to the SPDC and describing such military or intelligence aid
provided by each such country, company, and other entity.
(b) Military or Intelligence Aid Defined.--For the purpose
of this section, the term ``military or intelligence aid''
means, with respect to the SPDC--
(1) the provision of weapons, weapons parts, military
vehicles, or military aircraft;
(2) the provision of military or intelligence training,
including advice and assistance on subject matter expert
exchanges;
(3) the provision of weapons of mass destruction and
related materials, capabilities, and technology, including
nuclear, chemical, or dual-use capabilities;
(4) conducting joint military exercises;
(5) the provision of naval support, including ship
development and naval construction;
(6) the provision of technical support, including computer
and software development and installations, networks, and
infrastructure development and construction; or
(7) the construction or expansion of airfields, including
radar and anti-aircraft systems.
(c) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall
be submitted in unclassified form but may include a
classified annex.
SEC. 6. DENIAL OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT WITH RESPECT TO BURMA.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 901(j) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Special rule for burma.--In addition to any period
during which this subsection would otherwise apply to Burma,
this subsection shall apply to Burma during the period--
``(i) beginning on January 1, 2008, and
``(ii) ending on the date the Secretary of State certifies
to the Secretary of the Treasury that Burma meets the
requirements of section 3(a)(3) of the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003 (as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this subparagraph).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2008.
SEC. 7. WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE NEED LIMITATION UNDER
GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES FOR CERTAIN
ARTICLES OF INDIA AND THAILAND.
(a) Waiver.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall waive the
application of subsection (c)(2) of section 503 of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463) pursuant to subsection (d) of
such section (relating to waiver of competitive need
limitation) with respect to articles of Thailand and India
classifiable under subheading 7113.19.50 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should--
[[Page 33675]]
(1) review any waiver of the application of subsection
(c)(2) of section 503 of the Trade Act of 1974 pursuant to
subsection (d) of such section with respect to any eligible
article of any beneficiary developing country that is revoked
pursuant to subsection (d)4)(B)(ii) of such section; and
(2) reinstate such waiver unless the United States
International Trade Commission affirmatively determines
that--
(A) revocation of such waiver will not reduce the current
level of exports of such article from the beneficiary
developing country to the United States; and
(B) revocation of the waiver will not benefit one or more
countries that are not designated as beneficiary developing
countries for purposes of title V of the Trade Act of 1974.
SEC. 8. OFFSETS.
(a) Time for Payment of Corporate Estimated Taxes.--The
percentage under subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased
by 0.25 percentage points.
(b) Customs User Fees.--Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``December 13,
2014'' and inserting ``January 24, 2015''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a few short months ago, Burma's Saffron Revolution
unfolded before the eyes of the world. Buddhist monks draped in crimson
robes peacefully marching through the streets of Rangoon. Tens of
thousands of Burmese citizens joining the monks, echoing their calls
for change. A chorus of world voices asking the Burma's ruling junta to
respond peacefully and responsibly to cries for freedom and democracy.
The reaction of the ruling regime to these peaceful demonstrations
was equally as unforgettable. Unarmed monks shot in the streets, in
full view of the international community. Thousands of peaceful monks
hauled off to detention centers to be tortured. Political dissidents
tossed in jail, facing years behind bars simply for criticizing the
government.
In recent days, loudspeakers across the country warn: ``We have
video. We will find you,'' all in an Orwellian effort to intimidate
Burma's people and deter them from their aspirations for democracy and
a better life.
This crackdown on nonviolent protesters and Buddhist monks by Burma's
military thugs sets a new low of brutality even for this regime of
military dictators.
These brutal actions demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the regime.
Unfortunately, the regime is not economically bankrupt. It continues to
take Burma's vast resources as its own while the vast majority of
Burma's people suffer in dire poverty.
The legislation before the House today hits the regime where it
hurts, in the wallet. By blocking the import of Burmese gems into the
United States and expanding financial sanctions, the legislation will
take hundreds of millions out of the pockets of the regime each year.
This legislation is supported by United States industry. The 11,000-
store Jewelers of America supports a ban of Burmese gem imports to the
United States. Major retailers like Tiffany's and Bulgari have also
voluntarily implemented such a ban.
The bill before the House also cuts off tax deductions for Chevron's
major gas investment in Burma. By closing this loophole, we can
dramatically increase pressure on other civilized nations to similarly
demand that their firms divest themselves of Burma holdings.
This bipartisan bill strengthens our goal of a coordinated,
multilateral approach to sanctions against Burma. The European Union
recently announced a similar ban on the import of Burmese gems, as have
the Canadians. I hope our legislation will push other countries to
reexamine their financial dealings with the regime and the investment
their oil companies make in Burma.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this legislation to strengthen the
sanctions imposed by the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In
doing so, I am again joined by the ranking Republican member of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Peter King of
the Homeland Security Committee, both of whom have been strong voices
for freedom in Burma.
Let me also express my appreciation to the chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, and the chairman of the Trade
Subcommittee, Mr. Levin, as well as their Republican counterparts, Mr.
McCrery and Mr. Herger, for their enormous help in moving this bill
forward.
Finally, I would like to highlight the indispensable leadership of
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on this legislation. Since the first shots were
fired in Rangoon, the Speaker has firmly indicated the intention of
House Democrats to significantly tighten sanctions on the ruling
Burmese regime. And today, we fulfill that promise.
Mr. Speaker, Burmese freedom fighter and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu
Kyi memorably asked the world community, ``Use your liberty to promote
ours.'' So today, we use our liberty in the United States Congress to
dramatically increase the economic pressure on the Burmese regime to
move towards freedom, democracy and respect for human rights.
We use our liberty to stop the flow of blood red rubies from Burma
into American jewelry stores. The Burmese regime might have washed the
blood from the streets of Rangoon, but they have not erased the images
of peaceful protesters being shot down from our minds. Today, we act,
and we act decisively.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the world was rightfully shocked and outraged this past
fall by reports of midnight raids on temples in Burma and televised
images of monks and other peaceful demonstrators being shot down on the
streets and arrested.
Appeals for human decency and restraint have fallen on deaf ears with
regard to Burma's generals. It is thus time to send them a message that
they understand, a message that is loud and clear.
The international community must no longer subsidize the leaders of
this immoral regime by trading in the commodities they peddle on
international markets. This rainbow coalition of contraband products
for sale by the military junta has included red rubies, white opium,
green jade and brown timber.
The legislation put forward today sends a simple, but clear and
strong message: It will not be business as usual for the people in
Rangoon until they stop their suppression of their own people in the
nation of Burma.
Is there any Member here today who has any doubts about making
economic sanctions against the current Rangoon regime permanent and
hard hitting? This legislation has the full support of leaders of the
American gem industry. They have seen the necessity of putting
principle ahead of money and profit when it comes to the actions of the
Burmese rogue regime.
And this legislation also seeks to put the blame squarely on the
backs of those who have earned it, the ruling generals and their
families, and not on the backs of the Burmese people who have already
suffered too much.
It calls for frozen bank accounts for the generals, an ending to
money laundering by the ruling junta, and no visas to the United States
for those involved in the continuing acts of repression and no visas
for their immediate families.
[[Page 33676]]
The urgency with which we are here today in view of this issue of the
restoration of the democratic rights to the people of Burma is
demonstrated by the fact that already over 240 Members of this House of
Representatives have agreed to cosponsor legislation giving official
Congressional recognition to Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Burma
democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
H.R. 4286, introduced December 5 by Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Crowley,
would award a Congressional Gold Medal to Aung San Suu Kyi in
recognition of her courageous and unwavering commitment to peace,
nonviolence, human rights, and democracy in Burma.
There is no clearer indication than this legislation of the
solidarity that exists between the people of the United States and the
good people of Burma on the issues of human rights and democracy.
This legislation is also fully in keeping with administration policy.
In a statement made on October 19, following the latest series of
bloody and tragic events, President Bush announced an executive order
imposing additional sanctions on Burmese leaders and entities. The
President also instructed the Commerce Department to tighten export
control and regulation over Burma. On that occasion, the President
noted that ``Burmese leaders continue to defy the world's just demands
to stop their vicious persecution. They continue to dismiss calls to
begin peaceful dialogue aimed at national reconciliation. Most of all,
they continue to reject the clear will of the Burmese people who wish
to live in freedom under leaders of their choosing.''
The President concluded with these observations: ``The people of
Burma are showing great courage in the face of immense repression. They
are appealing for our help. We must not turn a deaf ear to their cries.
I believe no nation can forever suppress its own people. And we are
confident that the day is coming when freedom's tide will reach the
shores of Burma.''
This legislation provides an opportunity to send a strong, bipartisan
and loud message that where human freedom is concerned, politics does
stop at the water's edge.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to join in voicing their
enthusiastic support for a free Burma by supporting the Block Burmese
JADE Act of 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lantos of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, the author of this bill, for his efforts in
introducing this bill. We have no other speakers at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an
exchange of letters between Chairman Rangel and Chairman Lantos on H.R.
3890.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, December 10, 2007.
Hon. Tom Lantos,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding H.R. 3890, the
Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of
2007, which was reported by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on October 31, 2007.
As you know, the Committee on Ways & Means has jurisdiction
over import matters, such as the import ban and restrictions
on imports imposed by the Block Burmese JADE Act of 2007.
Accordingly, certain provisions of H.R. 3890 fall under the
Committee's jurisdiction.
There have been some productive conversations between the
staffs of our committees, during which we have proposed some
changes to H.R. 3890 that I believe help clarify the intent
and scope of the measure. My understanding is that there is
an agreement with regard to these changes.
The following provisions of H.R. 3890 were among those
changed, added, or removed because they fell within the
Committee's jurisdiction:
Section 3(a) (``Annual Renewal of Resolutions No Longer
Required''): This subsection was removed;
Section 3(b) (Import Restrictions on Gemstones): This
subsection was removed and a new Section 3A (``Prohibition on
Importation of Certain Jadeite and Rubies and Articles of
Jewelry Containing Jadeite or Rubies'') was added;
New Section 3A(a) (``Definitions'') contains definitions
for the terms ``Appropriate Congressional Committees,''
``Burmese Covered Article,'' ``Non-Burmese Covered Article,''
``Jadeite; Rubies; Articles of Jewelry Containing Jadeite or
Rubies,'' and ``United States'';
New Section 3A(b) (``Prohibitions on Importation of Burmese
Covered Articles''): Provides that the President shall
prohibit the importation into the United States of any
Burmese covered article and use provided regulatory authority
as necessary; and the President shall take actions to seek a
draft waiver decision by the Council on Trade in Goods of the
World Trade Organization and adoption of a United Nations
General Assembly resolution;
New Section 3A(c) (``Requirements for Importation of Non-
Burmese Covered Articles''): Provides that the President,
beginning 60 days after the date of enactment, shall require
certain actions by the exporting country, exporter and
importer as a condition of importing non-Burmese covered
articles into the United States to ensure that the imported
articles do not contain Burmese jadeite or rubies;
New Section 3A(d) (``Inapplicability''): Exempts certain
imports from the requirements of the Act;
New Section 3A(e) (``Enforcement''): Provides that Burmese
covered articles and non-Burmese covered articles imported
into the United States in violation of the Act are subject to
all applicable laws of the United States;
New Section 3A(f) (``Sense of Congress''): Provides that
the President should take the necessary steps to negotiate an
international agreement similar to the Kimberley Process
Certification Scheme for conflict diamonds; and
New Section 7 (``Waiver of Competitive Need Limitation
Under Generalized System of Preferences For Certain Articles
of India and Thailand''): Provides for the reinstatement of
Generalized System of Preferences (duty-free treatment) for
specified Thai and Indian jewelry.
To expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the
Committee will forgo action on this bill and will not oppose
its consideration on the suspension calendar. This is done
with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice
the Committee or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this, or
similar legislation, in the future.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
our understanding with respect to H.R. 3890, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the record.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, December 10, 2007.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
3890, the Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic
Efforts) Act of 2007.
I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this
legislation and the mutually agreed upon text that is being
presented to the House, including the amendments to H.R. 3890
reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as described in
your letter. I recognize that the bill contains provisions
that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways
and Means. I agree that the inaction of your Committee with
respect to the bill does not in any way prejudice the
Committee on Ways and Means or its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this or similar legislation in the future.
I will ensure that our exchange of letters be included in
the Congressional Record.
Cordially,
Tom Lantos,
Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be an original
cosponsor of this important resolution strengthening the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and I want to thank my good friend
and colleague, Chairman Lantos, for his continued leadership on this
issue. It's an issue that concerns Members on both sides of the aisle
and anyone who cares about freedom and human rights.
The despicable actions of Burma's brutal regime in recent months are
only the latest chapter in a long history of repression by that
country's dictators. After their shocking murder and incarceration 2
months ago of peaceful demonstrators, including Buddhist monks--the
very symbols of the Burmese people's desire for peace--the Government
thugs hope that our attention will turn elsewhere. They hope that the
international outcry over the violence and humiliation of this fall
will die down. But we are all too aware of the history of this regime
to let that happen.
If we turn our attention elsewhere, the regime will intensify the
abuse and repeat these crimes again and again. Since the 1988 slaughter
of several thousand peaceful demonstrators, the story of Burma has been
a
[[Page 33677]]
constant saga of harassment, violence, and torture. The inhumane
treatment of Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is only the
most glaring example of the regime's efforts to stifle democracy--
unfortunately there are many others that don't get as many headlines.
Members may recall that I have mentioned in the past how the military
regime in Burma locked up a 19-year-old student from my district,
Michelle Keegan, who had traveled to Burma in 1998 to mark in a
peaceful way the 10th anniversary of those 1988 massacres. She and
others were sentenced to 5 years in jail for distributing small
leaflets calling for democracy in Burma.
I, and others, were outraged, and agitated for the release of these
young people. They wouldn't let us into the country, but they couldn't
keep us quiet. If not for the attention of the U.S. Congress and the
American people--and for the international pressure that resulted--who
knows what would have happened to these students in the prisons of
Burma? Thankfully, we gained their release.
The Block Burmese JADE Act will tighten the noose on this murderous
regime, expanding what this body has already done to isolate these
criminals. Burma's junta continues to enrich itself from the country's
vast natural resources while most of its people are mired in poverty.
The generals and their families milk state-owned enterprises for all
they're worth, getting their hands on much of the nearly $3 billion in
annual revenues from oil and gas, timber and gems.
By blocking further assets, imposing more severe import restrictions
on Burmese gemstones, and expanding the visa ban on the regime's
cronies, we will further limit its comfort zone. The regime will be
less able to avoid U.S. sanctions--and U.S. companies will no longer be
able to take tax deductions for investment in Burma.
These measures alone won't bring about wholesale change in Burma. We
need more help from our allies and from Burma's neighbors if we dare to
hope for true freedom in that country. We need China to take a serious
stand on the right side of this issue instead of remaining--as usual--
lined up against human rights and human dignity.
But this strengthening of our law--this strengthening of our
resolve--will take another concrete step in the right direction. It
will also make an important statement to Burma's brutal dictators--and
to the beleaguered pro-democracy activists in that country struggling
under the yoke of military repression.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending additional
import sanctions against the repressive Burmese military junta. This
regime has steadfastly refused to make progress--not only with respect
to its abhorrent and inexcusable human rights record, but also in
preventing democracy to take root in Burma.
This past July, the House and Senate passed a bill which renewed our
import ban against all Burmese products. Unfortunately, shortly after
our renewal of the ban, the situation in Burma took a grave turn for
the worse. As we all know, in September 2007, Buddhist monks led
demonstrations in Burma, which ultimately culminated in an estimated
100,000 people marching through Rangoon. The peaceful protestors called
for improvements in human rights, democratic processes, and the release
of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who
still lives under unjustified house arrest.
The Burmese regime responded to these peaceful demonstrations with a
violent crackdown that led to deaths and hundreds more injuries. In
addition, according to human rights groups, thousands of individuals
have been arrested, tortured, or otherwise intimidated based on the
regime's belief that these individuals participated in the protests.
These recent events make clear that it is time to strengthen our
sanctions by putting a full stop on trade in Burmese rubies and
jadeite, the sales of which finance the Burmese regime. While we need
to act unilaterally, we also need to structure our strengthened import
ban in a way that encourages and paves the way for multilateral
pressure on the military regime. A multilateral effort that truly
squeezes the junta is the only way sanctions will lead to real, lasting
reform.
The Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over import
matters, has done just that. Working with the Foreign Affairs
Committee, my committee was able to refine provisions so that all
Burmese rubies and jadeite--and jewelry containing these Burmese
stones--could fall under the purview of the current ban, even if the
jewelry was made in, and exported from, a third country.
While we believe the changes the Ways and Means Committee made to
this legislation maximize our compliance with U.S. international
obligations, the added provisions also open the door to building a
multilateral consensus at the United Nations and World Trade
Organization to prevent trade in Burmese rubies and jadeite. Modeled
after the successful conflict diamonds legislation, the provisions my
committee added are proven and administrable.
At the same time, however, I am concerned about the provisions
relating to the Generalized System of Preferences. While I understand
the need to avoid unduly harming third countries affected by this ban,
I believe that the approach outlined in this bill creates a number of
problems and doesn't create a solid basis for holding these countries
harmless. It is our expectation that there will be continued work with
Chairman Rangel and the other body to solve these problems as this bill
moves forward.
For these reasons, I urge support of H.R. 3890, as amended.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3890, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the Burmese
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to impose import sanctions on Burmese
gemstones, expand the number of individuals against whom the visa ban
is applicable, expand the blocking of assets and other prohibited
activities, and for other purposes.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF THOMAS ``TOMMY'' MAKEM
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 768) honoring the life of Thomas ``Tommy''
Makem.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 768
Whereas Thomas ``Tommy'' Makem was born on November 4, 1932
in Keady, County Armagh, in Northern Ireland;
Whereas Thomas Makem emigrated from Ireland to Dover, New
Hampshire in 1955, after having won the All-Ireland
Championship in acting, to pursue a career in acting and
carrying with him only a makeshift suitcase, a pair of
bagpipes, and proof of his health;
Whereas in 1956 Thomas Makem joined the Clancy Brothers,
all of whom had immigrated to the United States from Ireland,
and began performing musically together as ``The Clancy
Brothers and Tommy Makem'' and were signed by Columbia
Records;
Whereas in 1961 Thomas Makem performed at the Newport Folk
Festival and, along with Joan Baez, was named as the most
promising newcomer;
Whereas in 1963 the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem
performed at the White House at the request of President John
F. Kennedy;
Whereas the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem continued to
perform and record music together, performing in venues such
as Carnegie Hall and on programs including The Ed Sullivan
Show and The Tonight Show until 1969 when Thomas Makem left
the band amicably to pursue a solo career;
Whereas in 1975 Thomas Makem again joined with Liam Clancy
and the duo performed together until 1988, including a Clancy
Brothers and Tommy Makem reunion at the Lincoln Center in New
York City, New York;
Whereas in 1997 Thomas Makem wrote a book, Tommy Makem's
Secret Ireland, and in 1999 premiered his own one-man theatre
show, Invasions and Legacies, in New York, and established
the Tommy Makem International Festival of Song in South
Armagh, Ireland in 2000;
Whereas throughout his performing career Thomas Makem was
highly regarded as an exceptional musician by both his
colleagues and the public and received many awards and honors
including the World Folk Music Association's Lifetime
Achievement Award in 1999 and honorary doctorates from the
University of New Hampshire in 1998, the University of
Limerick in 2001, and the University of Ulster in 2007; and
Whereas Thomas Makem died on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 in
Dover, New Hampshire and will now be remembered as a
dedicated husband, father, and grandfather and as one of the
greatest Irish-Americans of the 20th Century: Now, therefore,
be it
[[Page 33678]]
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the life
of Thomas ``Tommy'' Makem, and his accomplishments as a
musician, composer and performer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
General Leave
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire?
There was no objection.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Tommy Makem was one of the greatest Irish-American
performers to ever grace the stage. Not only have his works inspired
generations of artists, but his determination and success broke down
barriers that had long been raised to Irish Americans. Tommy and the
Clancy Brothers, with whom he played for many years, were instrumental
in breaking down these cultural divides.
Tommy lived a truly remarkable life. He arrived in America in 1955 to
pursue a career in acting, having just won the All-Ireland Championship
in acting. Like so many immigrants before and after, Tommy arrived with
very little, carrying with him only a makeshift suitcase, a pair of
bagpipes and proof of his health. However, it did not take Tommy long
to find a life in America.
In 1956, he joined with the Clancy Brothers--Patrick, Tom, Bobby and
Liam--and they began performing together. In 1961, Tommy performed at
the Newport Folk Festival and, along with Joan Baez, he was heralded as
``the most promising newcomer.'' In 1963, Tommy and the Clancy Brothers
performed at the White House at the request of President Kennedy. They
continued to perform together for years and played venues from Carnegie
Hall to the Ed Sullivan Show, until Tommy embarked on a solo career in
1969. For decades, he continued to compose and perform. He would later
reunite with the Clancy Brothers in 1988 for a reunion concert. In
1999, Tommy was awarded the World Folk Music Association's Lifetime
Achievement Award.
Tommy was not just a musician, he was so much more. Tommy was an
author, a philanthropist, a businessman, an inspiration and, most
importantly, he was a loving father, grandfather and husband.
Tommy passed away earlier this year on August 1 in Dover, New
Hampshire, where he lived for many years. He left behind a daughter,
Katie Makem-Boucher, and two grandchildren, Molly Dickerman and Robert
Boucher, and three sons, Shane, Conor and Rory, whom with his nephew,
Tom Sweeney, continue the family folk music tradition. They will
remember Tommy for the living man he was and for the impact he had on
their lives.
{time} 1330
Upon his passing, condolences streamed in from all over the country,
as well as the world. The Makem family has said that while many talked
about his music, most noted what a generous and kind man he was.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and
honor the life of a truly remarkable man, an immigrant who touched the
lives of so many.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 768,
honoring the life of Thomas ``Tommy'' Makem. Makem was an
internationally celebrated Irish folk musician, artist, poet and
storyteller, best known as a member of the Clancy Brothers and Tommy
Makem. He played the long-necked five string banjo, guitar, tin
whistle, border pipes, and sang in a very distinctive baritone. He was
sometimes known as the Godfather of Irish music.
The son of a successful Irish folk singer, Sarah Makem, Tommy Makem
mesmerized audiences for more than four decades. He expanded and
reshaped the boundaries of Irish culture and infused a pride and a
quest for knowledge of Irish culture in countless others.
In 1955, Makem's ambition to become an actor took him to New York
where, after a brief but rewarding career in live television and off-
Broadway plays, he teamed up with the Clancy Brothers. They appeared on
the ``Ed Sullivan Show,'' the ``Tonight Show'' and every major
television network show in the United States. The Clancy Brothers and
Tommy Makem played to audiences from New York's Carnegie Hall and
London's Royal Albert Hall to every major concert venue in the English-
speaking world.
In 1969, Tommy left the Clancy Brothers to pursue a solo career and
immediately sold out Madison Square Garden in New York. His popularity
soared, and he went on to three sold out concert tours in Australia,
including Sydney's opera house.
By 1975, Makem had rejoined Liam Clancy of the Clancy Brothers. The
duo worked together until 1988. Their collaboration garnered the pair
an Emmy nomination, as well as several platinum and gold records.
Tommy Makem's music will live on forever. ``The Rambles of Spring,''
Farewell to Carlingford,'' ``Gentle Annie,'' ``The Winds Are Singing
Freedom'' and, of course, ``Four Green Fields'' are all standards in
the repertoire of folk singers around the world in the late 20th and
early 21st centuries.
I am very happy to join my good friend and colleague, Representative
Shea-Porter, in honoring the life of Thomas ``Tommy'' Makem, and I ask
my colleagues to support this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Does the gentleman from Louisiana have any further
speakers?
Mr. BOUSTANY. I have no other Members requesting time, and I'll be
happy to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to observe the passing of a
friend and a man for whom I held a tremendous amount of respect, Tommy
Makem.
Tommy was an internationally celebrated folk musician, actor, artist,
poet, songwriter, and storyteller from Ireland who took pride in
sharing the Irish culture with those around the globe. He emigrated to
the United States in 1955, with nothing more than a makeshift suitcase,
a pair of bagpipes, and proof of his health, to pursue a career in
acting. He settled in Dover, New Hampshire. After a brief period as an
actor, Tommy Makem went on to join a band of Irish descent, The Clancy
Brothers, where he rose to international fame.
Tommy broke out on his own following his time with The Clancy
Brothers and educated generations on the history, traditions, and
customs of Ireland through his music, art, and poetry. He wrote
hundreds of songs, including, ``Four Green Fields,'' ``Gentle Annie,''
and ``The Rambles of Spring,'' which have been played in Carnegie Hall,
Madison Square Garden, Royal Albert Hall and across the United States,
Canada, and Australia.
Tommy Makem's illustrious career awarded him honorary doctorates from
the University of New Hampshire in 1998, the University of Limerick in
2001, and the University of Ulster in 2007. He was regarded as an
exceptional musician and achieved both gold and platinum albums, and a
host of other awards, such as the Gold Medal of the Eire Society in
Boston, the Genesis Award from Stonehill College in Massachusetts, an
Emmy nomination for a New Hampshire public television series, as well
as the first Lifetime Achievement Award in the Irish Voice/Aer Lingus
Community Awards. Tommy, one of the greatest Irish-Americans of the
20th Century, was also listed as one of the top 100 Irish Americans in
the Irish American Magazine 5 years in a row. The World Folk Music
Association awarded him its Lifetime Achievement Award in 1999.
Tommy Makem passed away on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, in Dover, New
Hampshire. He will be remembered not only for his incredible
achievements, but as a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather. His
enduring memory and music will live on, as will the power and energy of
his unyielding spirit. He remains a true inspiration to me and millions
of others around the world.
[[Page 33679]]
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 768.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HONORING THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII FOR ITS 100 YEARS OF COMMITMENT TO
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 264) honoring the University of
Hawaii for its 100 years of commitment to public higher education.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 264
Whereas while the natural beauty of Hawaii is recognized
throughout the world, the real beauty of the island state
lies in its people, who, through their personal relationships
with their families, friends, and neighbors, and through
their dedicated efforts to serve the needs of the people of
Hawaii, have created prosperity and high standards of living;
Whereas the institution which would eventually become the
University of Hawaii at Manoa finds its humble beginnings in
1907 in a small house on Young Street as the College of
Agriculture and Mechanic Arts;
Whereas with the establishment of the Colleges of Arts and
Sciences in 1920, the university became a full-fledged
university, known today as the University of Hawaii at Manoa;
Whereas in 1941, the Hawaii Vocational School was founded
near downtown Hilo, becoming a University branch campus in
1951 and the University of Hawaii at Hilo in 1970;
Whereas in 1964, the University of Hawaii community
colleges system was established with the creation of four
community college campuses: Honolulu; Kapiolani; Kauai; and
Maui, with Leeward joining the community college system in
1969, Windward in 1972, and Hawaii in 1990, as the seventh
community college;
Whereas West Oahu College was founded in 1976, gaining
university status in 1989 as the University of Hawaii--West
Oahu, the youngest of the university's baccalaureate degree-
granting campuses;
Whereas the 10 campuses of the University of Hawaii
combined offer more than 620 certificate and degree-granting
programs in a variety of nationally and internationally-
recognized areas of excellence, including culinary arts,
health sciences, construction, automotive mechanics, digital
media, justice administration, forensic anthropology,
indigenous languages, tropical agriculture, natural sciences,
ocean sciences, earth sciences, astronomy, international
business, languages and culture, legal studies, and medicine,
to over 50,000 students across the State every year;
Whereas the University of Hawaii has embraced and employed
technological advances to reach and serve students via
distance learning technologies on the Internet, two-way
video, and cable television;
Whereas the nearly 15,000 Hawaii residents who are employed
full-time by the University of Hawaii as faculty, staff,
researchers, and in other capacities, serve the University
and the State of Hawaii by educating its citizens,
contributing to the economy, supporting workforce
development, and engaging the community to address societal
issues and underserved populations;
Whereas the impacts of the University of Hawaii are not
confined to those students in its classrooms, but residents
and visitors alike who benefit from its outreach, cultural,
and entertainment programs: more than 75,000 people register
in its non-credit courses; more than 33,000 people
participate in university-sponsored conferences, workshops,
and training sessions; nearly 130,000 people attend theater,
music, and dance events at the University's performing arts
centers at the Manoa, Hilo, Kauai, Leeward, and Windward
campuses; and nearly 700,000 people cheer on the Manoa and
Hilo athletic teams;
Whereas the vitality of today's University of Hawaii
touches someone in virtually every family in these islands;
Whereas more than 250,000 alumni now residing in all 50
States and in more than 80 countries around the world are
proud to call the University of Hawaii their alma mater, as
the educational programs at the University have shaped these
individuals into global citizens who contribute to the well-
being of a world-wide society with a commitment to integrity,
diversity, and service wherever they may be;
Whereas the House of Representatives of the State of Hawaii
proudly boasts 38 alumni of the University of Hawaii system,
and the Senate 15, for a total of 53 proud alumni in the
Hawaii State Legislature;
Whereas 2007 marks the 100th Anniversary of the
establishment of the University of Hawaii, a momentous
occasion by nearly every measure;
Whereas the centennial observance offers the people of
Hawaii the opportunity to reflect on 100 years of higher
education in Hawaii, celebrate the rich heritage of the
University of Hawaii, honor the people who took part in
building this outstanding educational enterprise, and
envision an even more remarkable future of excellence,
sustainability, and innovation that the University of Hawaii
has introduced to our islands;
Whereas over the past 100 years, the University of Hawaii
has developed into a prominent, world-renowned educational
institution famed for its gracious spirit of aloha; academic
excellence, intellectual vigor, and opportunity;
institutional integrity and service; diversity, cultural
identity, social responsibility, and fairness; collaboration
and respect; and accountability and fiscal integrity;
Whereas ``Maluna a`e o na lahui a pau ke ola ke kanaka:
Above All Nations is Humanity,'' the philosophy of the
University of Hawaii is befitting for an institution that has
transformed the lives of many around the world through their
experiences at the University; and
Whereas all four members of Hawaii's congressional
delegation are proud graduates of the University of Hawaii:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress congratulates the University of
Hawaii on the momentous occasion of its 100th Anniversary,
and expresses its warmest aloha and best wishes for continued
success.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
General Leave
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which
Members may revise and extend and insert material relevant to House
Concurrent Resolution 264 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 264, honoring
the University of Hawai`i for its 100 years of dedication to public
higher education.
The 10 campuses of the University of Hawai`i offer more than 620
nationally and internationally recognized academic programs, everything
from culinary arts to tropical agriculture. It is the only place in the
Nation where students can earn a master's degree in indigenous language
studies and has the top 25 programs for environmental law, eastern
philosophy, international business, and second-language studies.
The 50,000 students who attend the university include many of
Hawaii's best and brightest. The sizable Native Hawaiian, Caucasian,
Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and Pacific Islander populations on our
campuses reflect the great diversity of our State. Their years at the
University of Hawai`i will prepare them to be the business, community,
and political leaders of tomorrow.
I am proud to be among the 250,000 University of Hawai`i alumni who
now reside in every State in the Union and in at least 80 countries
around the world. This extended community brings the aloha spirit to
the world at large.
Just last week I was here on the floor of the House with my two green
and white footballs in honor of the university Warriors' perfect 2007
football season. The Warriors are the only college team in the country
to go undefeated, but they are just one of the UH sports teams we cheer
on across the islands. From volleyball to basketball, our athletes draw
nearly 700,000 fans to games every year.
This is a special year for higher education in Hawaii. Not only is it
University of Hawai`i's centennial, but it is also the 35th anniversary
of the passage of title IX, now known as the
[[Page 33680]]
Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. Patsy was a friend
and continues to be an inspiration to me. This year the University of
Hawai`i joined me and Congress in honoring Patsy and her trailblazing
work to open the doors of higher education to women across the country.
I want to take a moment to thank the people who make the University
of Hawai`i what it is today. David McClain, the current president of
the university, and the 17 presidents who have come before him have all
been leaders, dedicated to excellence in public higher education. The
phenomenal team of faculty and staff has truly made a positive
difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of students, past and
present. Those students, in turn, are making enormous contributions to
our towns, our State, and our country.
My years at the University of Hawai`i in the late '60s were a time of
awakening and questioning for me. Attending the university made a
profound difference in my life. In fact, all four members of Hawai`i's
current congressional delegation have degrees from the University of
Hawai`i.
I am proud to work closely with the University of Hawai`i as a member
of the House Committee on Education and Labor. As we come to the end of
the 100th year in the university's history, congratulations to all
involved. Here's to the next 100 successful years.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution
264, honoring the University of Hawai`i for its 100 years of commitment
to public higher education.
In 1907, the Hawaii Territorial Legislature established the College
of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts in Honolulu under terms of the U.S.
land grant legislation. Ten students began classes with 13 faculty
members in September of the following year, and the first graduates
received degrees in 1912. The university has been growing ever since.
In 1912, the founding campus was renamed the College of Hawai`i, and
it moved to its present location in the Manoa Valley. Pig farms and
kiwi groves were cleared for construction of the first permanent
building, Hawaii Hall. Six years later, William Kwai Fong Yap
petitioned the legislature for university status and the campus became
the University of Hawai`i in 1920.
After the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, classes were
suspended for 2 months, and University of Hawai`i students of Japanese
ancestry formed the Varsity Victory Volunteers to assist with civil
defense, many of whom later became a part of the famous 100th Infantry
Battalion.
In 1964, the University of Hawai`i Community Colleges System was
established with four additional campuses. Two years later, the
founding campus, now called UH Manoa, established a School of Travel
Industry Management and the forerunner programs of the School of
Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific studies. The John A. Burns School of
Medicine opened in 1967, and construction began on the first telescope
atop Mauna Kea volcano in 1968.
In 2000, Hawaii voters overwhelmingly supported constitutional
autonomy for the University of Hawai`i, ensuring the institution more
control in the management of its resources.
Honolulu Community College was selected to be one of only six Cisco
Training Academies in the country to offer certified network
professional training, and Maui Community College continued a tradition
of statewide outreach by opening the Moloka'i Education Center.
Additional highlights include winning the contract to manage the Maui
Supercomputing Center for the Air Force Research Laboratory, and in
2003, walls were raised for a new medical school and biomedical
research facility.
Today, the University of Hawai`i system includes 10 campuses and
dozens of educational, training, and research centers across the
Hawaiian Islands. As the public system of higher education in Hawaii,
UH offers opportunities as unique and diverse as the islands
themselves.
UH is the State's leading engine for economic growth and
diversification, stimulating the local economy with jobs, research, and
skilled workers.
I am happy to join my good friend and colleague, Representative
Hirono, in honoring this exceptional university for all of its
accomplishments and wish the faculty, staff, and students continued
success.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for his
very complete and kind remarks in support of this measure, and I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa, Hawaii's friend, and my
friend, Eni Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from the great
State of Hawaii.
Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono)
and also the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for their
sponsorship of this legislation which honors the 100th anniversary of
one of our Nation's great public institutions of learning, the
University of Hawai`i, along with her 10 campuses established all over
the State and some 620 certificate, degree, and postgraduate programs
for some 50,000 students also currently attending the university.
Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments expressed earlier by my colleague
from Hawaii. This also exemplifies the caliber of the leadership coming
from this great State of Hawaii.
I think also of Mrs. Patsy Takomoto Mink for the 35th year now in
celebrating the piece of legislation that she championed while a Member
of this great institution, and that of course is title IX, which has
given authorization to promote and enhance our women's athletic
programs, which currently now are taking place all over the country.
I also want to pay special commendation to the head coach of the
University of Hawai`i Warriors, June Jones, for doing something that is
very special to our island community: they are going to the Sugar Bowl.
And having a perfect record, I am disappointed that Colt Brennan did
not become the Heisman Trophy winner this year. But be that as it may,
I do want to thank Coach June Jones for personally coming to my little
territory, American Samoa, to recruit some of our football players who
now make up in large part members of the University of Hawai`i Warrior
team.
I'm also reminded that some of the great leaders of our country are
alumnae of the University of Hawai`i. As a former member of 100th
Battalion 442nd Infantry Reserve Battalion, I can only think of Senator
Inouye and the late Senator Spark Matsunaga, both graduates of the
University of Hawai`i. I need not share with my colleagues the
prominence and the tremendous leadership that these gentlemen have also
exemplified while serving the great State of Hawaii.
Mr. Speaker, over the years, the University of Hawai`i has been the
center of higher education for many of our Pacific Island leaders from
Oceania, namely from Micronesia, Polynesia, and even Melanesia.
The University of Hawai`i also played a critical role in coordinating
and facilitating the academic programs instituted through the
congressionally mandated institute currently known as the East-West
Center. The East-West Center, since its inception in 1963, is a unique
institution which, over the years, has brought scholars and leaders
from all over the world to meet and discuss issues that are especially
important to our Nation's economic, political, social and especially
strategic and military interests with countries of the Asian Pacific
region; and the University of Hawai`i, to this day, still is part of
the East-West Center's current activities and programs.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud that just a few days ago, an
alumnus of the University of Hawai`i, who happens to be a relative
also, Mr. Ken Niumatalolo, whose parents, Simi and La Niumatalolo, from
the little village of La'ie, Hawaii, is now the newly appointed head
coach of the football team of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.
[[Page 33681]]
As far as I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Niumatalolo is the first of
Samoan and Polynesian ancestry to coach an NCAA Division I university
team, again a credit also to the University of Hawai`i for giving Mr.
Niumatalolo a chance not only to play as a quarterback for the UH
Warriors, but to enroll as a student and to obtain a good education.
{time} 1345
Mr. Speaker, again, my congratulations not only to my distinguished
friend and dear colleague Ms. Hirono for introducing this legislation,
but to honor this great institution, the University of Hawai`i.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, coming from the great State of Louisiana,
I wish to issue a warm welcome to the University of Hawai`i as they
come to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl, and I also want to congratulate
them on a perfect regular season for their football team.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further Members on this side wishing to speak
and I yield back.
Ms. HIRONO. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for your warm, what
we call, ``Aloha'' welcome to your State. Expect thousands and
thousands of rabid Rainbow Warrior fans to descend upon your State to
spend money but mainly to cheer on our undefeated team, the Warriors.
I would like to add also, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague Neil
Abercrombie, who is even as we speak on a plane coming back to
Washington, DC, is, of course, very much in support of this resolution.
As I mentioned, all four Members of our congressional delegation have
one degree or another from the University of Hawai`i. In Neil's case,
it is a Ph.D., and he also had taught at the University of Hawai`i.
I'm looking forward to also working with Mr. Miller on
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which has helped the
University of Hawai`i so much over the years, and it's an honor for me
to be on the Higher Education Committee, because the University of
Hawai`i, unlike many other States, is the institution of higher
learning in Hawaii. It is the public institution of higher learning in
Hawaii, which is why literally hundreds of thousands of us have
matriculated at the university, and we have a lot to be thankful for
for the kind of quality education that the University of Hawai`i has
offered to us and continues to do so for the 50,000 or so students who
are on campuses all across the State.
And as we are moving forward to celebrate our 100th anniversary, we
even now prepare to move forward to create further campuses on Oahu and
the neighbor islands to afford more educational opportunities,
particularly in the rural areas of our State for students in those
areas.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and my colleague from
Louisiana, once again, ``Mahalo nui loa,'' to each one of you in
support of this resolution.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House
Concurrent Resolution 264, honoring the University of Hawaii for 100
years of educating and serving the people of the state of Hawaii. I'd
like to thank Congresswoman Hirono and Chairman Miller for their
support of this legislation. I'd like to recognize President David
McClain and the administration and faculty of UH for all their hard
work and dedication. UH holds a distinguished record of achievement in
academics, community service and athletics. As a proud alumni and
former faculty member of the University of Hawaii, I know personally
the impact of the school on those who work and learn there. Yet, that
is not the full extent of the University's reach; it touches in some
capacity nearly every person in the state.
In 1907, the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts in Honolulu was
established by the Hawaii Territorial Legislature with 10 students and
13 faculty members. Today, the University of Hawaii system is spread
across the state with 10 campuses, 3 degree-granting universities:
Manoa, the flagship campus, Hilo, and West Oahu; and 7 community
colleges: Hawaii, Honolulu, Kapiolani, Kauai, Leeward, Maui, and
Windward. The system includes the John A. Burns School of Medicine, the
William S. Richardson School of Law, the Shidler College of Business,
the College of Pharmacy, and the Congressionally-established East-West
Center. There are currently over 50,000 students and 624 academic
programs. Across the system, UH's students and faculty have won
countless awards, and been recognized for agriculture, anthropology,
computer programming, diversity, education and curriculum research,
international business, medical research, oceanographic science, public
service, and myriad other fields of study.
The University values aloha, the Hawaiian concept that embraces
respect for the history, traditions and culture of Hawaii's indigenous
people. It reflects compassion for all people and commitment to the
well-being of these islands. To practice this value UH employs nearly
15,000 Hawaii residents who serve the University and the State of
Hawaii by educating its citizens, contributing to the economy,
supporting workforce development and engaging the community in
addressing societal issues and the challenges faced by underserved
populations.
The University has also produced more than 250,000 alumni, now
residing in all 50 states and more than 80 countries around the world,
who are proud to call the University of Hawaii their alma mater. The
educational programs at the University have shaped these individuals
into global citizens who contribute to the well-being of a world-wide
society, with a commitment to integrity, diversity, and service
wherever they may be. Alumni who live abroad and on the U.S. mainland
take the aloha spirit with them across the nation and world to enrich
the lives of others. Among these alumni are all four current and two
former members of the Hawaii congressional delegation; former Surgeon
General of the United States Kenneth Moritsugu; Time Warner Chairman
and CEO Richard Parsons; Miss America 2001 Angela Perez Baraquio Grey;
53 members of the Hawaii State Legislature; numerous professional
athletes; and many other academic, art, athletic, business and
political leaders.
As a reflection of the state of Hawaii, UH is a rainbow of
ethnicities, cultures, nationalities, languages and ideas. The
University maintains that society is best served by representing
populations equitably throughout UH, and that diverse perspectives help
root out prejudice and injustice. This dedication is captured
succinctly in the motto of the University, ``Ma luna ae o na lahui a
pau ke ola o ke kanaka,'' or ``Above all nations is humanity.'' The
value of diversity is also shown through the student body: UH is one of
the most diverse universities in the nation, with no dominant ethnic
group and over 2,500 international students.
A further source of pride for the University of Hawaii is the
Warriors and Wahine. The athletes, coaches, and support staff are some
of the most accomplished and dedicated members of the UH ohana, or
family. There are no professional sports teams in Hawaii and the
student-athletes of the University carry much expectation and affection
from the state. The UH women's volleyball team is among the most
esteemed programs in the National Collegiate Athletics Association
(NCAA), winning three NCAA national championships and one Association
for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW, the predecessor to the
NCAA for women's sports) national championship, and are consistently in
the hunt for a national championship year after year. The Wahine have
produced 23 All-Americans, and three National Players of the Year. The
Warrior football team is also an immense source of pride to the state.
This year the Warriors were the only NCAA Division I school to go
undefeated during the regular season and will be playing on New Year's
Day in the Sugar Bowl. The current and former starting quarterbacks;
Heisman Trophy finalist Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang, hold numerous
NCAA records. The entire state will be cheering on the Warriors and,
win or lose, will show aloha to this team. The women's volleyball and
football team are two of the 21 programs at the University, all of
which bring pride and joy to the people of Hawaii.
On this 100th anniversary of the University of Hawaii, I am honored
to be able to extend my aloha and mahalo to UH for all it has afforded
me personally, and to the state of Hawaii, which is truly enriched
because of the efforts of the University.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 264.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 33682]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF ROBSTOWN, TEXAS
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 785) recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Robstown,
Texas.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 785
Whereas in 2007, the city of Robstown, Texas, celebrates
its centennial as the ``Biggest Little Town in Texas'';
Whereas before Robstown became a city in Nueces County,
Robstown was a major thoroughfare north of the National
Mexican Railway, making it vital for trade and commerce
between Mexico and the United States;
Whereas rancher and businessman Robert Driscoll conveyed
territories encircling the boundaries of Robstown, inspiring
Robstown's name;
Whereas Robstown enters the 21st century as the crossroads
of international trade, being the location where the Texas
Mexican Railway connects the Port of Laredo with the Port of
Corpus Christi and Interstate 69 will intersect Texas State
Highway 44;
Whereas Robstown is the home of a new fairgrounds and
entertainment venue; the future home of an inland port, which
will be the first such port in the United States; and the
future home of an Army storage facility;
Whereas Robstown is one of the leading cotton producing
areas in the United States, at one time operating the most
cotton gins in the United States and later naming the mascot
of the Robstown high school the ``Cotton Picker'';
Whereas, a steadfast community in Nueces County, the
residents of Robstown have included legendary National
Football League Hall of Famer Gene Upshaw; Federal Judge
Hilda Tagle; and numerous county, State, and Federally
elected officials;
Whereas Robstown has scheduled ``Century of Celebration''
festivities throughout 2007, beginning on January 1 and
including a formal celebration on June 1 and the Cottonfest
festival in October; and
Whereas Robstown's contributions to the history of the
United States include being the site of the first game of
Texas Hold 'em poker: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the
100th anniversary of Robstown, Texas, and commends all of the
residents of Robstown and all other individuals who call
Robstown home.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in
the consideration of H. Res. 785, which recognizes the 100th
anniversary of Robstown, Texas.
H. Res. 785, which was introduced by Representative Solomon P. Ortiz
on October 30, 2007, was reported from the oversight committee on
November 8, 2007, by a voice vote. This measure has been cosponsored by
53 Members.
Known as the ``Biggest Little Town in Texas,'' Robstown is known for
its international trade, oil and involvement in the agriculture and
cotton industries.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for the recognition of the 100th
anniversary of this historic town, and I urge the swift passage of this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, and I
join with him in urging the passage of this important commemorative
piece of legislation recognizing, as the gentleman said, the ``Biggest
Little Town in Texas,'' on its 100th anniversary.
Certainly Robstown, Texas, located in north central Nueces County,
which was established in 1906 by a real estate developer from Iowa,
says a great deal about the development of Texas and of the Texas-
Mexican railroad connection from the Port of Laredo to the Port of
Corpus Christi and along State Highway 44. The sustainability of the
small town both before, during and after the Industrial Revolution,
throughout a period of development in Texas, took it from a State that
was rural in every sense to a State today that is both filled with
high-tech and with world headquarters.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in urging quick support and
ratification of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time to my friend from Texas
(Mr. Ortiz) as he would like to consume.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Clay and my good friend
Mr. Issa for bringing this bill to the floor, and I want today to
congratulate and honor the ``Biggest Little Town in Texas.''
Robstown has been ``Celebrating a Century'' this year as the city
turns 100 years old. This centennial celebration and resolution are
especially important to me because Robstown, a city of about 14,000
people, is my hometown.
I was born and reared and raised there, attended the public schools
there, and had my first job as a printer's devil with the local
newspaper, the Robstown Record.
Cotton and vegetable farming played an important role in the history
and economy of Robstown, named after prominent local leader Robert
Driscoll.
Robstown is a town where citizens are deeply committed to public
service. We've sent sons and daughters to shape the history of local,
State and Federal offices. They have all served in our military.
They've distinguished themselves in military services.
We've had county commissioners, sheriffs, district attorneys,
district judges, Federal judges, State representatives, and this proud
Member of the Congress, who came out from this little town of 14,000
people.
Robstown also has a great athletic tradition. Gene Upshaw, of the
National Football League and a great football star, came from this
little town of Robstown.
Humberto ``Lefty'' Barrera, bantamweight boxer on the historic 1960
Olympic team who later earned an engineering degree at night school,
also called Robstown ``my hometown.''
Kathryn Grandstaff, from Robstown, she married Bing Crosby, who we
all know.
Our students also excel in the classroom, including the Robstown High
School Cotton Pickers band, and they have achieved much in the fields
of athletics and academics.
All year long we have recognized the ``Century of Celebration,''
which included a formal celebration on June 1.
One of the greatest traditions is the annual Cottonfest held in
October. This year was the biggest ever event that we've had. We have
live music, arts and crafts, a sports competition, cookoffs, contests,
carnivals and historical exhibits that provide something for everyone
in the community.
We also have so much to look forward to as our town continues to
grow. Robstown enters the 21st century at the crossroads of
international trade due to its proximity to railroads, interstate
highways, seaports and airports. It is the hub in that area.
Robstown will serve as a hub by connecting major railway companies,
the Texan-Mexican railway, Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific, with
direct links to Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Houston, San Antonio and
Laredo.
Robstown is also home to the new county fairgrounds and an
entertainment venue.
My hometown is the future home of an inland port, which will be the
first such port in the United States, and the future home of an Army
storage facility.
And no trip to Robstown would be complete without a good filling
yourself up with south Texas' best barbecue at Joe Cotten's. Cotten's
is an iconic restaurant where many of you have joined me for lunch in
south Texas style. It is where Presidential candidates, athletes,
business people, cowboys, riders, astronauts, generals, admirals and
other celebrities and thousands of others, they even fly on their
helicopters to eat at Joe Cotten's.
Robstown is the best of our communities in south Texas, friendly,
family-oriented and proud of their history.
[[Page 33683]]
It was in Robstown where my mother taught me my most important
lesson: to always serve the community that gave you so many
opportunities growing up. To whom much is given, much is expected.
Please join me in honoring Robstown on the city's 100th anniversary,
and I join my friends Chairman Clay and Mr. Issa today for bringing
this bill to the floor.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with the
pride of Robstown, Texas (Mr. Ortiz) and pass H. Res. 785.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 785.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
TURRILL POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4009) to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 567 West Nepessing Street in Lapeer, Michigan, as
the ``Turrill Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4009
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TURRILL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 567 West Nepessing Street in Lapeer,
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``Turrill Post
Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Turrill Post Office Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, I'm pleased to join my colleague from
California in the consideration of H.R. 4009, which names a postal
facility in Lapeer, Michigan, after the Turrill family.
H.R. 4009, which was introduced by Representative Candice Miller on
October 30, 2007, was reported from the oversight committee on November
11, 2007, by voice vote. This measure, which has been cosponsored by 14
Members, has the support of the entire Michigan congressional
delegation.
The Turrill family dates back to the earliest settlers in the Lapeer
area. They are a strong representation of what Lapeer is founded upon
and are remembered as honest, hardworking farmers and leaders within
the community. Dr. Miner Turrill arrived in Lapeer in 1832 and was the
first postmaster of the county. When Lapeer was incorporated as a city
in 1869, James Turrill was the first mayor. The City of Lapeer is
historically touched by the efforts made by the Turrill family and
their dedication as public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have reviewed the post office naming
and find it to be one of the most thoughtful and merit-oriented namings
that we have had in a long time.
And with that, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan
(Mrs. Miller), the author of this bill.
{time} 1400
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as a representative in this House for the great
community of Lapeer, Michigan, I rise in very, very strong support of
this resolution to honor one of the founding families of this great
community. Lapeer, Michigan, is truly an all-American city. Its
population is just under 10,000 people, and it serves as the county
seat for the County of Lapeer. The community is located at the base of
Michigan's Thumb, and its heritage is deeply based in the agricultural
tradition of Michigan. In fact, it is home to mainly family farms.
Families have tilled the fertile soil of this area since the
community's founding, and today these farms continue to serve as an
important part of our breadbasket in Michigan. The community has always
been home to the pioneering spirit and the can-do attitude that
exemplifies America. And no family represents the spirit of this great
community more than the Turrill family.
In 1832, 5 years before Michigan joined the Union as a State, Dr.
Miner Turrill settled in Lapeer with his elderly parents, and the
Turrills became the third known family, actually, to settle in that
area. Dr. Turrill and his family quickly became respected leaders in
the community, and upon the opening of the Lapeer United States Post
Office in 1833, Dr. Turrill became the area's first postmaster. For
that alone it is fitting that the Lapeer Post Office be named in their
honor. But the Turrills gave back so much more to this fine community.
During the Civil War, many members of the Turrill family served the
cause of freedom on behalf of the Union. This included Captain J.H.
Turrill, who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the Union when he
was killed in action at Antietam in 1862. In fact, the Lapeer Post of
the Grand Army of the Republic was named in his honor and served as a
gathering point for all of the veterans of that conflict from the area.
In 1869, Lapeer was incorporated as a city in Michigan, and the
voters elected James Turrill to serve as the first mayor of this
community. The Turrills continued throughout the years to provide
leadership to this great community, and they have been honored in many
ways. Today you can drive on Turrill Avenue in Lapeer. Or you might
live in Turrill Estates. And your children might attend the Turrill
Elementary School in the Lapeer community schools. The people of this
community have always honored the dedication to community and the
contributions made by the Turrill family.
Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, I contacted the Lapeer County
Historical Society, and I spoke to them about my desire to name the
post office in Lapeer after a distinguished citizen from the community
worthy of the honor. And I asked for their guidance and assistance on
who was deserving of such an honor, and this was their response:
``The Lapeer County Historical Society recommends that the Lapeer
Post Office be named the Turrill Post Office. The Turrill family dates
back to the earliest settlement in the Lapeer area. They have always
been remembered as honest, hardworking farmers and leaders of the
Lapeer community . . . A committee was appointed and met on July 6 to
review a 2-page list of names. Turrill was the unanimous choice.''
Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that this House take this
action today to honor one of the pioneering families in a great
Michigan community, a family that worked hard to give back to the
community, a family that took a leadership role in shaping the
community, earned its respect, and has a highly valued place in the
history of Lapeer, Michigan.
I want to thank the members of the Lapeer Historical Society for
their assistance and their guidance in this effort. And I thank the
leadership today for bringing this legislation to the floor, and I will
thank the Members of this House for their expected support in honoring
this great family. And I certainly thank the members of the Turrill
family who did so much to
[[Page 33684]]
make Lapeer the wonderful community that it has become.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to adopt
H.R. 4009, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4009.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION AND AUTOMATED EXTERNAL
DEFIBRILLATOR AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 215) supporting the
designation of a week as ``National Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and
Automated External Defibrillator Awareness Week,'' as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 215
Whereas heart disease remains the leading cause of death in
the United States;
Whereas heart disease affects men, women, and children of
every age and race in the United States, regardless of where
they live;
Whereas annually approximately 325,000 coronary heart
disease deaths occur out of hospital or in an emergency room;
Whereas approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest
victims die before arriving at the hospital;
Whereas sudden cardiac arrest results from an abnormal
heart rhythm in most adults;
Whereas in 27.4 percent of cases of sudden cardiac arrest,
the victim is located in a place other than a hospital and
receives cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a bystander;
Whereas prompt delivery of cardiopulmonary resuscitation
more than doubles the chance of survival from sudden cardiac
arrest by helping to maintain vital blood flow to the heart
and brain, increasing the amount of time that an electric
shock from a defibrillator can be effective;
Whereas an automated external defibrillator, even when used
by a bystander, is safe, easy to operate, and highly
effective in restoring a normal heart rhythm, significantly
increasing the chance of survival for many victims if used
immediately after the onset of sudden cardiac arrest;
Whereas death or severe brain injury is likely to occur
unless resuscitation measures are started no later than 10
minutes after the onset of sudden cardiac arrest;
Whereas the interval between the 911 call and the arrival
of EMS personnel is typically longer than 5 minutes, and
achieving high survival rates therefore depends on a public
trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated
external defibrillator use; and
Whereas the American Heart Association, the American Red
Cross, and the National Safety Council are preparing related
public awareness and training campaigns on cardiopulmonary
resuscitation and automated external defibrillation to be
held during the first week of June each year: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of a National
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External
Defibrillator Awareness Week to establish well-organized
programs to increase public training in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use and to
increase public access to automated external defibrillators;
and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States and interested
organizations to observe such a week with appropriate
ceremonies and activities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay)
for standing in for me.
As a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.
Con. Res. 215, as amended, which supports the designation of ``National
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator
Awareness Week.''
H. Con. Res. 215, which was introduced by Representative John R.
``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr. on September 19, 2007, was reported from the
Oversight Committee on November 8, 2007, by voice vote. This measure
has been cosponsored by 84 Members.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad statistic that 95 percent of sudden cardiac
arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Prompt CPR and use of
an automated defibrillator, or AED, can more than double a victim's
chance of surviving cardiac arrest. Seventy-five to 80 percent of all
cardiac arrests occur within the home. Unfortunately, 60 percent of the
public have never seen an automated external defibrillator, much less
put it into use.
It is time we do all that we can to raise awareness of these much-
needed emergency tools and urge training to combat heart disease at the
community level.
I commend the sponsor for introducing this measure, thank all the
organizations throughout the country for their support, and urge swift
passage of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The automated external defibrillator is a critical part of saving
lives here in America. In the first 10 minutes of an onset of symptoms,
you have an incredibly short period of time, that 10 minutes, to make
the difference between life and death. A typical response time, an
optimum response time, for a 911 call is 5 minutes. The availability of
these devices, once thought to be only in the crash kit on an emergency
vehicle or in a hospital, is now spreading. At our airports, including
our Nation's Capital airports, these devices are not just available but
they are hung throughout the facility, making it possible, and, in
fact, it has occurred, for people who have a heart symptom and pass out
to be brought back to life in those 10 minutes, those precious 10
minutes. But in order to expand the use of this lifesaving apparatus,
we need to have additional training.
I join with the gentleman from Illinois in saying that the importance
of this Automatic External Defibrillator Week is not that we can learn
to say it without tying our tongue but, in fact, that we can deploy
these devices and get people trained. In my own small condominium unit
here in Washington, our neighbors have been trained; and it will
undoubtedly in time save lives in our community.
I join with the majority in urging that this bill not only become law
this year but that we make this an annual event so as to spread the
lifesaving capability of this device.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 215, legislation that will designate a National Cardiopulmonary
Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator Awareness Week. I am
proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and would like to thank my
colleague, Mr. Randy Kuhl of New York, for advancing this legislation
to help educate the American people about the critical difference
cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator
training can make in our country.
This legislation has been dear to Mr. Kuhl's heart after a young man
in his area, Louis Acompora, died from a blunt impact to the chest
while playing lacrosse. Had an automated external defibrillator been
available at the time, his life might have been saved. I commend Mr.
Kuhl's success as a New York State Senator in working with Assemblyman
Harvey Weisenberg from Long Island to advance the New York State law
requiring public schools to have at least one such device on school
grounds. His hard work has helped
[[Page 33685]]
save over 35 lives in New York State in the five years since the law's
enactment.
Mr. Speaker, heart disease kills more people in our Nation every year
than any other medical condition. Sudden cardiac arrest is one of the
most time sensitive cardiac conditions for which immediate attention is
vital. If cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation are not
applied within 5 minutes after sudden cardiac arrest, there is
virtually no chance of survival. Approximately 325,000 Americans suffer
sudden cardiac arrest each year and more than 95 percent die before
ever reaching the hospital.
Mr. Speaker, these statistics are staggering. Sadly, if more
Americans were trained in performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and
in using automated external defibrillators, many of these lives could
have been saved. Communities with comprehensive automated external
defibrillator programs have improved survival rates from only 5 percent
to over 40 percent.
Mr. Speaker, this is why it is so critical that we pass H. Con. Res.
215. Having a week dedicated to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and
Automated External Defibrillator awareness will increase the profile of
this devastating disease, and most importantly, will help save lives. I
encourage all my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con.
Res. 215, which would support the designation of a week as National
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator
Awareness Week.
I would first like to thank my colleague, Mr. Boren from Oklahoma,
for joining me in introducing I this resolution and for his efforts in
promoting CPR. I am truly grateful for his leadership and support on
this issue.
I introduced this legislation because I believe that we must do all
we can to bolster our efforts to combat heart disease and sudden
cardiac arrest, as heart disease remains the leading cause of death in
the United States. Approximately 325,000 coronary heart disease deaths
occur outside of the hospital or in an emergency room every year, and
roughly 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before even
reaching a hospital. These statistics serve as a clear reminder that we
must take action to save lives at the local and community levels, and
this resolution helps to do just that.
CPR more than doubles a victim's chances of surviving sudden cardiac
arrest by maintaining the vital flow of blood to the heart and the
brain. Over 75 percent of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur within
the home, so CPR can mean the difference between life and death.
Additionally, automated external defibrillators are easy for even
bystanders to operate and are highly effective in restoring a normal
heart rhythm if used within minutes after the onset of sudden cardiac
arrest. Communities with comprehensive AED programs have achieved
survival rates of over 40 percent.
I am proud to have sponsored the New York State law that required
public schools to have at least one such device on school grounds. As a
State Senator, I worked with State Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg to
advance this initiative after a young man from his area, on Long
Island, by the name of Louis Acompora died from a blunt impact to the
chest while playing lacrosse. Had an AED been available at the time,
his life might have been saved. Thankfully, our efforts have helped to
save over 35 lives in New York State in the five years since the law's
enactment.
The American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, and the
National Safety Council are preparing related public awareness and
training campaigns to be held during the first week of June, and I am
pleased to support this bill as a framework for their efforts.
This resolution will help us to save lives across the country and
combat heart disease at the community level. I urge my colleagues to
join myself and Mr. Boren in supporting H. Con. Res. 215.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 215, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL FIRE FIGHTER APPRECIATION DAY
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 695) expressing the support for
designation of a ``National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day'' to honor
and celebrate the firefighters of the United States, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 695
Whereas there are more than 1,100,000 fire fighters in the
United States;
Whereas approximately 75 percent of all fire fighters in
the United States are volunteers who receive little or no
compensation for their heroic work;
Whereas there are more than 30,000 fire departments in the
United States;
Whereas thousands of fire fighters have died in the line of
duty since the date that Benjamin Franklin founded the first
volunteer fire department in 1735;
Whereas 346 fire fighters and emergency personnel died
while responding to the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001;
Whereas fire fighters respond to more than 20,000,000 calls
during a typical year;
Whereas fire fighters also provide emergency medical
services, hazardous materials response, special rescue
response, terrorism response, and life safety education;
Whereas, in 1922, President Harding first declared a Fire
Prevention Week, and it is appropriate to continue this
tradition by supporting the designation of a National Fire
Fighter Appreciation Day: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the
designation of a ``National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day''
to honor and celebrate the fire fighters of the United
States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I
am pleased to join my colleagues in support of this resolution to
support the goals of National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day. H. Res.
695, as amended, was introduced on October 1, 2007, by Representative
John Campbell. On November 8, 2007, the committee reported the bill
amended by voice vote.
H. Res. 695 ensures that a day of recognition is granted to the
courageous firefighters of the United States, who put their lives at
risk in order to guarantee the safety of our citizens. Over the last
few months as emergencies across this country have been declared and
millions have been evacuated from their homes, our Nation's
firefighters have rushed to serve and protect those whose lives and
livelihoods were in jeopardy. It is important to commemorate their
great efforts and service with a day of honor.
So I commend my colleague for sponsoring this measure and urge its
swift passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I join with my colleagues in supporting National Fire Fighter
Appreciation Day. This year, particularly as a Californian, it is
appropriate that this was authored by a Californian and that I have the
opportunity to personally thank the men and women who saved lives and
property in California just a month and a half ago. But, of course,
firefighters do that every day throughout the country, not just in
wildfires that consume hundreds of thousands of acres.
Interestingly enough, firefighters also carry automatic external
[[Page 33686]]
defibrillators and save lives every day. Firefighters are not just
people who put out fires. They are people who train in the prevention
of fire. They are people who train in emergency procedures that save
lives. They are people who answer to so many calls in our community.
The fact is on 9/11 we understood that firefighters go in the
direction where anyone, anyone, should be running from and they do so
with no regard for their own safety. They do so because that is what a
firefighter's job is. Firefighters do not shy away from riots. They do
not shy away from the worst inferno, and they do not shy away from
earthquakes in my home State and other disasters. In fact, the term
``American hero'' is best attributed to the men and women who every day
train to go into fires to find and retrieve people and, in fact, not to
leave the site until all life has been preserved and all property, to
the best of their ability, has also been maintained.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in recognizing the heroism not
just in California 2 months ago but, in fact, throughout the country of
our firefighters and urge support and passage of National Fire Fighter
Appreciation Day.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1415
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 10
minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Candice Miller.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in very strong support of this
resolution to honor and to celebrate America's firefighters.
Wherever and whatever the danger, every American knows that America's
firefighters are just moments away from coming to their rescue, putting
their lives on the line to save and protect others in their
communities. And no one will ever forget the very vivid example of the
bravery of our firefighters that was exhibited on September 11, 2001.
On that horrific day, as thousands were fleeing for their lives and
running from buildings, we witnessed firefighters actually running
towards the danger. As others were running away from the danger, which
is a natural human instinct, the firefighters and first responders were
running towards the danger and running into these buildings. And they
did this knowing that many would most likely not come out. But these
brave men and women are professionals who understood that it was their
duty to protect their fellow citizens, and they did so. Their brave
actions on that day no doubt saved countless lives, and through those
actions they earned the gratitude of those who were saved and the
respect of the entire world.
Throughout this country, firefighters perform similar acts of heroism
every day. And although we can never properly repay them for their
dedicated service to our communities, we should take action to honor
them for their hard work, their bravery and their dedication.
Firefighters should never doubt that they have the eternal gratitude
and respect of the American people that they serve so faithfully.
The establishment of a National Firefighter Appreciation Day will
help remind everyone of the tremendous work that our firefighters do
each and every day, and we should take the time to recognize those
efforts.
Mr. Speaker, they prevent tragedies from happening, they respond
instantly when tragedies occur, and they help pick up the pieces in
tragedy's aftermath. They are there to help in some of the worst times
in people's lives, guiding them through with their brave helping hands.
I certainly appreciate the work of the sponsors of this bill in
bringing it to the floor. And I urge all of my colleagues to support
the adoption of this important resolution so that we, the assembled
Representatives of the American citizens, can show America's
firefighters the support of a grateful Nation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this
legislation and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 695, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The title was amended so as to read: ``Resolution expressing the
support of the House of Representatives for the designation of a
National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day to honor and celebrate the fire
fighters of the United States.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH EXTENSION
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the Senate bill (S. 597) to extend the special postage stamp for
breast cancer research for 4 years, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is 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. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.
Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
The National Institutes of Health and the Department of
Defense shall each submit to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office an annual report concerning the use of
any amounts that it received under section 414(c) of title
39, United States Code, including a description of any
significant advances or accomplishments, during the year
covered by the report, that were funded, in whole or in part,
with such amounts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) will
each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, now it is my pleasure to yield
such time as he might consume to the author of this legislation,
Representative Clay from Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) for yielding the time and for his leadership on the
subcommittee with this piece of legislation.
S. 597, as amended, ensures greater accountability by requiring that
the NIH and DOD issue annual reports to Congress detailing how proceeds
from the breast cancer research stamp are allocated. In addition, the
bill extends reauthorization of the breast cancer research stamp until
2011.
I am grateful to Senator Feinstein for agreeing to this change. Now
the Senate version of the breast cancer semipostal will be identical to
the measure I sponsored, H.R. 1236, which was unanimously passed by the
House on October 30, 2007.
Unlike many programs that are not reauthorized timely but continue to
operate, the breast cancer research stamp must be reauthorized or the
U.S. Postal Service will discontinue selling the stamp. In fact, the
Postal Service was forced to take this stamp off sale for 26 days in
2004 because the Senate did not act in time.
Amid constituent concerns of stamp sales being halted, I contacted
the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service to ensure that sales
would continue. I was assured that the stamp
[[Page 33687]]
would not be removed from shelves; however, the Senate must pass this
bill by December 31.
Mr. Speaker, let me again thank all of the breast cancer
organizations, the Postal Service, and my colleagues in the House and
Senate for their support.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting swift passage of S.
597, as amended.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I join happily with the gentleman from
Missouri and my own home State Senator, Senator Feinstein, in urging
immediate passage of this renewal.
This extension is not only critical, but it comes at a time when
those of us on this House floor are still remembering the recent loss
of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. Yes, in fact, today could be considered
to be Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis' Breast Cancer Awareness Day because
it's not just the statistic of 180,000 people, mostly women, getting
breast cancer or 40,000 dying, it's a friend and a colleague who fought
valiantly through not only this Congress but the previous Congress, and
almost, but did not, win against this dreaded disease.
Breast Cancer Awareness stamps are not about the $54 million raised,
although that goes a long way towards adding to the research pool. It's
about the countless millions of people who receive a stamp that sends a
message that reminds them to get that available mammogram, to, in fact,
do a self-test, to be aware of lumps, to be aware of the possibility of
this terrible and invasive disease taking the life of their wife, their
daughter, their mother. So, I join again in urging passage of this.
And I might take a personal liberty that you don't often see on the
House floor. My opponent in my last race and, God willing, my opponent
in this race, Jeeni Criscenzo, is presently fighting cancer. I saw her
yesterday in California dealing with the effects of chemo. Her
detection was relatively early; she has a good chance. But it's things
like this that the House does that sometimes gets criticized as not
substantial legislation that hopefully will save women like my opponent
and friend, Jeeni Criscenzo, from the kind of terrible tragedy that
befell Jo Ann Davis and so many other women last year.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly join with my colleague from California in
extolling the legacy of Representative Jo Ann Davis, who served with us
on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. Speaker, S. 597, as amended, now mirrors the House version of the
Breast Cancer Semipostal measure which was unanimously passed by this
body on October 30, 2007.
The House version, H.R. 1236, which was sponsored by representative
William Lacy Clay, reauthorizes the sale of the breast cancer stamp for
an additional 4 years from 2007 to 2011. The bill also follows up on
the Government Accountability Office's recommendations that the
relevant agencies report the use of monies received from the sale of
the stamp, including a description of any significant advances on
accomplishments that were funded by the sale.
As a member of the Oversight Committee Subcommittee on Federal
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, Representative
Clay is to be commended for his diligence and patience for working with
all parties and securing an acceptable compromise on the sale of the
breast cancer stamp.
I note proudly that the United States Postal Service has sold over
785.6 million breast cancer research stamps from which $54.626 million
has been transferred to the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Defense for breast cancer research and awareness.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the public for buying the breast cancer
semipostal stamp and the numerous organizations for lending their
strong support for its continuation. With your help, I am confident
that we will find a cure.
I urge swift passage of this bill, and again commend the
representative from Missouri, our colleague, Representative Clay, for
his introduction.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 597, to reauthorize
the Postage Stamp for Breast Cancer. Breast cancer is the second
leading cause of cancer death among women and the leading cause of
cancer death among women under the age of 40. Research is key to
improving breast cancer prevention, detection and treatment. In the 9
years the stamp has been sold, it's raised more than $40 million to
fund breast cancer research around the country. In those nine years,
great strides have been made, but we can do more and that's why we
should support the extension of the breast cancer stamp.
In addition to this important legislation, we need to do more to
prevent breast cancer deaths in women under the age of 40.
Approximately 11,000 women under the age of 40 will be diagnosed with
breast cancer this year, of which nearly 1 ,300 will die. However, most
research, education, and prevention efforts are focused upon women over
the age of 45. That's why I introduced the Annie Fox Act, H.R. 715,
named after a young woman in my district who was diagnosed with breast
cancer and died at the age of35. This bill will authorize research into
the causes of breast cancer in younger women and educate them about the
risks of breast cancer.
It is important that we not only continue to fund research and
education over the ages of 45, but that we also do so for our younger
women so that they may live long, healthy lives. I applaud the passage
of this important legislation and look forward to working with my
colleagues to pass H.R. 715, the Annie Fox Act.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 597,
which would reauthorize the highly successful special postage stamp
that supports breast cancer research.
Breast cancer affects virtually every American family. Most of us
have lost a family member--grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters, and
daughters--to breast cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates
178,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed this year with
breast cancer. They estimate 40,000 women will die from the disease.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, accounting for
more than one in four cancers diagnosed in women.
We must do everything we can to understand the causes of breast
cancer so we can effectively prevent and treat it. Since its inception,
the breast cancer research stamp has raised $53 million for life-saving
research. Proceeds from the sale of the stamps fund research at the
National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. By
reauthorizing the breast cancer research stamp, we would ensure that
this funding source for breast cancer research continues.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 597, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A Bill to amend title 39,
United States Code, to extend the authority of the United States Postal
Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer
research.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RELATING TO SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4108) to amend section 3328 of title 5, United
States Code, relating to Selective Service registration, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4108
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION.
Subsection (b) of section 3328 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management,
in consultation with the Director of the Selective Service
System, shall
[[Page 33688]]
prescribe regulations to carry out this section. Such
regulations--
``(1) shall include procedures--
``(A) for the adjudication of determinations of whether a
failure to register was knowing and willful; and
``(B) under which such a determination may not be made if
the individual concerned shows by a preponderance of the
evidence that the failure to register was neither knowing nor
willful;
``(2) may provide that determinations of eligibility under
the requirements of this section shall be adjudicated by the
Executive agency making the appointment for which the
eligibility is determined; and
``(3) shall provide for exceptions to determinations of
ineligibility under this section to allow for--
``(A) the appointment of an individual who was discharged
or released from active duty in the armed forces under
honorable conditions; and
``(B) the appointment or continued employment of an
individual who has reached 31 years of age.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such
time as he might consume to the chairman of the Education and Labor
Committee, Chairman Miller from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I want to thank him and the Chair of the committee and Mr. Issa for
all of their work on this legislation.
This legislation was drafted with the help and the cooperation of the
Veterans Administration and the Office of Personnel Management and the
Selective Service.
Current laws governing Federal employment do not draw a very clear
distinction between those who do not register for selective service
through an oversight and those who knowingly and willfully avoid
registering. Under current law, we are lumping sort of the innocent
along with the guilty, and this legislation is an effort by these
agencies to correct what's wrong with this legislation and to make sure
that we can protect those who do this in an unknowing fashion.
The bill sets out to correct this by exempting individuals from
employment ineligibility who failed to register for selective service
but were honorably discharged from active duty in the armed services.
And second, it would allow current Federal employees who are at least
age 31 to remain eligible for Federal employment despite their failure
to register. And this would effectively change the lifetime ban from
employment to a 5-year ban, which would coincide with the statute of
limitations. So there would be the full ability to prosecute those
individuals that we felt wrongfully failed to register for the draft.
This would have a big impact on the caseload, and it would also make
sure that we do not deny many of our agencies the talents and the
abilities of individuals who have been caught in this conundrum that
has taken place.
And this has been, after many months of negotiation, and Mr. Issa has
been a vital part of these negotiations with Selective Service, with
the Veterans Administration, and with the Office of Personnel
Management, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this
legislation. I think it restores to law the intent for which it was
passed and keeps us from punishing those individuals who are not guilty
of knowingly refusing to register for the draft.
{time} 1430
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, often the most absurd example is what forces
us to look, and look more carefully, at flaws in our legislation. This
one is a good example. Chris Frecking is a citizen of the United States
who has been employed at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center in San Francisco for the last 16 years. Mr. Frecking was born in
the Philippines to an American father in 1968 and was sworn in as a
U.S. citizen in 1990. But there lies the rub.
He was sworn in as an American citizen. He came here from the
Philippines after he turned 18 unaware that he should register with the
Selective Service after there was in fact no draft or likelihood of
anyone being called if they did. He failed to do so. He did try,
though, when he discovered that this was a lifetime requirement in
1994. But, in fact, this was not allowed.
This is a gentleman who has been a good citizen, who in fact fell
through the cracks. This legislation today after careful scrutiny in
harmony with many organizations but most importantly at the leadership
of the director of the Selective Service, in fact, makes it possible
for us to continue to urge men to register for the Selective Service
and treats them fairly if, through no fault of their own, they fail to
do so.
I urge the swift passage of this bill. It is good legislation. It
corrects a minor flaw. I join with my colleague from California in
saying that sometimes the best legislation is small and bipartisan but
makes a big difference in people's lives.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank my colleague from
California for mentioning Mr. Frecking, because this was a case that
really was just so absurd in how it was being played out because of the
circumstances that he found himself caught in, but more importantly it
also had the potential to deny the veterans service of the VA Hospital
in San Francisco the very skilled talents of this individual. They went
to bat. They recognized that they too had made a mistake, inadvertently
they made a mistake. But they did not want to lose his skill and
talents to our veterans coming through that hospital. And it was really
at their insistence, their concern, that brought this case to the
forefront and allowed us to be able to work it out with the Office of
Personnel Service and Selective Service.
I know as we explained it, we talked about it back and forth, and Mr.
Issa, at first I don't think he thought this could possibly be going
on, but we convinced him that it was, and this is exactly the kind of
case that this legislation is designed to address so we don't harm
these individuals in the manner which was possible for Mr. Frecking.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
As a Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R.
4108, as amended, a bill to amend title 5, relating to Selective
Service registration.
H.R. 4108 was introduced on November 7, 2007, by Representatives
George Miller and Darrell Issa. The legislation would provide for
exemptions from determinations of ineligibility for Federal employment
for individuals who have not registered with the Selective Service.
Those who have received an honorable discharge from the armed services
who have performed at least 10 years of Federal service would no longer
be deemed ineligible.
Under current law, all males born after December 31, 1959, must
register with the Selective Service by their 26th birthday in order to
be eligible for employment in the Federal Government. An individual who
has not registered with the Selective Service is not eligible for
Federal employment unless he can prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the failure to register was neither knowing nor willful.
This means that the individual must prove to a high legal standard
that he did not know he was required to register or thought he had
registered. H.R. 4108 would exempt from this requirement individuals
who were honorably discharged from the armed services or
[[Page 33689]]
who have 10 years of service in the Federal Government.
H.R. 4108 was introduced on November 7, 2007, and referred to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee marked up
the measure on November 8, 2007, and ordered that the bill be reported
by voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4108, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF THE SAILING OF THE NAVY'S
``GREAT WHITE FLEET''
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 261) commemorating the
centennial anniversary of the sailing of the Navy's ``Great White
Fleet,'' launched by President Theodore Roosevelt on December 16, 1907,
from Hampton Roads, Virginia, and returning there on February 22, 1909.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 261
Whereas the launching of the Great White Fleet marked the
emergence of the United States as a true global seapower,
able to dispatch 16 new battleships on a worldwide deployment
for 14 months;
Whereas these battleships were painted entirely white, with
gilded scrollwork on their bows, and subsequently came to be
known as the ``Great White Fleet'';
Whereas the 4 squadrons of 4 battleships each, manned by
14,000 sailors, sailed 43,000 miles and made 20 port calls on
6 continents;
Whereas the Fleet, in conducting visits to important
nations such as Australia, served to reinforce a friendship
and partnership that continues to this day;
Whereas the Fleet, in providing a tangible demonstration of
the forward naval presence of the United States in the
Pacific, also reinforced the message of how important
maritime stability and security are to the United States;
Whereas the Fleet, in response to one of the worst natural
disasters in European history, was able to immediately divert
to Messina, Sicily, to offer humanitarian aid to the Italian
people; and
Whereas the Fleet, in executing a range of missions and
returning to the United States after 14 months at sea,
displayed to the world a number of core American values,
including compassion, showed its flexibility by responding to
unforeseen events, and demonstrated the ability of the United
States to project maritime power as a stabilizing force: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) commemorates the wisdom of President Theodore Roosevelt
in developing and launching the Great White Fleet;
(2) supports a one-time designation of a day to celebrate
the 100th centennial of the Great White Fleet and the special
role the Fleet played in building enduring friendships with
important allies and partner nations;
(3) commends efforts by the Department of the Navy to
maintain and strengthen our cooperative partnerships with
foreign nations and to safeguard our Nation's interests in
the maritime domain;
(4) commends efforts by the Department of the Navy in
leading the development of a Cooperative Strategy for 21st
Century Seapower; and
(5) honors the sacrifices made and services rendered by the
servicemembers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard
and the civilians who constitute our maritime services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Kansas (Mrs. Boyda) and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.
General Leave
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on the concurrent resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Concurrent Resolution 261,
commemorating the centennial anniversary of the sailing of the Navy's
Great White Fleet launched by President Theodore Roosevelt on December
16, 1907 from Hampton Roads, Virginia, and returning there on February
22, 1909.
I would like to thank my colleague from Virginia, Mrs. Thelma Drake,
my friend and colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, for
bringing this measure before the House. It was the Atlantic Fleet,
later to be known as the Great White Fleet for its pristine decor that
launched the United States into the realm of the maritime overnight.
Over 14,000 sailors made an extraordinary voyage around the world, from
Virginia in the Atlantic Ocean, around South America's Cape Horn to San
Francisco. From there, the crews sailed the Pacific Ocean, the Indian
Ocean, through the Mediterranean Sea, and back to the United States,
stopping in such great nations as Australia and Italy to forge and
secure the diplomatic friendships that continue to this day.
In 14 months, the Great White Fleet demonstrated to the entire world
that the United States is committed to both military maritime presence
as well as international humanitarian aid. This coming Sunday, December
16, marks the 100th year since the beginning of that voyage. In the
past 100 years, we have maintained these commitments and continued
deployments of the naval ships, including the hospital ships Mercy and
Comfort, to provide aid and assistance to those in time of need. This
centennial is an appropriate time to celebrate and renew our continued
commitment to responsible international stewardship.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent
Resolution 261.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 261, a
resolution I introduced to commemorate the centennial anniversary of
the launching of the Great White Fleet. On December 16, 1907, 16
battleships, including, of course, the USS Virginia, launched from
Norfolk for a 14-month-long cruise around the world. Envisioned by
President Theodore Roosevelt, himself a former Assistant Secretary of
the Navy, as an opportunity to showcase the military and humanitarian
might of the United States, the fleet sailed over 42,000 miles around
the globe, traveling around the tip of South America, across the
Pacific and Indian Oceans, through the Suez and Mediterranean and back
across the Atlantic to Norfolk.
Upon arriving in Egypt, the fleet's commanding officer, Rear Admiral
Charles Sperry, dispatched two of his battleships to assist in
providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of an earthquake that
had ravaged Sicily. The cruise, which has earned its place in American
naval history as one the single greatest achievements of the 20th
century, foreshadowed events in 2004 when the U.S. Navy provided
assistance and comfort to the victims of the tsunami in Indonesia and
neighboring countries and again in 2005 when assistance was provided to
the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
The event also foreshadowed the debate in Washington regarding the
size of the U.S. fleet and the needed industrial capacity. Painted
white and visible for miles, the fleet caused President Roosevelt to
ask rhetorically, ``Oughtn't we all feel proud?'' I can surely
sympathize. As the Representative of Virginia's Second Congressional
District, I fully understand the proud sensation of driving across the
Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and seeing the raw naval power that is home
ported in Norfolk.
That moment of pride transcends into a moment of pause when witnessed
[[Page 33690]]
by our enemies and a moment of comfort when witnessed by our friends.
President Roosevelt understood the concept of force projection before
the term was fashionable.
Our great tradition of naval power was not founded by President
Roosevelt, but he understood it and harnessed it foreshadowing the
great challenges of the 21st century and today.
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of sending our fleet halfway
around the world was not an idea widely accepted by Congress, and yet
President Roosevelt through his leadership and determination and in his
role as Commander in Chief set out to do what he thought was right,
sending a message long before it can be done over a computer that the
United States was now an ``A List'' celebrity on the world stage. And
it worked. Upon its return, the headline of The Washington Post dated
February 21, 1909, read: ``Eyes of World Opened By Fleet.''
Mr. Speaker, ask most students of history about the achievements of
President Theodore Roosevelt, and I imagine that they will start with
the Panama Canal. I introduced this resolution in part because I feel
that President Roosevelt's historic vision of a strong blue-water Navy
as the cornerstone of American foreign policy should never be
forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I would just like to close by saying that as
the proud daughter of a naval veteran from World War II, I again thank
my colleague from Virginia for bringing forth this resolution and I
urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 261.
I am prepared to close if my colleague is.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House
Concurrent Resolution 261, introduced by my friend and colleague from
Virginia's Second Congressional District, Congresswoman Thelma Drake,
to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the sailing of the Navy's
``Great White Fleet'' from Hampton Roads, Virginia.
On December 16, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt dispatched sixteen
new battleships at the 1907 Jamestown Exposition on a global deployment
to show the world that the United States had emerged as a global naval
power. These sixteen ships were painted white, with gilded scrollwork
on their bows, and became known as the ``Great White Fleet.''
Made up of four squadrons of four battleships each and manned by
14,000 sailors, the ships sailed 43,000 miles and made 20 port calls on
six continents in 14 months. The fleet helped shore up American
diplomatic efforts and friendships around the world, proving the
success of pragmatic diplomatic policy. The fleet was greeted
enthusiastically in nearly every port, where people in the thousands
turned out to see America's new fleet. The fleet also responded to one
of the worst earthquakes in European history by diverting to Sicily to
offer humanitarian aid to the people of Italy.
On February 22, 1909, President Roosevelt returned to Hampton Roads,
Virginia to witness the triumphant return of the ``Great White Fleet.''
President Roosevelt saw the fleet's successful global voyage as one of
his administration's major accomplishments by enhancing the role of the
United States in international affairs. Few can deny the historical
importance of President Roosevelt's decision to deploy the ``Great
White Fleet'' around the world.
Seven of the 16 great battleships that constituted the ``Great White
Fleet'' were built in my hometown of Newport News, Virginia at Newport
News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, today known as Northrop Grumman
Newport News. Although the ``Great White Fleet'' demonstrated that
America was an emerging seapower, the success of the ``Great White
Fleet'' made Newport News and the Hampton Roads area a powerhouse for
shipbuilding. One hundred years later, Northrop Grumman Newport News is
still leading the way in the shipbuilding industry by building some of
the most powerful and advanced ships for the United States Navy.
Northrop Grumman Newport News has already begun work on the U.S.S.
Gerald Ford, the newest and most advanced generation of air craft
carrier, to lead the U.S. Navy into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, the voyage of the ``Great White Fleet'' has proven to be
a pivotal event in the history of this great Nation. While impacting
the entire United States, the impression of the ``Great White Fleet''
can be most felt in Hampton Roads, Virginia. In addition to being home
to one of the Nation's most important shipbuilding facilities at
Newport News, the world's largest naval base is located just across the
Hampton Roads in Norfolk, Virginia. The citizens of Hampton Roads
should feel very proud about the role of our region in one of the most
important nautical voyages in American history. I urge my colleagues to
support this important concurrent resolution.
Mrs. DRAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I yield back my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 261.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 7, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on December 7, 2007, at 3:39
p.m.:
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 4252.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
{time} 1445
FAIR TREATMENT FOR EXPERIENCED PILOTS ACT
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4343) to amend title 49, United States Code, to modify age
standards for pilots engaged in commercial aviation operations.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4343
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 Treatment for
Experienced Pilots Act''.
SEC. 2. AGE STANDARDS FOR PILOTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 44729. Age standards for pilots
``(a) In General.--Subject to the limitation in subsection
(c), a pilot may serve in multicrew covered operations until
attaining 65 years of age.
``(b) Covered Operations Defined.--In this section, the
term `covered operations' means operations under part 121 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(c) Limitation for International Flights.--
``(1) Applicability of icao standard.--A pilot who has
attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in
covered operations between the United States and another
country only if there is another pilot in the flight deck
crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.
``(2) Sunset of limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to
be effective on such date as the Convention on International
Civil Aviation provides that a pilot who has attained 60
years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in international
commercial operations without regard to whether there is
another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not attained
age 60.
``(d) Sunset of Age 60 Retirement Rule.--On and after the
date of enactment of this section, section 121.383(c) of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall cease to be
effective.
``(e) Applicability.--
``(1) Nonretroactivity.--No person who has attained 60
years of age before the date of enactment of this section may
serve as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered
operations unless--
[[Page 33691]]
``(A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier
in such operations on such date of enactment as a required
flight deck crew member; or
``(B) such person is newly hired by an air carrier as a
pilot on or after such date of enactment without credit for
prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other
terms related to length of service prior to the date of
rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of
the air carrier.
``(2) Protection for compliance.--An action taken in
conformance with this section, taken in conformance with a
regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior
to the date of enactment of this section in conformance with
section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect before such date of enactment), may not serve
as a basis for liability or relief in a proceeding, brought
under any employment law or regulation, before any court or
agency of the United States or of any State or locality.
``(f) Amendments to Labor Agreements and Benefit Plans.--
Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air
carrier that is required to conform with the requirements of
this section or a regulation issued to carry out this
section, and is applicable to pilots represented for
collective bargaining, shall be made by agreement of the air
carrier and the designated bargaining representative of the
pilots of the air carrier.
``(g) Medical Standards and Records.--
``(1) Medical examinations and standards.--Except as
provided by paragraph (2), a person serving as a pilot for an
air carrier engaged in covered operations shall not be
subject to different medical standards, or different,
greater, or more frequent medical examinations, on account of
age unless the Secretary determines (based on data received
or studies published after the date of enactment of this
section) that different medical standards, or different,
greater, or more frequent medical examinations, are needed to
ensure an adequate level of safety in flight.
``(2) Duration of first-class medical certificate.--No
person who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot
of an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless the
person has a first-class medical certificate. Such a
certificate shall expire on the last day of the 6-month
period following the date of examination shown on the
certificate.
``(h) Safety.--
``(1) Training.--Each air carrier engaged in covered
operations shall continue to use pilot training and
qualification programs approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration, with specific emphasis on initial and
recurrent training and qualification of pilots who have
attained 60 years of age, to ensure continued acceptable
levels of pilot skill and judgment.
``(2) Line evaluations.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this section, and every 6 months
thereafter, an air carrier engaged in covered operations
shall evaluate the performance of each pilot of the air
carrier who has attained 60 years of age through a line check
of such pilot. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an air
carrier shall not be required to conduct for a 6-month period
a line check under this paragraph of a pilot serving as
second-in-command if the pilot has undergone a regularly
scheduled simulator evaluation during that period.
``(3) GAO report.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report
concerning the effect, if any, on aviation safety of the
modification to pilot age standards made by subsection
(a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``44729. Age standards for pilots.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on the pending bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will raise the retirement age for
commercial airline pilots from age 60 to age 65. For more than three
generations, pilots have been required to retire from commercial
aviation when they reach age 60. There have been a number of changes in
both the medical condition, the medical examination of pilots,
recurring, more intensive medical reviews, that argue for a longer
period of time for the age of retirement of commercial pilots. There
have been changes in the economics of aviation that have rearranged the
retirement plans for pilots in midstream, in some cases wiping out
retirement plans altogether, in other cases totally restructuring them,
which two factors argue for a change in the retirement age.
We responded to those changed circumstances in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2007, which moved from our committee through the
House on September 20th. It was our hope that the other body would move
ahead with an FAA reauthorization bill. That hasn't happened.
As time went on and the other body continued to be locked in whatever
difficulties they encounter, there were increasing appeals from pilots,
from airlines, from the traveling public, frankly, to separate out this
provision from our reauthorization bill. I was very reluctant to do
that, in hopes that we would use this provision, among others, as
leverage and as part of our integral package on FAA reauthorization.
Clearly, the other body is not going to even move a bill through
committee in the waning days of this session. It then became clear to
me there was no reason further to delay action on this matter of
justice for commercial airline pilots.
Furthermore, the FAA forecasts an increase in airline travel to more
than 1 billion passengers in the next 7 to 8 years, and retirements
among airline pilots are up 173 percent. We are seeing almost every day
five or more of the most senior experienced pilots retiring. We ought
to provide this relief. We ought to separate this provision out from
our House-passed bill and provide a measure of justice and economic
relief for pilots.
In the reauthorization bill, the provisions that we included for this
age relief are drawn out and included in H.R. 4343. One, pilots who
have reached age 60, to serve beyond that time frame, must have a
first-class medical certificate renewed every 6 months. Second, they
must continue to participate in FAA pilot training and qualification
programs to ensure acceptable levels of skill and judgment. Three, they
must submit to a line check every 6 months. That assures that pilots
who are continuing to serve beyond age 60 will meet all the threshold
requirements of skill, capability, alertness and responsiveness to
their ever-increasingly difficult challenges.
In addition, our bill requires international flights leaving the U.S.
to have at least one pilot under the age of 60. That applies
international standards in the flight deck. This requirement would
terminate if the international standard were changed.
The increased pilot age limit is not retroactive, however, and does
not allow pilots who reached age 60 prior to enactment to serve as
commercial pilots unless they are employed by an air carrier as a
required flight deck crew member, or are newly hired on after the date
of enactment without credit for prior service.
I believe that moving this legislation now, if we can also get it
through the other body in quick order, will have a profound and
personal effect on the lives of thousands of pilots who otherwise would
be forced to retire. We have had consensus within the committee on this
issue. The question is whether we should take it out at this time or
leave it in the House-passed bill for consideration later in conference
with the other body.
Clearly, as I said earlier, we are not going to get to that point,
and Mr. Costello has advocated strongly that we consider at an
appropriate time moving the legislation separately, and he is the Chair
of the Aviation Subcommittee. Mr. Mica has been a strong advocate for
early action on this legislation, apart from our authorization bill.
Mr. Petri, the same, and other pilot members of our committee have
similarly advocated.
So I think we move ahead with a broad consensus measure that should
pass the House readily and hopefully the other body as well.
[[Page 33692]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the chairman of our
committee back. It is good to see you standing strong and firm after
elective surgery and a couple of weeks hospitalization, and bringing a
Christmas present with you to the pilots of our country, especially
those who otherwise might be forced to retire if this is unnecessarily
delayed.
As you pointed out, we hoped to move it in a timely fashion. A year
ago, the international community lowered the standard to 60. Now we are
in a transition period, and we hope this passes today and the Senate
acts in a speedy fashion, because each day we delay, a few more
people's careers are disrupted unnecessarily. So I thank you for
scheduling this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking
Republican on the Public Works and Transportation Committee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, I too want to welcome back Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar,
he and I have had the great experience of working since 15 years ago
when I came to Congress. He was chairman of Aviation. I became the
ranking member on the Republican side when he became Chair of the
committee.
We had a great year. We probably passed more legislation than any
other committee. We passed an historic water resources bill. We
actually did, I think, the 107th override of a Presidential veto. We
agreed in a bipartisan fashion to invest in our Nation's
infrastructure. I am sorry Mr. Oberstar wasn't here to see that
glorious day.
It is very lonely not having either him fighting with you or not
having him here to fight with. But we are pleased he is back, and
hopefully had an experienced Republican physician doing all those
titanium additions to his spine. But he looks great and we are pleased
to have him here.
I am also pleased that through his leadership, and a joint bipartisan
effort, and I wrote him on December 5, and I will include this letter
as part of the Record, saying while I oppose taking other measures out
of the pending FAA reauthorization, I want to keep the pressure on, we
need to pass that bill, that there is a particular provision whose
interest is paramount to that legislation, and that is doing away with
an obsolete and unfair FAA mandatory retirement rule that every day is
penalizing our pilots. In fact, more than 50 of our Nation's most
experienced pilots of commercial airliners are forced to retire.
Now, this bill is entitled the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots
Act. I would like to also give a personal example of why I think this
is important. The title is important. I might even want to amend the
title in honor of one of the guys I went to college with, a buddy of
mine. His name is Bob Fobes.
Most people in Congress don't know Bob Fobes, but Bob and I were
fraternity brothers, went to the University of Florida. Let me tell
you, there is nobody more devoted as far as a pilot. I think the only
thing that Bob is devoted to, other than his wife Laurie and his
family, is flying, and Bob has not failed on any occasion to mention to
me that he is going to be affected by this particular outdated rule
that was passed nearly a half a century ago when males and females
didn't live as long as they do in our society.
So we are addressing something that personally affects folks like Bob
Fobes and thousands of other pilots who are dedicated to one of the
great professions that has given the world and America in particular a
magic carpet to get around to places that people would not have even
imagined they could be 50 years ago.
As of November 2006, we also know that foreign airline pilots are
allowed to fly up to age 65, so our counterparts across the Atlantic
are doing this. The U.S. sets up a double standard, unfortunately, and
I think it is a disadvantage to the flying public to, again, not have
our most experienced individuals in the cockpit and being able to fly.
As Chairman Oberstar pointed out, there are additional protections
here for the flying public that these individuals will be subject to,
even more medical exams, making certain that they are fit and capable
even in these additional years that we grant.
The Freedom to Fly Act, H.R. 1125, was introduced earlier into the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by one of our outstanding
leaders in aviation, also a pilot, Robin Hayes, the gentleman from
North Carolina, and he has 313 bipartisan sponsors on his legislation.
Robin Hayes cannot be here, so I also wanted to give credit to not only
Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello and Mr. Petri, but also Robin Hayes,
who has worked tirelessly to make certain that this legislation and
this particular measure comes before the House.
This is the right thing to do at the right time. I would like to
thank again all those who have been involved, and some of the staff
members on both sides of the aisle who helped bring this measure
forward. I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this very sensible and
desperately needed legislation.
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, December 5, 2007.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oberstar: It is very clear that legislation
to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration will not
be signed into law before the end of this year. Therefore, I
strongly believe it is our obligation and this Committee's
responsibility to see to it that our most experienced pilots
are permitted to continue flying commercial aircraft.
You and I have both received bipartisan request letters
from our colleagues urging passage of legislation to increase
the current retirement age for thousands of commercial
airline pilots across the country. Moreover, H.R. 1125, The
Freedom to Fly Act, has 313 bipartisan cosponsors, including
many Members who serve on our Committee.
I look forward to working with you to move a compromise
bill before Congress adjourns this session.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Ranking Republican Member.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to express my
appreciation to Mr. Petri and Mr. Mica for their good wishes and the
welcome back. It is a good feeling to have recovered from rather
extensive surgery. I am fond of saying now I have more metal in my neck
than in some of my bicycles, because they are carbon fiber and these
are titanium rods and screws, and I am learning to live in a different
way with this new architecture in my cervical spine. But it is a good
feeling to recover use of hands and arms and be able to function fully
and normally. I am grateful to both gentlemen for their good wishes and
for all those colleagues who sent good wishes and cards and good eats.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join our colleagues on
the other side the aisle in welcoming our chairman back. Let me say
that on this legislation, I think Chairman Oberstar, as he always does,
has summarized the legislation very well. We have a similar provision
in H.R. 2881 that we passed out of the House on September 20, and,
unfortunately, as Chairman Oberstar indicated, it is pending in the
other body.
It makes sense to pass this legislation at this time. We are hopeful
that by doing so today that the other body will act quickly and we, in
fact, can get this over to the President and signed into law.
{time} 1500
Many changes have taken place since the FAA arbitrarily imposed the
age 60 rule in 1960. The age expectancy of a person living in the
United States then versus today goes from 60-something-years-old, in
the early 1960s, to 77 years today. We have other provisions in the
legislation, as Chairman Oberstar indicated, on international flights
that make certain that there is at least one person in the flight crew
60 years old or under 65. Secondly, we have provisions
[[Page 33693]]
to make certain that physicals and other health care issues are
addressed by pilots that will qualify.
Let me say that I strongly support this legislation. As Chairman
Oberstar indicated, both Mr. Petri and Mr. Mica, myself, Mr. Hayes, and
other members of the committee have broached this subject and attempted
to bring it to the floor before today. I am very pleased that we are
moving on this legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
needed legislation.
Since 1959, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, has required
commercial airline pilots to retire at age 60.
This mandatory retirement rule was initially put in place for safety
reasons, although some have argued that the FAA had little
scientifically backed data in 1959 to support the safety mandate.
In any event, the ``Age 60 Rule,'' as it is known, soon became
accepted practice.
For many years the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO,
also required commercial airline pilots to retire at age 60. However,
in November 2006, a new ICAO standard went into effect, allowing a
pilot to fly up to age 65, as long as the co-pilot is under age 60.
This change in ICAO standard resulted in an immediate double
standard.
Regardless of FAA's policy, as of November 23, 2006, foreign pilots
flying into the U.S. are allowed to fly up to age 65, provided the co-
pilot is age 60 or younger. Yet, U.S. pilots must retire as soon as
they reach 60 years of age.
Clearly, we now have a fairness issue that must be addressed.
This new double standard has caused a groundswell of U.S. pilots
close to retirement to push for a similar change to FAA standards.
In response to the change in the ICAO standard, the FAA announced
that it would initiate an ``Age 60'' review and rulemaking process. The
FAA no longer assumes that once a pilot reaches age 60 they are
automatically unsafe.
All the groups involved have done excellent work to save not only
their careers and the careers of their colleagues, but to keep the
skies as safe as possible.
The FAA has forecasted that by 2015 the U.S. will have 1 billion
passengers flying annually. We also are facing a pilot shortage in the
near future.
Clearly, we must do everything we can to ensure that our most
experienced pilots are able to continue to fly as long as safety is not
compromised.
This legislation provides for additional medical and training
requirements for pilots ages 60 through 65 to address any possible
safety concerns. It is a well-thought-out bill, which evens the playing
field while ensuring aviation safety.
I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Oberstar, the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Mr. Mica, and the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr.
Costello, for all their hard work on this long sought after
legislation.
This is a good, bipartisan bill, and I encourage members to vote
``yes'' on H.R. 4343.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I do want to join Mr. Mica in sending
compliments to Mr. Hayes, a member of our committee, who has been a
strong advocate, even before we began our reauthorization legislation,
for changing the age. But he along with other pilots on the committee,
Mr. Boswell, Mr. Salazar, formed a united front and a bipartisan front
well before we began our work on the FAA reauthorization bill. So we
give them joint credit and appreciation for their support from this
initiative.
It is our hope in passing this bill today that the other body will
act quickly on it without much ado. That would be a great initiative, a
great sign of progress at these penultimate hours of the first session
of the 110th Congress.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Fair Treatment for
Experienced Pilots Act of 2007.
This legislation will help address America's pilot shortage and
improve airline safety, by enabling experienced pilots to continue
flying instead of being forced into retirement.
Every week, 50 of our most experienced pilots are forced to retire as
they reach the current mandatory retirement age of 60.
The Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act would raise the
retirement age to 65, in recognition that pilots who are 60 are still
fully capable of flying. In fact, their experience often makes them
better and safer pilots. This commonsense legislation includes
requirements for pilots' health, training and evaluation.
Tourism is Hawai`i's major industry, and millions of visitors come to
Hawai`i by air every year. We recognize the importance of the airline
industry to our visitors as well as our residents who travel often for
business, to visit family and friends and go on vacations.
Clearly, having experienced pilots on our nation's airlines is
important to Hawai`i and America.
Many of our older pilots are also veterans who served our country in
the military. So we are not only talking about the fair treatment of
pilots, but also the fair treatment of veterans. Fairness requires us
to allow experienced, highly capable pilots to continue flying--and not
to be forced into retirement once they turn 60.
This legislation has bipartisan support because it is good policy.
This legislation helps airlines and the flying public by improving
safety and mitigating the pilot shortage.
As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
and the Subcommittee on Aviation, I want to acknowledge the leadership
of Chairman Oberstar, the sponsor this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Fair Treatment for
Experienced Pilots Act of 2007.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4343.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3986) to amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize
appropriations for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3986
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 ``John F. Kennedy Center
Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 2(a)(2)(J)(ii) of the John F. Kennedy Center Act
(20 U.S.C. 76h(a)(2)(J)(ii)) is amended by striking ``Public
Works and Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
SEC. 3. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
The John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 6 the following:
``SEC. 7. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.
``(a) In General.--The Board is authorized to study, plan,
design, engineer, and construct a photovoltaic system for the
main roof of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days before beginning
construction of the photovoltaic system pursuant to
subsection (a), the Board shall submit a report to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate on the feasibility and design of
the project.''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 13 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C.
76r) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Board to carry out
section 4(a)(1)(H)--
``(1) $20,200,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(2) $21,800,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(3) $22,500,000 for fiscal year 2010.
``(b) Capital Projects.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Board to carry out subparagraphs (F) and
(G) of section 4(a)(1)--
``(1) $23,150,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(3) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''; and
[[Page 33694]]
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e), and
by adding after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Photovoltaic System.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Board such sums as may be necessary to
carry out section 7, with such sums to remain available until
expended.''.
SEC. 5. EXISTING AUTHORITIES.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or affect
the authority or responsibility of the National Capital
Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material therein.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a national
memorial to a fallen President, one of the most loved, respected, and
admired Presidents of our history. The John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts was initially proposed as a national cultural center
during the tenure of President Dwight Eisenhower. It moved its way
through the legislative process and took firm root and forward progress
during the brief tenure of President John F. Kennedy and then sprang
forward under President Lyndon Johnson. It has become an extraordinary
cultural center for the Nation.
Our committee has had the good fortune to hold jurisdiction over the
physical facility of the Kennedy Center and of its operations, and we
have managed that responsibility very thoroughly and very effectively
through the tenure of many previous Chairs of this committee. In
particular, in the current context I thank the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is the Chair of the Subcommittee
on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
for her leadership on this bill as well as our ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Mica, and the subcommittee ranking member, Mr.
Graves, and Mr. Petri who is here today managing the bill on the
Republican side, for crafting what has historically been in our
committee bipartisan legislation dealing with the operations of the
Kennedy Center.
Since opening its doors September 8, 1971, the Kennedy Center has
continued each year to gain national and international renown for its
performance arts, programming, and for the education programs at the
Kennedy Center that reach out across the Nation so that high schools,
colleges, and universities can participate by satellite and live
performances or recorded performances at the Kennedy Center.
The center has crossed the threshold in the last couple of years by
performing over 3,000 performances, hosting millions of theater-goers,
visitors, tourists. But of all of those accomplishments, none matches
the international outreach of the Kennedy Center under President
Michael Kaiser. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, Michael Kaiser
personally traveled to Iraq to meet with the musicians of the Iraqi
symphony who were, in many cases, without instruments or had somehow
sheltered them from the post-invasion trauma, and secured instruments
for them and secured funding to travel the Iraqi symphony to the
Kennedy Center to perform jointly with the National Symphony Orchestra,
an extraordinary gesture of international brotherhood and sisterhood of
the arts.
President Kaiser has traveled to Africa, to the Far East, Japan,
China to mobilize interest in the arts, joint initiatives with the
Kennedy Center, and has actually established programs of arts
management in countries well beyond our shores to help particularly
Third World countries where arts have fallen well below the threshold
of national concerns where people are more concerned about starvation
and disease than they are about the arts. President Michael Kaiser has
raised the threshold, raised the vision of arts managers in other
countries, and created a great future for the arts wherever he has
traveled.
Over the past decade, a great deal of work at the Kennedy Center has
focused on life safety and accessibility projects. Many of those are
completed. The Kennedy Center's capital building plan, which was
updated earlier this year, emphasizes facility infrastructure. Over the
next several years, the Kennedy Center will focus on replacing
mechanical and electrical systems that consist of original equipment
that is well beyond its useful life or should be replaced by more
efficient equipment, and we provide authority for that work to continue
to prevent failure or breakdown of essential equipment.
The bill before us today authorizes appropriations for maintenance
and capital projects of the Kennedy Center for fiscal years 2008 to
2010. For maintenance, repair, and security, the bill authorizes $64.5
million over 3 years. For capital projects, the bill authorizes $56.2
million through 2010. Those are numbers derived from the Kennedy
Center's 2006-2007 Comprehensive Building Plan, which has worked its
way through the administrative review process within the administration
and the Office of Management and Budget.
The bill also authorizes the center to study, plan, design and build
a photovoltaic system on the four-acre main roof of the Kennedy Center.
That is 140,000 square feet of roof space. A preliminary estimate shows
that a photovoltaic system would cost $6 million to build, but would
save $10 million over the next 25 years. It is part of the plan of this
committee to redirect the energy consumption of our portfolio of
Federal civilian office space, for which this committee has
responsibility of some 367 million square feet of Federal civilian
office space that we can cut down on the electricity bill of $5.8
billion a year at those facilities. We could save the taxpayers a lot
of money, and we could save the environment an awful lot of damage by
converting to photovoltaic use. A good place to start is with the arts
and with the Kennedy Center and with the Department of Energy building
in the recently House-passed version of the energy conservation bill.
So this initiative that we require would in itself be a tribute to
President Kennedy's longstanding well-known views of environmental
protection.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
H.R. 3986, the John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2007, is
a bipartisan bill authorizing appropriations for the John F. Kennedy
Center for the Performing Arts for 3 years. Additionally, the bill
authorizes a photovoltaic system for the main roof of the Kennedy
Center.
The Kennedy Center serves an important role in our Nation. Not only
is it one of the busiest theaters in the world, hosting millions of
patrons each year to its seven stages, but it is first and foremost a
presidential memorial for President John F. Kennedy.
Since its founding, the Kennedy Center has become one of the world's
premier entertainment venue, featuring award-winning performances.
The funds we are authorizing today will go towards the upkeep and
maintenance of the facility. These repairs are in line with the
comprehensive building plan maintained by the Kennedy Center and
created at the direction of Congress in 1994.
By supporting the regular maintenance and upkeep of the Kennedy
Center, we can ensure that the center will continue to be a world-class
venue well into the future.
I would also like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Norton,
for working with us on this legislation. It was important for the
Kennedy Center to report back to Congress before construction begins on
the photovoltaic project to ensure adequate congressional oversight of
the project.
I believe it is important the photovoltaic project be cost effective
and appropriate for a presidential memorial. Thank you again for
working with us.
I support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same.
[[Page 33695]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is my earnest hope that the other body
will act promptly on this legislation. We would certainly like to get
the bill enacted before the close of this session of Congress. We
intend to pass this bill and send it over to the other body in the
hopes that they will simply accept or make such technical or minimal
changes as we can accept without the need for a conference with the
other body, and send this bill on to the President to get the
authorization in place in time for the upcoming budget cycle.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3986, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1515
OVER-THE-ROAD BUS TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2007
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3985) to amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Transportation to register a person providing
transportation by an over-the-road bus as a motor carrier of passengers
only if the person is willing and able to comply with certain
accessibility requirements in addition to other existing requirements,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3985
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 ``Over-the-Road Bus
Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.
(a) In General.--Section 13902(a)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(B)(iii);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) the accessibility requirements established by the
Secretary under subpart H of part 37 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, or such successor regulations to those
accessibility requirements as the Secretary may issue, for
transportation provided by an over-the-road bus; and''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 13902(a)(5) and
13905(d)(1)(A) of such title are each amended by inserting
after ``Board'' the following: ``(including the accessibility
requirements established by the Secretary under subpart H of
part 37 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or such
successor regulations to those accessibility requirements as
the Secretary may issue, for transportation provided by an
over-the-road bus)''.
SEC. 3. OVER-THE-ROAD BUS DEFINED.
Section 13102 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(27) Over-the-road bus.--The term `over-the-road bus'
means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck
located over a baggage compartment.''.
SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall take necessary actions to implement
the changes required by the amendment made by section 2(a)
relating to registration of motor carriers providing
transportation by an over-the-road bus.
SEC. 5. COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding to delineate
the specific roles and responsibilities of the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Justice, respectively,
in enforcing the compliance of motor carriers of passengers
providing transportation by an over-the-road bus (as defined
in section 13102 of title 49, United States Code) with the
accessibility requirements established by the Secretary under
subpart H of part 37 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, or such successor regulations to those
accessibility requirements as the Secretary may issue. Such
memorandum shall recognize the Department of Transportation's
statutory responsibilities as clarified by this Act
(including the amendments made by this Act).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 3985.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This legislation will ensure that the motor coach accessibility
regulations promulgated by Department of Transportation under the
Americans with Disabilities Act are vigorously monitored and actively
enforced. A leader in this initiative was our committee colleague, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). His leadership on this initiative
is of long standing, his commitment to the handicapped community is
well known, and he has been a forceful and vigorous advocate, as has
Mr. Petri, who is the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, and
served previously as Chair of the Surface Subcommittee. He is well
familiar with the issues presented to our fellow citizens saddled with
disabilities.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the DOT was required to
adopt a final rule, which they did in 1998, requiring vehicle
modifications for intercity buses, charter buses, tour buses, to
accommodate individuals with disabilities.
But regulations have to be enforced to be effective, and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration has interpreted the motor carrier
statute in a way that limits the agency's ability to assess compliance
with over-the-road bus accessibility regulations.
That's not acceptable. We have had quite some discussion about that
issue. And, in fact, a new version of the American with Disabilities
Act was introduced earlier this year by our majority leader, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and cosponsored and co-initiated by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) who has long been a
strong advocate for legislation supporting the needs of the handicapped
community.
Relying simply on Department of Justice enforcement authority, the
FMCSA felt it couldn't take action on violations of its own regulations
by over-the-road bus companies. In the U.S. Court of Appeals case,
Peter Pan Bus Lines and Bonanza Acquisition, the court rejected the
claim that the agency does not have discretion to interpret the law to
allow consideration of compliance with ADA. The case was sent back to
FMCSA for further review in February of this year.
But again the agency dragged its feet. After 8 months of failure to
act, the FMCSA responded to the court in October, but only after
Chairman DeFazio and I expressed our intent to legislate a solution if
the agency did not provide its own plans to comply with ADA
requirements.
In the decision, FMCSA defends its position that the agency does not
have the authority to enforce the American with Disabilities Act and
said, ``If Congress intended to expand the fitness criteria to include
compliance with additional DOT regulations such as 49 CFR part 37, it
presumably would have said so.''
Well, we are saying so today. If that's what they think they need,
then we are going to make sure they have the authority to do it. There
is no excuse for any further delay.
Specifically, the pending bill amends section 13902 of title 49 of
U.S. Code to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Administration from
granting registration authority to motor carrier providing over-the-
road bus transportation where that carrier is not willing or able to
comply with the accessibility requirements under subpart H of part 37
of title 49, CFR.
[[Page 33696]]
This bill will allow DOT to put compliance with ADA on a par with
compliance with safety requirements, further clarifying in this
legislation that the Secretary may suspend, amend or revoke a motor
carrier's registration in the event of willful failure to comply with
ADA. And bill further requires DOT and the Justice Department to enter
into a memorandum of understanding to clearly define each department's
roles and responsibilities in enforcing the provisions of ADA. This was
not a new initiative. Some years ago when I chaired the Economic
Development Subcommittee and the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Klinger, and I
required similar memorandum of understanding among three departments
who were failing to carry out their responsibility on transportation
overlaps.
So what we are doing here in this legislation has precedence of over
20 years ago in a similar issue of transportation.
ADA was enacted 17 years ago. We need to keep our vigilance over its
enforcement, make sure that the agency is doing its responsibility to
oversight and that the carriers are complying with their responsibility
to all members of the traveling public.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 3985 will level the playing field for all bus and motor carrier
companies operating in interstate commerce in this area. The bill
deserves support. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important bipartisan bill
offered by my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
The Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007 is an
important bill for all people who rely on transportation by bus and
motorcoaches.
H.R. 3985 requires that all buses and motorcoaches comply fully with
the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ``ADA.'' If not, the U.S.
DOT will revoke the company's authority to operate on our interstates
and highways.
H.R. 3985 will also require U.S. DOT and the Department of Justice to
work together when an ADA violation is discovered. This will ensure
that bus and motorcoach companies that violate the ADA will be held
accountable for their actions.
It is important to note that this bill is not creating any additional
ADA requirements. H.R. 3985 does not change what is currently mandated
in the ADA. Bus and motorcoach companies will not have to change their
business plans, unless they are not obeying the law.
This bill simply ensures that all carriers comply with the ADA, which
is what they are supposed to do anyway. If a bus is not in compliance,
it will not be on our roads.
H.R. 3985 will level the playing field for all bus and motorcoach
companies operating in interstate commerce. Companies who have ignored
the ADA will not have a competitive advantage over the good actors who
have spent substantial amounts on lifts and other equipment to make
their buses accessible.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3985.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
HONORING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF BARRINGTON ANTONIO IRVING
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 661) honoring the accomplishments of Barrington
Antonio Irving, the youngest pilot and first person of African descent
ever to fly solo around the world, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 661
Whereas Barrington Irving was born in 1983 in Kingston,
Jamaica, and raised in inner-city Miami, Florida;
Whereas Irving discovered his passion for aviation at the
age of 15 when Captain Gary Robinson, a Jamaican airline
pilot who has since served as his mentor, took him to tour
the cockpit of a Boeing 777;
Whereas Irving overcame financial hardship to pursue his
dream to become a pilot by working miscellaneous jobs and
working for private aircraft owners in exchange for flying
lessons;
Whereas Irving was the recipient of a joint Air Force/
Florida Memorial University Flight Awareness Scholarship to
cover college tuition and flying lessons for his tireless
volunteer efforts and commitment to community service;
Whereas in 2003, Irving contacted companies including
aircraft manufacturer Columbia, which agreed to provide him
with a plane to fly around the world if he could secure
donations and components;
Whereas over several years, Irving visited aviation trade
shows throughout the country and secured more than $300,000
of cash and donated components including the engine, tires,
cockpit systems, and seats for a Columbia 400, one of the
world's fastest single-engine piston airplanes;
Whereas in the process of pursuing his dream of an around
the world flight, Irving founded a nonprofit organization in
2005 to address the significant shortage of youth pursuing
careers in aviation and aerospace;
Whereas Irving's efforts have garnered widespread community
support and sponsorship as an effective model to expose young
people and underrepresented groups to opportunities in
aviation;
Whereas on March 23, 2007, Irving embarked from Miami,
Florida, on a 24,600-mile flight around the world in an
airplane named ``Inspiration'' at 23-years of age while still
a senior majoring in aerospace at Florida Memorial
University;
Whereas on June 27, 2007, Irving concluded his flight in
Miami, Florida, after stopping in 27 cities throughout the
world; and
Whereas Irving continues to inspire youth and adults alike
with his achievements and work to increase the accessibility
of opportunities in aviation and aerospace: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors the accomplishments of Barrington Irving, the
youngest pilot and first person of African descent ever to
fly solo around the world and founder of a nonprofit
organization that inspires youth to pursue careers in
aviation and aerospace;
(2) encourages young people and minorities to pursue
educational opportunities in preparation for careers in
aviation and related industries; and
(3) encourages museums throughout the Nation related to
aviation to commemorate the historic achievements of Captain
Barrington Irving.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H. Res. 661.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Barrington Antonio Irving was the youngest person and
the first person of African descent to undertake a 24,600-mile solo
flight around the world. His extraordinary accomplishment was brought
to the attention of the committee by the passionate appeal for
recognition in the form of this resolution by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), to whom I now yield such time as he may
consume.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great
pleasure to commemorate the achievements of Captain Antonio Barrington
Irving, the youngest pilot and first person of African descent to fly
solo around the world.
I thank Chairmen Oberstar and Costello and Ranking Member Petri and
the distinguished staff for their support and willingness to expedite
the consideration of this resolution.
Since we introduced H. Res. 661, my good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek) and I have been joined
[[Page 33697]]
by a bipartisan coalition of 43 cosponsors who also share our desire to
encourage youth to pursue careers in aviation. It is our hope that
recognizing Barrington Irving's achievement will encourage many more
youth to reach for the same skies in which he made history.
Barrington Irving was born in Kingston, Jamaica, in 1983, and soon
after moved to Miami, Florida. When he was 15 years old, he met Captain
Gary Robinson, a Jamaican airline pilot who became a lifelong mentor,
inspiring him to fly one day himself.
Enduring the challenges of growing up in inner-city Miami, Irving
never let his dreams of becoming a pilot be stifled. He worked
miscellaneous jobs to save for lessons, and eventually earned a joint
Air Force-Florida Memorial University flight awareness scholarship to
study aviation and take professional flying lessons.
Barrington took tremendous steps to pursue his dream in aviation
while still a student at Florida Memorial University.
Mr. Oberstar, I am sure that a colleague of yours and a mentor of
mine when I first came to Congress would be very proud of this young
man, William Lehman, who at one time was in the same position as
yourself as Chair of Transportation, developed the program at Florida
Memorial University which allowed for a significant number of
youngsters to achieve status as captains in aviation, many of whom have
gone on to become commercial airline pilots and military pilots, and I
am sure that Alabama Bill, as some of us know him, would be proud
today.
The reason I mention it is this program, when Carrie Meek came to
Congress, Kendrick's mother, she continued the efforts on this program,
as did Kendrick and others. I guess it comes under the heading
``earmark,'' perhaps. And if that is the case, then I continuously urge
my colleagues to review the status of things when responsible acts are
taking place and they are being made to sound irresponsible because
they are identified as earmarks. We need to be very cautious in this
institution in that regard because we ignore a lot of time
opportunities like in this particular case.
This young man contacted many companies and convinced the aircraft
manufacturer Columbia to provide him with a plane to fly around the
world if he could secure donations and the components.
{time} 1530
After successfully securing donations, Barrington embarked on a
24,600-mile flight around the world from Opa Locka, Florida on March
23, 2007. Only 23 years of age, he was still a senior, majoring in
aerospace, that program that I talked about that Bill Lehman helped to
develop at Florida Memorial University, and he was a senior at the time
he began this flight.
He traveled the world as an ambassador of aviation, teaching young
people in 27 cities around the world about opportunities in aviation
and the importance of academics. He returned from his journey on June
27, 2007, concluding his flight at the same small airport from where he
began in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman, this young man embodied the
perseverance and dedication necessary to truly pursue one's dreams.
Barrington Irving deserves praise not only for his achievement, but
for the continued community contributions of Experience Aviation, Inc.,
a nonprofit organization he founded to address the shortage of youth
pursuing careers in aviation.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Petri and the staff as we work on many initiatives to
come that will reprioritize opportunities in aviation for our youth and
promote achievement in all fields of human endeavor.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This resolution honors the heroic achievements of Captain Barrington
Antonio Irving, the youngest pilot and first person of African American
descent to fly solo around the world.
Captain Barrington Irving was born in Jamaica, as was pointed out, in
1983 and raised in Miami, Florida. His lifelong dream was to become a
pilot, and this exceptional young man overcame great obstacles to make
his dream a reality.
On March 23, 2007, after nearly 4 years of acquiring sufficient funds
for his journey, Irving embarked from Miami, Florida, on a 24,600-mile
flight around the world in an airplane rightly named Inspiration. At
the age of 23, Irving became the youngest person, as well as the first
African American pilot, to fly around the world when he returned to
Miami on June 27, 2007.
During his 3-month journey, Irving visited with young people in 27
cities around the world encouraging them to enter aviation and
stressing the importance of academics.
Captain Barrington Irving is an inspiration and an example that,
through perseverance and dedication, anyone can overcome even the
greatest obstacles and can achieve their goals.
I am proud to support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join
me in honoring this exceptional young man and commemorating his
historic achievement.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume to express my
great appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica). Mr. Petri has been wonderful to work with on
this issue and to acknowledge an extraordinary achievement that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has spelled out in such graphic
detail, and well said.
Barrington Irving did something truly extraordinary in flying around
the world. But more important than the flight was the inspiration he
has served and has become for young people, young people younger than
him, or his age, who are fascinated with aviation and with aerospace
itself.
Mr. Irving established a nonprofit educational organization, created
a travel blog for the purpose of empowering young people and
encouraging minorities, in particular, to pursue careers in aviation.
His around-the-world trip earned widespread community support and
sponsorship, but more importantly as an inspiration for young people to
aspire to something greater than themselves for the future.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) cited the initial
investment in the college program that stimulated young Barrington's
interest and facilitated his skill in aviation, and appropriately
mentioned our former colleague, Bill Lehman, who served as Chair of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and that brought a very
touching memory back to me as I worked with then-Chairman Lehman in my
capacity as Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee to resolve a number of
complex issues in aviation. He was always gracious and caring and
helpful and astute. I appreciate the gentleman's reference.
And let us move quickly to enact this legislation to acknowledge
Barrington Antonio Irving's contribution to aviation, an inspiration to
young people.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 661 is a resolution honoring the
accomplishments of Barrington Antonio Irving, the youngest pilot and
first person of African descent ever to fly solo around the world.
I want to thank our colleague, Mr. Hastings of Florida, for
introducing this important legislation.
On June 27, 2007, Barrington Irving flew solo around the world to
inspire youth, in particular inner-city youth and minority youth,
throughout the Nation to consider pursuing careers in aviation and
aerospace. In doing so, he became the first African American and
youngest pilot to make such an extraordinary trip.
In order to make his dream a reality, he received donations from
airplane manufacturers and others, which he used to assemble the plane
that carried him around the world. He named his plane ``Inspiration''
in hopes that his flight would inspire others to reach for their
dreams.
In addition to such an amazing accomplishment, Barrington continues
to work tirelessly to provide additional resources for young people
pursuing careers in the field of aviation.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Irving is a remarkable man, which should serve as a
motivation to us all that dreams can come true if you put your
[[Page 33698]]
mind and heart into a project. That is why I support H. Res. 661 and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 661, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HONORING THOSE WHO HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO ASSIST IN THE CLEANUP OF THE
NOVEMBER 7, 2007, OIL SPILL IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 853) honoring those who have volunteered to
assist in the cleanup of the November 7, 2007, oil spill in San
Francisco Bay.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 853
Whereas the oil spill that occurred on November 7, 2007, in
the San Francisco Bay resulted in the discharge of between
53,570 and 58,000 gallons of toxic bunker fuel, causing one
of the Bay Area's worse environmental disasters;
Whereas 28 beaches were closed and over 1,300 birds so far
have been severely impacted by the spill;
Whereas thousands of individuals throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area immediately volunteered to assist with the
cleanup;
Whereas Bay Area community non-profit organizations, such
as San Francisco Connect, have also rallied to support the
response and recovery work by supporting these volunteer
efforts;
Whereas Bay Area environmental organizations, such as
Baykeeper, Save the Bay, and the Bay Institute, have provided
invaluable leadership in reporting, assessing, and helping to
remediate the damage to the Bay's ecosystem;
Whereas the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations, members of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association, commercial crabbers, and other Bay Area
fishermen have all joined the cleanup efforts as well; and
Whereas the city of San Francisco, particularly through its
Department of Emergency Management, has significantly
contributed to the overall response, bringing considerable
resources to bear: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors those
individuals and organizations who have volunteered to assist
in the cleanup of the November 7, 2007, oil spill in one of
our Nation's most beloved national treasures, the San
Francisco Bay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House
Resolution 853, introduced by my good friend and distinguished Speaker
of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
This resolution honors thousands of volunteers who helped clean up
the Bay Area's beaches and wildlife after the harmful oil spill of
November 7 of this year. The public's response to 58,000 gallons of
fuel polluting the bay typified how the San Francisco Bay community
comes together during a crisis. Our Bay Area constituents were eager to
volunteer their time and help minimize the negative effects to the Bay
Area's fragile ecosystem. For days and days after the spill, they
cleaned birds and combed the shoreline for oil residue, and in some
cases put their own health at risk in order to protect our bay.
In order to coordinate the volunteer efforts, numerous organizations
mobilized their members in support of the cleanup, including Save the
Bay, the Fishermen's Association and the Crab Boat Owners. I am so
proud of our Bay Area constituents, how much energy they showed, how
much passion they showed, and such dedication that they showed to the
bay during this environmental disaster. These volunteers deserve
recognition from the House of Representatives.
I strongly support House Resolution 853.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 853 honors the efforts of all of those
that volunteered to assist the response to the recent oil spill in San
Francisco Bay. Last month a cargo vessel collided with a span of the
San Francisco Bay Bridge, resulting in a gash to the vessel's hull and
the release of approximately 58,000 gallons of fuel oil into the bay.
Following reports of the oil spill, the Coast Guard, with its
Federal, State and local government partners, initiated a response to
the spill which has resulted in the deployment of 440 personnel and the
recovery of more than 4,000 cubic yards of oily solids.
In addition to the critical work performed by the Coast Guard and
other government officials, literally thousands of volunteers have
assisted in cleanup operations at beaches throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area. Volunteers have assisted professional cleanup crews in
removing oil from beaches and have reported sightings of oil-affected
areas and impaired wildlife to oil spill response personnel.
Additionally, volunteers were required to undergo at least 4 hours of
hazardous waste and emergency response training before participating in
the cleanup efforts.
I want to commend the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and join with
her today in thanking these volunteers and honoring their efforts to
respond to this unfortunate event.
I also want to take time to thank all of the Federal, State, and
local officials for their efforts to contain and minimize the
environmental and economic impacts of the spill.
I urge all members to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
General Leave
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 853.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak personally from my position as someone
who lives in the Bay Area. I live on the east bay in Alamo, California,
far from where the spill was. But I have to tell you that of the 8 or 9
million people that live in the Bay Area, not one single one was
completely unaffected by what happened on this terrible day of November
7. Many of us are deeply concerned that this was an accident that
shouldn't have happened, that this was something that may have been
prevented. And I have to commend the Speaker and the delegation from
the Bay Area for moving very quickly on a bipartisan basis to begin
hearings to be sure that we actually know what exactly happened so that
it can be prevented in the future. But today we're really here to
celebrate the thousands of Bay Area members that came forward so
quickly to volunteer to assist in the cleanup of the bay at a time when
it was in great jeopardy, at a time when they put their own health at
risk when, for many of them, it was as simple as just going down the
road to the beach near their house and attempting to do whatever kind
of cleanup they could have.
The environmental impact of the spill is still being felt, and
certainly for the wildlife of the Bay Area, it is still a question of
how many will survive in the long term. When you have this kind of
bunker oil, which is pretty toxic stuff, come into the bay and flow on
to these wild fowl and other animals, it puts them in great jeopardy.
We believe that in San Francisco the bay is a national treasure. We
believe
[[Page 33699]]
it is not only a source of environmental pride, but it is also a place
where many thousands of San Franciscans and Bay Area people work. We
have obviously a very big crab industry, a big fishing industry; and
tourism, of course, is a big part of what we do in the Bay Area. So we
are deeply concerned about what happened on November 7.
But I think that this is a good time to celebrate the activism and
the volunteerism of people of the Bay Area and the San Francisco area.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend and colleague
from California that I have no further speakers at this time and would
reserve until she finds herself in a similar position.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. The Speaker became as concerned as we all were
immediately upon hearing about this, and brought the California Bay
Area delegation together to understand what we can do in our Federal
capacity to move this issue. And it was the Speaker's intention today
to speak about the volunteerism of the Bay Area people. Her speech will
be in the Record.
At this time I ask all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 853.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, again I yield myself such time as I
might consume just simply to thank the honorable Speaker of the House
for introducing this resolution and, again, to commend the selfless
acts, thousands of selfless acts of the volunteers in the San Francisco
Bay Area, also my good friend on the Transportation Committee, Mrs.
Tauscher, for her stewardship of this bill. I urge passage.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in San
Francisco and my colleagues in the Bay Area delegation, I want to thank
Chairmen Oberstar and Cummings, and Ranking Members Mica and
LaTourette, for their cooperation in bringing this resolution to the
floor.
The San Francisco Bay is one of Northern California's most precious
resources. Its biodiversity and fundamental role in commerce and
recreation make it essential to the vitality of the entire Bay Area.
The Bay is special to San Franciscans. We bring our kids and
grandkids here to play and learn about the environment. We surf and
sail. And we appreciate the precious ecosystem that exists on the
beaches, in the estuaries, under the water, and in the nearby National
Marine Sanctuary--the Gulf of the Farallones. So protection of this
Bay--its safety and its health--has always been a high priority. Any
harm to the Bay is a serious matter, and when disaster struck on
November 7th our community was quick to respond.
Thousands of Bay Area residents immediately volunteered to clean
beaches, rescue wildlife and undo the damage caused by this devastating
spill. City officials worked with federal authorities on a volunteer
management agreement to train and deploy local volunteers who were
qualified to assist with difficult shoreline and wildlife recovery
efforts. As a result, over 1,000 members of the Bay Area community were
quickly trained and credentialed.
In addition, community non-profit organizations such as San Francisco
Connect and the San Francisco Volunteer Center rallied support;
environmental organizations like Baykeeper, Save the Bay and the Bay
Institute offered their expertise; and the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, members of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association, commercial crabbers and other Bay Area fishermen offered
their equipment and experience.
Today's resolution honors all of the individuals, organizations and
officials who volunteered their time, their skills and their energy in
response to this disaster. Their commitment to both the environment and
their community saved wildlife from oil residue, protected the Bay's
ecosystem and made our beaches safe again for Bay Area families.
As it says in the Bible, `to minister to God's creation is an act of
worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'
To all of those who ministered to the Bay, I thank you as a San
Franciscan, as one who is honored to represent our great city in this
House, and as Speaker of the House.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
853 honoring those who have volunteered to assist in the cleanup of the
November 7, 2007 oil spill in San Francisco Bay.
My district lies roughly 50 miles south of the area affected by the
oil spill. Even though they were not directly affected by the spill,
the institutions and people in my district offered their help and
support to their northern neighbors. The Marine Wildlife Center at the
Long Marine Lab in Santa Cruz treated birds injured by this spill, the
NOAA Weather Service in Monterey played a pivotal role in providing
wind and sea forecasts necessary to predict the spill's trajectory and
assist in containment, and local organizations such as the Santa Cruz
Surfrider Chapter organized volunteers to assist cleanup efforts in the
San Francisco Bay.
I am proud of all of the people who unselfishly volunteered to assist
the cleanup. Their unselfish response to this environmental disaster
highlights just how important marine resources are to our communities.
But, despite our best intentions ``business as usual'' is killing our
oceans. We can no longer rely on the generosity of the citizens of this
country to clean up the mess created by big business and poor
governance.
When my constituents invest their valuable time to take care of the
environment, I take notice. Actions speak louder than words, and with
their actions in November, the people of the Central Coast are asking
us to do more to ensure that we protect the environment while we
conduct our business. If there is one thing that this oil spill shows,
it is that if we don't make protecting the environment a higher
priority, it will come back to haunt us . . . look at climate change.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we were reminded about just how fragile our
waterways are when a ship ran into the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
and spilled 58,000 gallons of oil into the San Francisco Bay. The spill
spread and soiled the pristine beaches of Marin County, in my district.
It also threatened the Point Reyes seashore and restoration projects in
Richardson Bay and San Pablo Bay.
Thousands of volunteers, including many of my constituents, spent
countless hours cleaning up. Fishermen volunteered their boats and
their time to help with clean up efforts. Without their help, the
cleanup efforts would have taken much longer, more birds could have
died, and more of the oil would have been unrecoverable.
Unfortunately, not enough training sessions were offered and many
potential volunteers were turned away from helping with the clean up
efforts because they lacked the necessary training. We need to learn
from this and provide more training opportunities and better utilize
potential volunteers.
As we move forward, we must also look into new technologies to
prevent spills and protect water and beaches. In Marin County, booms
across Bolinas Lagoon and Drakes Estero failed and left these areas
vulnerable to oil spill contamination. We need to ensure that we have
enough equipment to respond quickly and effectively, especially for
areas somewhat distant from spill mobilization centers. We also need to
ensure that we have enough people trained to handle this equipment and
manage the response efforts at these sites.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi and Representative Tauscher for your
leadership on this resolution. Thank you to my constituents and to all
the volunteers who assisted with clean up efforts.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 853 and
to honor those selfless individuals who volunteered to help cleanup the
recent San Francisco Bay oil spill.
On November 7, a cargo vessel inexplicably collided with the San
Francisco Bay Bridge, spilling more than 58,000 gallons of toxic bunker
fuel and causing one of the worst environmental disasters the region
has ever seen. The impact on wildlife and surrounding beaches has been
extremely detrimental, with over 28 beaches closing and severely
impacting wildlife all around the bay.
However, in a strong testament to the American spirit, through this
disaster we saw resolve and self-sacrifice. I am extremely proud of the
thousands of individuals from around the area who immediately
volunteered to assist with the cleanup. Bay Area non-profit community
organizations like San Francisco Connect have supported the response
and recovery of volunteers, while Bay Area environmental organizations
like Baykeeper, Save the Bay, and the Bay Institute have provided
invaluable leadership in assessing the damage and remediating this
beautiful ecosystem.
Specifically, I want to recognize two of my constituents, Lynn Adams
and Deborah Nagle-Burks who, with the Pacifica Beach Coalition,
solicited volunteers while working through red tape to make sure anyone
who wanted to participate in the clean-up was able to. They remain
involved, and have advocated for a proactive approach to training
volunteers before a spill occurs so that the response of
[[Page 33700]]
local citizens can be faster and the damage limited.
In addition, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations, members of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association, commercial crabbers, and other Bay Area fishermen have all
joined the cleanup efforts, making an indelible contribution.
The collaborative effort of state and local agencies deserves our
thanks as well. The City of San Francisco, particularly through its
Department of Emergency Management, has significantly contributed to
the overall response.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to all the volunteers
who have given their time, the fishermen who have given their boats,
and the first responders who have given their expertise to this clean
up. Without the extraordinary efforts of these men and women it is
certain the scope of damage to the fragile Bay ecosystem would be even
greater than what we face today.
I will never cease to be proud and amazed by the dedication of my
constituents and of the American people. This why I rise in very strong
support of H. Res. 853. It is my hope that this resolution will be
swiftly passed and the selfless individuals who volunteered to clean up
the oil spill will be duly recognized.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
853, authored by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to honor those who
volunteered to help clean up the thousands of gallons of oil spilled
from the COSCO BUSAN after it collided with the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, I chaired a special hearing of the Subcommittee in San
Francisco to take a comprehensive look at the circumstances surrounding
that terrible oil spill.
I know that San Francisco Bay is as near to the hearts of local
residents as the Chesapeake Bay is to Maryland residents, and I know
that it was a love for the Bay, its wildlife, and its sensitive
environmental areas that motivated local residents to volunteer to join
the effort to protect these resources from the 58,000 gallons of oil
headed toward them.
Unfortunately, a number of the organizational difficulties that
plagued the initial response to this spill appear to have also affected
the deployment of volunteers in the area.
We await the results of a number of on-going investigations of this
oil spill--including studies being conducted by the Coast Guard itself,
the National Transportation Safety Board and, at the request of the
Speaker and myself, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security.
As results become available, we are committed to making whatever
changes are needed to ensure that the lessons learned from this tragedy
inform preparations for the next oil spill--which we know will come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H. Res. 853 and I again commend
Speaker Pelosi, Congresswoman Tauscher, and the entire Bay Area
Delegation for their leadership on this issue.
I also commend the many organizations and individuals throughout the
San Francisco Bay region who volunteered to respond to this spill.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 853.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1545
PROVIDING FOR CONCURRENCE BY HOUSE WITH AMENDMENTS IN SENATE AMENDMENT
TO H.R. 797, DR. JAMES ALLEN VETERAN VISION EQUITY ACT OF 2007
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 855) providing for the concurrence by the House in
the Senate amendment to H.R. 797, with amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 855
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the
bill (H.R. 797) entitled ``An Act to amend title 38, United
States Code, to improve compensation benefits for veterans in
certain cases of impairment of vision involving both eyes, to
provide for the use of the National Directory of New Hires
for income verification purposes, to extend the authority of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide an educational
assistance allowance for qualifying work study activities,
and to authorize the provision of bronze representations of
the letter `V' for the graves of eligible individuals buried
in private cemeteries in lieu of Government-provided
headstones or markers.'', with the Senate amendment thereto,
shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's
table to the end that the Senate amendment thereto be, and
the same is hereby, agreed to with the following amendments:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Dr. James
Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--LOW-VISION BENEFITS MATTERS
Sec. 101. Modification of rate of visual impairment for payment of
disability compensation.
Sec. 102. Improvement in compensation for veterans in certain cases of
impairment of vision involving both eyes.
TITLE II--MATTERS RELATING TO BURIAL AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
Sec. 201. Provision of medallion or other device for privately-
purchased grave markers.
Sec. 202. Improvement in provision of assistance to States relating to
the interment of veterans in cemeteries other than
national cemeteries.
Sec. 203. Modification of authorities on provision of Government
headstones and markers for burials of veterans at private
cemeteries.
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 301. Use of national directory of new hires for income
verification purposes for certain veterans benefits.
Sec. 302. Extension of authority of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
provide an educational assistance allowance to persons
performing qualifying work-study activities.
TITLE I--LOW-VISION BENEFITS MATTERS
SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF RATE OF VISUAL IMPAIRMENT FOR
PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
Section 1114(o) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``5/200'' and inserting ``20/200''.
SEC. 102. IMPROVEMENT IN COMPENSATION FOR VETERANS IN CERTAIN
CASES OF IMPAIRMENT OF VISION INVOLVING BOTH
EYES.
Section 1160(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``blindness'' both places it appears and
inserting ``impairment of vision'';
(2) by striking ``misconduct;'' and inserting ``misconduct
and--''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) the impairment of vision in each eye is rated at a
visual acuity of 20/200 or less; or
``(B) the peripheral field of vision for each eye is 20
degrees or less;''.
TITLE II--MATTERS RELATING TO BURIAL AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
SEC. 201. PROVISION OF MEDALLION OR OTHER DEVICE FOR
PRIVATELY-PURCHASED GRAVE MARKERS.
Section 2306(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) In lieu of furnishing a headstone or marker under
this subsection, the Secretary may furnish, upon request, a
medallion or other device of a design determined by the
Secretary to signify the deceased's status as a veteran, to
be attached to a headstone or marker furnished at private
expense.''.
SEC. 202. IMPROVEMENT IN PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO STATES
RELATING TO THE INTERMENT OF VETERANS IN
CEMETERIES OTHER THAN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Repeal of Time Limitation for State Filing for
Reimbursement for Interment Costs.--
(1) In general.--The second sentence of section
3.1604(d)(2) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, shall
have no further force or effect as it pertains to unclaimed
remains of a deceased veteran.
(2) Retroactive application.--Paragraph (1) shall take
effect as of October 1, 2006 and apply with respect to
interments and inurnments occurring on or after that date.
(b) Grants for Operation and Maintenance of State Veterans'
Cemeteries.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 2408 of title
38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may make
a grant to any State for the following purposes:
[[Page 33701]]
``(A) Establishing, expanding, or improving a veterans'
cemetery owned by the State.
``(B) Operating and maintaining such a cemetery.
``(2) A grant under paragraph (1) may be made only upon
submission of an application to the Secretary in such form
and manner, and containing such information, as the Secretary
may require.''.
(2) Limitation on amounts awarded.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Amounts''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In any fiscal year, the aggregate amount of grants
awarded under this section for the purposes specified in
subsection (a)(1)(B) may not exceed $5,000,000.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``Grants under this section'' and inserting
``A grant under this section for a purpose described in
subsection (a)(1)(A)''; and
(ii) by striking ``a grant under this section'' each place
it appears and inserting ``such a grant'';
(B) in subsection (d), by striking ``to assist such State
in establishing, expanding, or improving a veterans'
cemetery''; and
(C) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting ``, or in operating
and maintaining such cemeteries,'' after ``veterans'
cemeteries''.
(4) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments made
by this subsection.
SEC. 203. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON PROVISION OF
GOVERNMENT HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FOR BURIALS
OF VETERANS AT PRIVATE CEMETERIES.
(a) Repeal of Expiration of Authority.--Subsection (d) of
section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, as amended by
section 201, is further amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5), as added by
that section, as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(b) Retroactive Effective Date.--Notwithstanding subsection
(d) of section 502 of the Veterans Education and Benefits
Expansion Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-103; 115 Stat. 995; 38
U.S.C. 2306 note) or any other provision of law, the
amendments made by that section and by subsections (a), (b),
(c), (d), and (f) of section 402 of the Veterans Benefits,
Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-461; 120 Stat. 3429) shall take effect as of November
1, 1990, and shall apply with respect to headstones and
markers for the graves of individuals dying on or after that
date.
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 301. USE OF NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES FOR INCOME
VERIFICATION PURPOSES FOR CERTAIN VETERANS
BENEFITS.
(a) Authority for Information Comparisons and Disclosures
of Information to Assist in Administration of Certain
Veterans Benefits.--Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 653(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(11) Information comparisons and disclosures to assist in
administration of certain veterans benefits.--
``(A) Furnishing of information by secretary of veterans
affairs.--Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall furnish to the Secretary,
on such periodic basis as determined by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs in consultation with the Secretary,
information in the custody of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for comparison with information in the National
Directory of New Hires, in order to obtain information in
such Directory with respect to individuals who are applying
for or receiving--
``(i) needs-based pension benefits provided under chapter
15 of title 38, United States Code, or under any other law
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
``(ii) parents' dependency and indemnity compensation
provided under section 1315 of title 38, United States Code;
``(iii) health care services furnished under subsections
(a)(2)(G), (a)(3), or (b) of section 1710 of title 38, United
States Code; or
``(iv) compensation paid under chapter 11 of title 38,
United States Code, at the 100 percent rate based solely on
unemployability and without regard to the fact that the
disability or disabilities are not rated as 100 percent
disabling under the rating schedule.
``(B) Requirement to seek minimum information.--The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall seek information pursuant
to this paragraph only to the extent necessary to verify the
employment and income of individuals described in
subparagraph (A).
``(C) Duties of the secretary.--
``(i) Information disclosure.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
compare information in the National Directory of New Hires
with information provided by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs with respect to individuals described in subparagraph
(A), and shall disclose information in such Directory
regarding such individuals to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in accordance with this paragraph, for the purposes
specified in this paragraph.
``(ii) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make
disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to the extent
that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not
interfere with the effective operation of the program under
this part.
``(D) Use of information by secretary of veterans
affairs.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use
information resulting from a data match pursuant to this
paragraph only--
``(i) for the purposes specified in subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct
analyses of the employment and income reporting of
individuals described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) Reimbursement of hhs costs.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance
with subsection (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the
Secretary in furnishing the information requested under this
paragraph.
``(F) Consent.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall not
seek, use, or disclose information under this paragraph
relating to an individual without the prior written consent
of such individual (or of a person legally authorized to
consent on behalf of such individual).
``(G) Expiration of authority.--The authority under this
paragraph shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
(b) Amendments to Veterans Affairs Authority.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 53 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 5317 the
following new section:
``Sec. 5317A. Use of income information from other agencies:
independent verification required before termination or
reduction of certain benefits and services
``(a) Independent Verification Required.--The Secretary may
terminate, deny, suspend, or reduce any benefit or service
specified in section 5317(c), with respect to an individual
under age 65 who is an applicant for or recipient of such a
benefit or service, by reason of information obtained from
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section
453(j)(11) of the Social Security Act, only if the Secretary
takes appropriate steps to verify independently information
relating to the individual's employment and income from
employment.
``(b) Opportunity to Contest Findings.--The Secretary shall
inform each individual for whom the Secretary terminates,
denies, suspends, or reduces any benefit or service under
subsection (a) of the findings made by the Secretary under
such subsection on the basis of verified information and
shall provide to the individual an opportunity to contest
such findings in the same manner as applies to other
information and findings relating to eligibility for the
benefit or service involved.
``(c) Source of Funds for Reimbursement to Secretary of
Health and Human Services.--The Secretary shall pay the
expense of reimbursing the Secretary of Health and Human
Services in accordance with section 453(j)(11)(E) of the
Social Security Act, for the cost incurred by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services in furnishing information
requested by the Secretary under section 453(j)(11) of such
Act, from amounts available to the Department for the payment
of compensation and pensions.
``(d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this
section shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 5317 the following new item:
``5317A. Use of income information from other agencies: independent
verification required before termination or reduction of
certain benefits and services.''.
SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
ALLOWANCE TO PERSONS PERFORMING QUALIFYING
WORK-STUDY ACTIVITIES.
Section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``June 30, 2007'' each place it appears
and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend title 38,
United States Code, to improve low-vision benefits matters,
matters relating to burial and memorial affairs, and other
matters under the laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dr. James Allen
Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007.
I was glad to be able to work with my colleagues on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, on both sides of the aisle
[[Page 33702]]
and in both Houses, to get here. I want to thank Mr. Rangel and his
staff for their guidance on the provision that fell under the
jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee.
I especially want to thank our colleague from Madison, Wisconsin,
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, who led the effort for this, who got it to
the floor today and who will explain it in whatever detail she thinks
is important.
I note that this bill was previously introduced in the last Congress;
however, it never became law. I am glad this Congress has the
opportunity to do more for our blind and vision impaired veterans.
The Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007, named after a
noted physician and ocular pioneer who worked for over 35 years in the
VA, would allow veterans who receive veterans' disability compensation
for impairment of vision in one eye to be eligible to receive
additional disability compensation for impairment of vision in the eye
that is not service-connected, where the impairment in each eye is to a
visual acuity of 20/200 or less or of a peripheral field of 20 degrees
or less (the definition of ``legal blindness'' adopted by all 50 states
and the Social Security Administration.)
H.R. 797 also directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to match and compare VA needs-
based pension benefits data, parents' dependency and indemnity
compensation data, health-care services data, and unemployability
compensation data with the National Directory of New Hires maintained
by DHHS, for the purpose of determining eligibility for such benefits
and services.
It would also authorize $5 million for establishing, improving and
expanding for the operation and maintenance of state-owned veterans'
cemeteries. Additionally, the bill will repeal the time limitation for
States to file for reimbursement costs for interring unclaimed
veterans' remains, making it retroactive to October 1, 2006.
Finally, this measure extends the authorization of the veterans work
study program until 2010.
This bill affects an estimated 5 percent of the 13,109 veterans who
have service-connected blindness or loss of vision in one eye. As of
September 17, 2007, 1,129 service members have sustained serious eye
wounds in combat according to the Defense Armed Forces Institute of
Surgical Pathology (any of which may later lead to blindness).
Also, it is reported that many of the over 4,400 traumatic brain-
injured OIF/OEF servicemembers will likely suffer from serious vision-
related complications and at least 57 percent of all eye injuries of
this war are caused by lED explosions.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center alone has treated close to 540
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom service members for
visual injuries and over 230 of our soldiers unfortunately have
sustained legal blindness in one eye.
It is worth noting, that in 2002, Congress passed and the President
signed Public Law 107-330, which included a provision to correct a
similar deficiency in the Paired Organ law for hearing loss. In 2006,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a legislative hearing and
received favorable testimony on H.R. 2963, a bill similar to H.R. 797.
In that hearing, the VA supported H.R. 2963.
This is important and meaningful legislation for our men and women in
uniform--who have fought and are fighting for our country.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution and urge
swift consideration of the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of
2007 by the Senate before the end of this session of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Filner.
I rise in strong support of H. Res. 855, the Dr. James Allen Veteran
Vision Equity Act that I introduced earlier this year. This bill fixes
an inequity in the current paired organ statute that has resulted in a
denial of appropriate disability compensation to blinded veterans.
Congress has rightly recognized that some human organs or limbs are
designed to work in pairs: legs, hands, kidneys, lungs, ears and, of
course, eyes. In the instance of eyes, blindness in one eye profoundly
affects depth perception even if sight is fully retained in the other
eye. The paired organ statute was written to assist those veterans who
experience a service-connected loss of a paired organ or limb. The
statute recognizes the interdependency of paired organs and endeavors
to treat the combined disability created by a nonservice-connected
loss, injury or degeneration of the remaining paired organ or limb as
though it was the result of a service-connected disability. In general,
the paired organ statute accomplishes this task, with the exception of
its treatment of eyes and loss of sight.
I want to share with you the story of Dr. James Allen, after whom
this legislation is named. Dr. Allen is a professor of ophthalmology at
the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine in my district. He has
worked at the Veterans Affairs Hospital for 33 years and treated
numerous eye patients, including veterans who are blind.
One example is Mr. Donald May. Don is a World War II veteran who lost
his right eye in a hand grenade explosion. A few years ago, Mr. May
became legally blind in the nonservice-connected left eye. He applied
to the Department of Veterans Affairs for help and was denied further
benefits. He was told that the current law in regard to paired organs
did not apply to him, even though he was legally blind in his service-
connected right eye.
After Dr. Allen brought the plight of his patients to my attention, I
began to research why these veterans were being denied the benefits I
felt they deserved, benefits that I believe Congress intended to grant
them. Through my work with the Blinded Veterans Association, we
discovered that while the current paired organ statute covers
blindness, in practice few, if any, veterans have ever been able to
qualify for such compensation.
In theory, the statute provides that a veteran who is service-
connected for blindness in one eye could qualify for additional
disability compensation if they become blind in the remaining eye for
nonservice-connected reasons. However, the statute does not define the
term ``blindness,'' nor is any provision made for impairment of vision
in the nonservice-connected eye short of blindness.
Rather than using visual acuity of 20/200 or loss of field of vision
to 20 degrees as the definition of legal blindness that has been
adopted by all 50 States and the Social Security Administration, the
Department of Veterans Affairs uses a much more restrictive definition,
5/200, as a rating for legal blindness, which in rough layman's term is
the equivalent of having an eye with light perception only. As a
result, few, if any, blinded veterans are able to qualify for
additional compensation under the paired organ statute.
H. Res. 855, the Dr. James Allen Veterans Vision Equity Act, fixes
this problem. It defines blindness as impairment of vision where the
impairment is to a visual acuity of 20/200 or less or of a peripheral
field loss of vision of 20 degrees or less. This change in the law
would only affect a small percentage, estimated to be roughly 5 percent
of the 13,000-plus veterans who are service-connected for loss of
vision in one eye. Yet such a change would send a powerful message that
our Nation's blinded veterans and the hardships that they have faced
are not forgotten.
Indeed, our Nation's blinded veterans face significant challenges in
the labor market. The National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research found that for individuals with visual
impairments, to the extent that they are unable to read letters, the
employment rate is only 30.8 percent, compared to 82.1 percent for
those without disability.
I want to mention that this resolution complies with the PAYGO rules.
The costs associated with H. Res. 855 are fully offset. This bill
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to match and compare VA needs-based pension benefits
data, parents' dependency and indemnity compensation data, health care
services data and unemployability compensation data with the National
Directory of New Hires maintained by DHHS, for the purpose of
determining eligibility for such benefits and services. According to
the GAO, such data matching will help reduce fraud and abuse within the
VA system as it determines eligibility
[[Page 33703]]
and benefits to those veterans thought to be unemployable but are
indeed working.
I would like to just thank Chairman Filner, Subcommittee Chairman
John Hall, as well as Congressmen John Boozman and Vic Snyder for their
unwavering support of this bill. I also want to thank the staff of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee for their help in advancing this
legislation.
H. Res. 855 is a modest but important step in restoring fair
treatment to those veterans blinded due to their service to our country
and to further our commitment to them. Their sacrifices and their
service to this Nation should be matched by our desire to improve the
quality of life for them and their families.
Earlier this year, the Blinded Veterans Association had found over
200 soldiers returning from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan
and Operation Iraqi Freedom who are blinded in one eye due to their
service-related injuries. They could be benefited in the future by this
legislation.
I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support H. Res. 855.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 855,
which would amend H.R. 797, the Dr. James Allen Veterans Vision Equity
Act, as amended by the other body. I would like to thank my colleagues,
Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Buyer, Mr. Boozman of Arkansas and Ms.
Baldwin of Wisconsin, for their efforts on this bill. On March 21 of
this year, this body passed H.R. 797 with a unanimous vote of 424-0,
and I am pleased to support it.
The first title of this resolution would allow veterans who receive
veterans disability compensation for impairment of vision in one eye to
be eligible to receive additional disability compensation for
impairment of vision in the eye that is not service connected. This
eligibility includes situations where the impairment in each eye is to
a visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or of a peripheral field loss of 20
degrees or less. This is the same definition of legal blindness adopted
by all 50 States and the Social Security Administration.
Title II of H.R. 797 incorporates several sections of H.R. 2696, the
Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007, which I introduced in
June to improve VA burial benefits and State veterans cemeteries.
From time to time, Mr. Speaker, a State locates the remains of
veterans who were not interred at the time of their death for various
reasons. When States inter these veterans, they cannot be reimbursed by
VA because of the time limit on reimbursement costs. This legislation
would repeal this limitation and helps ensure that all veterans will
receive a proper interment with the honor and respect that they have
earned.
Title II would also authorize the Secretary of the VA to make
additional grants to States for improving and expanding State veteran
cemeteries. States would be required to submit an application to the
Secretary for this funding, of which the aggregate amount authorized
for all State grants is $5 million.
The final provision of title II would provide families with the
option of placing a medallion on a deceased veteran's grave denoting
veteran status, in lieu of a VA headstone for graves already marked by
a private marker.
Mr. Speaker, many private cemeteries do not allow a second marker on
a grave site because it complicates routine maintenance. Therefore, a
medallion would identify a veteran's grave in a manner that would be
universally acceptable and would meet the family's desire to honor the
deceased veteran and will be one more reminder to everybody of the
sacrifices made by veterans. This provision is very similar to an
amendment that I offered at the full committee markup of H.R. 797, and
I'm very pleased to support it again now.
While not the specific intent of the provision, veterans' families
may benefit financially from this measure. Currently, VA offers second
markers for veterans' graves that already have a privately procured
marker. While there is no cost for the markers, mounting of these
second markers is at the family's expense, usually several times the
cost of the stone itself. Since the new medallion could be applied
directly to the current marker with an industrial-grade adhesive,
families will be able to apply the medallion on their own, allowing
them to avoid significant mounting costs.
Mr. Speaker, title III of the resolution extends the use of the New
Hires Act and would save the government money by allowing the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to consult with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services regarding unemployment compensation data in order to determine
eligibility for VA needs-based pension benefits.
The Congressional Budget Office informally estimates that this
section of the resolution would save the taxpayers $30 million over 10
years. I would note that this savings funds the vision, burial and work
study provisions in this bill.
Also included in title III is a provision that extends work study
jobs at VA through June 2009. Current law allows work study recipients
to perform a variety of duties throughout the VA, as well as veteran-
related paperwork at their schools.
Congress extended the provision for 6 months in PL 109-461 to prevent
canceling benefits in the middle of the school year. I'm pleased that
we're able to extend this provision even further in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 855, which would
amend H.R. 797, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 797 is a very, very good bill, and I
appreciate Ms. Baldwin working so hard. I think we could actually use
the adjective tirelessly on this one, in order to bring it forward.
It really has two provisions that I'm especially pleased to support.
First, I'm pleased that this bill will help veterans with visual
disabilities. To put this in perspective, VA compensates about 13,000
veterans for blindness in one eye.
{time} 1600
DOD statistics show that about 1,169 servicemembers have experienced
eye injuries in Iraq, and VA states about 111 of those are now
receiving compensation. And let us not forget that with the number of
traumatic brain injury casualties, and those that have gone
undiagnosed, many of them will experience visual impairment as a result
of those injuries. Thanks to Ms. Baldwin's work in bringing this
forward, the change in this law will make sure that all of these
individuals will be treated fairly.
I am also greatly pleased that we have been able to fund
reinstatement of the GI Bill work-study provisions that expired last
June. These additional work-study jobs will benefit both the veteran
student and veterans at large by increasing the resources available to
assist VA employees in accomplishing their mission.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill and I urge my colleagues to
support it. I also want to thank Mr. Filner and his staff for, again,
bringing this forward, along with Mr. Buyer, the ranking member; and
the staff over here. Again, this is a very good bill, and I urge
support of its passage with my colleagues.
Mr. LAMBORN. I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I will include in the Record an
article published in the Ophthalmic News on protective eye gear, and I
urge my colleagues to unanimously support this resolution.
[[Page 33704]]
[From Ophthalmology Times, May 1, 2007]
Protective Eye Gear Essential for Modern Soldier: Ocular Injuries Have
Climbed to Number 4 Slot Behind Amputation, Traumatic Brain Injury,
PTSD
(By Lynda Charters)
Baltimore.--Ocular injuries during war have steadily
increased from as far back as the Civil War because of the
vulnerability of the face and eyes on the battlefield and the
increasing use of fragmentary weapons. Thomas P. Ward, MD,
described how ocular injuries have changed and how to prevent
them here at the Current Concepts in Ophthalmology meeting in
Baltimore.
The meeting was sponsored by Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Ophthalmology Times.
``What we learned about eye injuries was not just learned
from the current war in Iraq but from several previous
wars,'' said Dr. Ward, a private practitioner in West
Hartford, CT, and former ophthalmology consultant to the U.S.
Army's surgeon general. The percentage of ocular wounds
received on the battlefield has increased steadily over the
past century, from less than 1% during the Civil War to about
13% in the early phase of the war in Iraq, he added.
``That 13% is much higher than would be expected if we were
considering only the random chance of a projectile hitting
the eye,'' Dr. Ward said. ``The eye has a very small profile,
i.e., only 4% of the face and 0.27% of the body surface
area.''
He recounted that, through June 2006 at the Echelon III-
level combat support hospital in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1,086
ocular injuries occurred. Of these, 207 were primary eye
injuries. In the remaining 879 eye injuries, another organ
was the primary injury (usually the brain or a limb). The eye
injuries represented 13% of all patients who sustained
injuries. Many more ocular injuries occurred in the local
populace, he said.
The eyes are so vulnerable, he explained, because they are
preferentially exposed during combat, whereas the rest of the
body, except for the limbs, is protected with armor.
In addition, the types of munitions used have changed over
the past century. During the Civil War, if a soldier was hit
by a cannonball or minnie ball, he likely would die, and
ocular injuries were not an issue. Modern weapons, however,
generate numerous fragments when they explode. ``Modern hand
grenades, for example, fragment into about 2,000 individual
projectiles, and the eye is exceptionally vulnerable to small
fragments,'' Dr. Ward said.
Other lessons:
penetrating injuries are the most important type,
accounting for up to 50% of all ocular injuries, and
there is no delayed primary closure in ophthalmology; the
primary repair almost always is the definitive repair.
Finally, because of the nature of modern weaponry, ocular
injuries often are bilateral. More than half of all eye
injuries (57%) are caused by improvised explosive devices
(IEDs). The remaining injuries were caused by rocket-
propelled grenades, gunshot wounds, mortar and shrapnel, land
mines, and other causes.
Surprisingly, according to Dr. Ward, the incidence of
endophthalmitis was 0%, despite the fact that approximately
25% of ocular injuries are caused by intraocular foreign
bodies. Another factor that did not seem to affect the
incidence was that the foreign bodies were not removed for
weeks in many cases. Dr. Ward wondered whether the lack of
endophthalmitis may have been the result of the use of
topical and systemic third- or fourth-generation
fluoroquinolones.
The IEDs being used are increasingly more powerful, and Dr.
Ward showed that the injuries sustained with more recent ones
cause more damage.
Many more eye injuries do not result in evacuation to the
combat support hospital, he said. ``As of late 2005,
approximately 3,000 ocular injuries were reported as having
been treated and the soldiers returned to duty. There were a
total of 14,559 eye-related patient encounters by
optometrists in the theater of war. This [number] from the
Army is considered low as the result of inconsistent
reporting,'' Dr. Ward emphasized.
Armor to protect the eyes has been used over the centuries,
and it has been shown to be effective in eliminating war-
related problems. Sympathetic ophthalmia, Dr. Ward pointed
out, developed in about 0.3 percent of ocular injuries during
World War II. Only one documented case has been reported by
U.S. forces since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
A statistic that emphasizes the importance of prevention is
that ocular injuries hold the number four slot for disability
behind amputation, traumatic brain injury, and post-traumatic
stress disorder.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 855.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on House Resolution 855.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY FEE EXTENSION ACT OF 2007
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 2601) to extend the authority of the Federal Trade
Commission to collect fees to administer and enforce the provisions
relating to the ``Do-not-call'' registry of the Telemarketing Sales
Rule, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2601
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 ``Do-Not-Call Registry Fee
Extension Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FEES FOR ACCESS TO REGISTRY.
Section 2, of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C.
6101 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2. TELEMARKETING SALES RULE; DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY
FEES.
``(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
assess and collect an annual fee pursuant to this section in
order to implement and enforce the `do-not-call' registry as
provided for in section 310.4(b)(1)(iii) of title 16, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any other regulation issued by the
Commission under section 3 of the Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102).
``(b) Annual Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall charge each person
who accesses the `do-not-call' registry an annual fee that is
equal to the lesser of--
``(A) $54 for each area code of data accessed from the
registry; or
``(B) $14,850 for access to every area code of data
contained in the registry.
``(2) Exception.--The Commission shall not charge a fee to
any person--
``(A) for accessing the first 5 area codes of data; or
``(B) for accessing area codes of data in the registry if
the person is permitted to access, but is not required to
access, the `do-not-call' registry under section 310 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations, section 64.1200 of title 47,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any other Federal regulation
or law.
``(3) Duration of access.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall allow each person
who pays the annual fee described in paragraph (1), each
person excepted under paragraph (2) from paying the annual
fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under
section 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) of title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations, to access the area codes of data in the `do-not-
call' registry for which the person has paid during that
person's annual period.
``(B) Annual period.--In this paragraph, the term `annual
period' means the 12-month period beginning on the first day
of the month in which a person pays the fee described in
paragraph (1).
``(c) Additional Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall charge a person
required to pay an annual fee under subsection (b) an
additional fee for each additional area code of data the
person wishes to access during that person's annual period.
``(2) Rates.--For each additional area code of data to be
accessed during the person's annual period, the Commission
shall charge--
``(A) $54 for access to such data if access to the area
code of data is first requested during the first 6 months of
the person's annual period; or
``(B) $27 for access to such data if access to the area
code of data is first requested after the first 6 months of
the person's annual period.
``(d) Adjustment of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Fiscal year 2009.--The dollar amount described in
subsection (b) or (c) is the amount to be charged for fiscal
year 2009.
``(B) Fiscal years after 2009.--For each fiscal year
beginning after fiscal year 2009, each dollar amount in
subsection (b)(1) and (c)(2) shall be increased by an amount
equal to--
``(i) the dollar amount in paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(2),
whichever is applicable, multiplied by
``(ii) the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for the
most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds
the baseline CPI.
``(2) Rounding.--Any increase under subparagraph (B) shall
be rounded to the nearest dollar.
``(3) Changes less than 1 percent.--The Commission shall
not adjust the fees under this
[[Page 33705]]
section if the change in the CPI is less than 1 percent.
``(4) Publication.--Not later than September 1 of each year
the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register the
adjustments to the applicable fees, if any, made under this
subsection.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) CPI.--The term `CPI' means the average of the monthly
consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by
the Department of Labor).
``(B) Baseline cpi.--The term `baseline CPI' means the CPI
for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008.
``(e) Prohibition Against Fee Sharing.--No person may enter
into or participate in an arrangement (as such term is used
in section 310.8(c) of the Commission's regulations (16
C.F.R. 310.8(c))) to share any fee required by subsection (b)
or (c), including any arrangement to divide the costs to
access the registry among various clients of a telemarketer
or service provider.
``(f) Handling of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The commission shall deposit and credit
as offsetting collections any fee collected under this
section in the account `Federal Trade Commission--Salaries
and Expenses', and such sums shall remain available until
expended.
``(2) Limitation.--No amount shall be collected as a fee
under this section for any fiscal year except to the extent
provided in advance by appropriations Acts.''.
SEC. 3. REPORT.
Section 4 of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C.
6101 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Biennial Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2009,
and biennially thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission, in
consultation with the Federal Communications Commission,
shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce that includes--
``(1) the number of consumers who have placed their
telephone numbers on the registry;
``(2) the number of persons paying fees for access to the
registry and the amount of such fees;
``(3) the impact on the `do-not-call' registry of--
``(A) the 5-year reregistration requirement;
``(B) new telecommunications technology; and
``(C) number portability and abandoned telephone numbers;
and
``(4) the impact of the established business relationship
exception on businesses and consumers.
``(b) Additional Report.--Not later than December 31, 2009,
the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the
Federal Communications Commission, shall transmit a report to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce that includes--
``(1) the effectiveness of do-not-call outreach and
enforcement efforts with regard to senior citizens and
immigrant communities;
``(2) the impact of the exceptions to the do-not-call
registry on businesses and consumers, including an analysis
of the effectiveness of the registry and consumer perceptions
of the registry's effectiveness; and
``(3) the impact of abandoned calls made by predictive
dialing devices on do-not-call enforcement.''.
SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.
The Federal Trade Commission may issue rules, in accordance
with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, as necessary
and appropriate to carry out the amendments to the Do-Not-
Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 note) made by this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
General Leave
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which we refer to as H.R. 2601, was
introduced by the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, my good friend Mr. Stearns
from the State of Florida. This bill is to extend the authority of the
Federal Trade Commission to collect the fees that administer and
enforce the provisions relating to the national do-not-call registry.
In 2003, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation
Act, which authorized the FTC to establish fees sufficient to implement
the national do-not-call registry as originally authorized by the
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994. I
don't think it's hyperbole, Mr. Speaker, to say that this may quite
possibly be one of the most popular laws and government initiatives in
our Nation's history. Consumers have registered more than 146 million
telephone numbers since the registry became operational in 2003.
The FTC's authority to annually establish the appropriate level of
fees to charge telemarketers for access to the registry expires, yes,
it expires in 2007, and Mr. Stearns's bill, as amended, in the Energy
and Commerce Committee renders that authority permanent. If Members of
Congress wish to avoid the wrath of millions of angry constituents who
are being called by telemarketers during dinner time, it is in our best
interest to facilitate the continuing operation of the do-not-call
registry and vote for this bill.
As is the case with the vast majority of the legislation passed out
of the subcommittee of which I am a member, this is a bipartisan bill.
I'm proud to say that, Mr. Speaker. We worked on this measure together.
This is a bipartisan bill that was crafted in consultation with the
appropriate agency of expertise, in this case the Federal Trade
Commission. The bill passed my subcommittee by a voice vote on October
23; and a week later, on October 30, it was unanimously approved by the
full Energy and Commerce Committee. It is fully deserving of quick
passage on the floor of the House today.
As usual, Mr. Speaker, the staff on both sides of the aisle worked
together on this bill, and with Ranking Member Stearns as well as
Ranking Member Barton of the full committee, they should all be
commended for their ongoing cooperation with the chairman, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), who chairs the
subcommittee.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that said, I am going to urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his support on this
important bill.
I rise in support of H.R. 2601, the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee
Extension Act of 2007. As the sponsor of the legislation and as ranking
member on the committee with jurisdiction over the Federal Trade
Commission and over consumer protection, I can assure the Members of
the body that this is a necessary piece of legislation. It will have an
immediate and meaningful impact on our constituents. I can remember
when we marked this up when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and we started this whole
process rolling.
The national do-not-call registry was enacted by Congress to provide
citizens the ability to place their home phone numbers on a list that
prohibits unsolicited phone solicitations. My colleagues,
unfortunately, the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to collect
fees to maintain the registry has expired. This legislation simply
restores the commission's authority to collect the necessary fees to
maintain and update the registry and provides businesses with certainty
on the fees that they pay to access the registry.
The bill also includes input from both the Federal Trade Commission
and industry. We asked for their support. Substantively, the amended
legislation provides permanency for the program through a consistent
fee structure. This will help both business with predictability of fees
and help the Federal Trade Commission excel by providing certainty of
funding for this popular program, and this obviously makes budgeting
far easier from year to year.
The legislation also provides for certain biannual reports by the
Federal Trade Commission on the effectiveness of this registry that
will provide Congress with the necessary information to provide
adequate oversight, and that's important too, Mr. Speaker.
[[Page 33706]]
As the gentleman from North Carolina has mentioned, the popularity of
this program has been very high and success of the do-not-call registry
was confirmed by almost every member of our committee and their
district. Many of our constituents still express their gratitude for
enacting a simple law like this, the original law in providing a means
to stop unwanted commercial solicitation over their home phone.
For those who avail themselves of this option, and remember now, if
people out there want to use it, they have to call the toll-free number
to get it, but the people who avail themselves of this have expressed
satisfaction. They have experienced a noticeable decrease in phone
calls interrupting their dinner and their family life.
So I am proud to be a sponsor of the reauthorization legislation.
It's important that the act and the list continue in effect. This is
one example where our actions received near unanimous bipartisan
support here in Congress. Here we are with the omnibus budget bill and
all the controversy, but here is a good example of bipartisan support.
It brings in both the public, industry, and the Federal Trade
Commission. So I am confident that the reauthorization of the Do-not-
call Act is supported by millions of Americans who have placed their
number on the list. So I urge all Members to support and vote for this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am ready to
close this out. But I am sure the American people will be very
appreciative that we are willing to extend this to become a permanent
program, the do-not-call registry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2601, the
``Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007'', of which I am the
lead Democratic sponsor. This bill enjoys wide bipartisan support. Its
passage will help to ensure the continued operation of one of the most
popular Federal consumer protection programs ever adopted by the
Congress, the registry that allows consumers to list their phone
numbers and thereby protect themselves from unwanted telemarketing
phone calls.
Congress originally assigned the task of implementing and enforcing
the Do-Not-Call Registry to the Federal Communications Commission, but
they proved less than enthusiastic and nothing ensued. Congress then
directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to perform these tasks. To
date, the Registry established by the FTC includes more than 145
million telephone numbers, and the FTC has initiated 27 cases alleging
Do-Not-Call violations, resulting in orders totaling $8.8 million in
civil penalties and $8.6 million in redress or disgorgement. This is a
proud record indeed.
To maintain the success of this program, however, legislative action
is needed. The authority of the FTC to collect fees to support
maintenance of the Registry and the related enforcement program expired
at the end on September 2007. H.R. 2601, whose lead sponsor is Rep.
Stearns, will provide the FTC with a permanent fee structure for this
purpose, contingent on approval of the fees in annual appropriations
acts. This will provide appropriate oversight over the funding
mechanism. The bill also requires the FTC to prepare two reports on the
use and effectiveness of the Registry, including allegations regarding
abuse surrounding a number of exemptions. The Committee takes these
consumer complaints seriously and intends to look into them, in
connection with review of the FTC reports.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this important consumer protection
bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2601, Do
Not Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. I am a cosponsor of the
legislation and I want to thank Mr. Stearns for his great work on this
bill, and for his leadership on this issue.
I have never seen a legislative proposal move so quickly and achieve
such immediate popularity. In the 108th Congress, then-Chairman Tauzin
introduced the bill and it became law in less than 2 months. After a
court challenge, it was clear that we needed to shore up the FTC's
authority, and a bill for that purpose was offered and became law in
just 5 days.
I am glad that Mr. Stearns, along with Mr. Rush, Mr. Pickering and
Mr. Doyle, have worked with the FTC to reauthorize and improve that
program, and I offer my strong support. I am also grateful to the FTC
for their great work in keeping dinnertime uninterrupted for me and 145
million others. This is one instance in which Congress has received
near-unanimous, bipartisan approval from the public, and I urge all
Members to support H.R. 2601.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2601, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DO-NOT-CALL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3541) to amend the ``Do-not-call'' Implementation Act to
eliminate the automatic removal of telephone numbers registered on the
Federal ``do-not-call'' registry, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3541
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 ``Do-Not-Call Improvement Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF EXPIRATION DATE FOR REGISTERED
NUMBERS.
The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 note)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF EXPIRATION DATE.
``(a) No Automatic Removal of Numbers.--Telephone numbers
registered on the national `do-not-call' registry of the
Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)) since
the establishment of the registry and telephone numbers
registered on such registry after the date of enactment of
this Act, shall not be removed from such registry except as
provided for in subsection (b) or upon the request of the
individual to whom the telephone number is assigned.
``(b) Removal of Invalid, Disconnected, and Reassigned
Telephone Numbers.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
periodically check telephone numbers registered on the
national `do-not-call' registry against national or other
appropriate databases and shall remove from such registry
those telephone numbers that have been disconnected and
reassigned. Nothing in this section prohibits the Federal
Trade Commission from removing invalid telephone numbers from
the registry at any time.''.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON ACCURACY.
Not later than 9 months after the enactment of this Act,
the Federal Trade Commission shall report to Congress on
efforts taken by the Commission, after the date of enactment
of this Act, to improve the accuracy of the ``do-not-call''
registry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
General Leave
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
The bill that we now consider on the floor is related to the previous
bill that we just adopted. H.R. 3541, the Do-not-call Improvement Act
of 2007, ensures that Americans who signed up to be on the do-not-call
list remain on the do-not-call list. As the law currently stands,
consumers are automatically purged from the registry after a 5-year
period and they are forced to re-register their phone numbers with the
FTC. Consequently, if we do nothing, of the 132 million telephone
numbers that are currently listed on the do-not-call registry, almost
52 million of those numbers will expire and once again be fair game for
telemarketers.
I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of these
consumers are unaware that they must relist their phone numbers. As was
the case with
[[Page 33707]]
the previous bill, I don't think Members of Congress want to incur the
wrath of millions of angry constituents and family members who thought
they were safe from the nuisance of telemarketers, but are once again
getting their pestering phone calls every evening. I might also add
that September 28, the date in which 52 million numbers will expire, is
right before election day. Need I say more?
The authors of the bill, my good friend Mr. Doyle, who will speak in
just a few moments, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and my friend Mr.
Pickering from Mississippi, are both valued members of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and they are to be commended for their bipartisan
cooperation. On October 30 the bill was amended at the full committee
markup to require the FTC to periodically scrub the do-not-call
registry to remove phone numbers that have been disconnected or
reassigned and further requires the commission to report to Congress on
the accuracy of the registry. As such, H.R. 3541 ensures that the do-
not-call list is fair and accurate and that only those American
consumers who do not wish to be called by telemarketers are on the
registry.
This is a thoughtful, bipartisan piece of legislation, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3541,
the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act, and I thank my colleagues from
Pennsylvania and Mississippi for their initiative here of making a good
bill even better. This legislation simply removes the requirement from
the Federal Trade Commission to automatically remove consumers' phone
numbers from the registry.
My colleagues, the original act would have required consumers to re-
register their phone number every 5 years and was intended, in part, to
keep the list accurate and up to date. This will result in tens of
millions of Americans being dropped off the list each year contrary to
their intention. Millions of Americans would have to re-up, so to
speak, to stay on the list. Most of them, in their day-to-day life,
would be unaware that their number is about to expire.
So, this bill does a great service. This bill corrects this and would
make numbers on the registry permanent, but at the same time require
the Federal Trade Commission to keep the list accurate by simply
removing invalid and disconnected phone numbers. As further assurance
of this, the Federal Trade Commission must study and report to Congress
on the accuracy of these numbers. I think that's important. And we
mentioned that earlier in the bill, that we're going to have the
Federal Trade Commission come back with a report to us. And this is a
good area for the Federal Trade Commission to come back and talk about
the accuracy of these millions and millions of numbers. So, I applaud
my two colleagues for doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4
minutes to my good friend from Pennsylvania, a gentleman who works so
hard for his constituents, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. DOYLE. I thank my friend from North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 3541,
the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007.
The national do-not-call registry was established in 2003 and is
managed by the Federal Trade Commission and enforced by the FTC, the
Federal Communications Commission, and State law enforcement officials.
Most telemarketers are not allowed to call your number once it has been
on the registry for 31 days. If they do, you can file a complaint
against them with the FTC and they can be forced to pay a fine.
The Federal do-not-call registry is one of the most successful
government programs ever created. Over 132 million telephone numbers
have been added to the registry since its creation. Unfortunately,
current regulations require that the registry remove individuals'
numbers after 5 years. Consequently, starting in June of 2008, millions
of people will begin receiving telemarketing calls again. Many of them
don't realize that their listing has expired and that they need to add
their number to the do-not-call list again if they want to block
telemarketers' phone calls.
It makes no sense to force people to sign up every couple of years.
Unfortunately, that's just what will happen if action isn't taken. And
that's why I introduced this legislation along with my good friend from
Mississippi, Chip Pickering, to make registration with the Federal do-
not-call list permanent.
My legislation, the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, would make
the numbers on the Federal do-not-call registry permanent. Under this
legislation, someone would only have to sign up for the do-not-call
registry once. Without passage of this act, over 50 million phone
numbers will be purged from the registry within the next year. The
hassle for consumers will be tremendous, with no real payoff.
Now, when a consumer signs up for the do-not-call list, they expect a
roach motel where their numbers go in and the telemarketers can't check
them out. But for those few individuals who are worried that they might
change their mind at some future date, I want to make clear that this
bill will still allow individuals to take their names off if they
choose to, and it gives the FTC explicit authority to scrub numbers
that are invalid or don't belong on the list.
There is no need to risk Americans being removed from the do-not-call
list unless they want to be removed, and the best way to deal with this
nightmare is to end it before it starts. As I said when I introduced
this legislation, I suspect there are very few people saying, ``Gee, I
really miss those telemarketing calls at dinnertime. I wish the
Government would just take me off that do-not-call list.'' Well, if
this bill is enacted, individuals won't have to worry about signing up
for the do-not-call list every 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the AARP, the Consumers Union, the
Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumerist.com, and the American
Teleservices Association for endorsing this bill. It's a great day when
consumer groups, senior groups, privacy groups, and yes, even
telemarketers, can agree on making the do-not-call list better.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation. By
signing up with the national do-not-call registry, over 130 million
Americans have told telemarketers, ``Don't call us; we'll call you.''
Let's save them the hassle of having to have sign up time and time
again.
In closing, I want to thank my friend Chip Pickering. I want to thank
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton,
Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairman Bobby
Rush and my good friend Cliff Stearns. And I also want to thank several
staffers who have worked so hard on this bill: Gregg Rothschild,
Consuela Washington, Shannon Weinberg, Brian McCullough, Will Carty.
And finally, I want to thank Hugh Carroll of Mr. Pickering's staff and
Kenneth DeGraff of my staff for all of their hard work.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and making
one of the most popular Federal services even better.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Member from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3541. I, too,
want to join in commending my colleagues, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Stearns,
and my good friend Congressman Doyle from Pennsylvania. I thank the
leadership of the committee, Chairman Dingell and Congressman Joe
Barton. Joe has been a good friend, and he has provided the support on
our side, and Cliff Stearns, the leadership on our side.
Mike Doyle has been a tireless champion on this, a bulldog, and a
great advocate for keeping peace and goodwill through the Christmas
season for the citizens of our country as we do something that is
common sense and pretty
[[Page 33708]]
straightforward and simple, and that is to extend the do-not-call.
We do not want the cold calls to fill the stockings. We simply want
the good cheer that will come from the time around the dinner table and
the Christmas tree and the holiday season that all of us who want to be
protected in that sanctuary of home will be, and this bill will do
that.
The other great benefit, if we're watching our budget around
Christmastime as a country and in the Congress, this has no cost. And
so for our friends on the Senate side who are known to be frugal, we
can tell you this has no cost. It can be passed quickly. It should be
passed quickly as a Christmas present for the citizens of the country.
This is good government. It is time. And we can do this together,
House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis. It is one of the most widely
popular programs that we've had in this country; over 150 million
people have signed up. I'm proud to be part of this effort, and I'm
proud that I've worked with friends on the other side of the aisle to
achieve this.
This is good news, good legislation, and a good effort. And I do wish
to commend the committee for their work. I thank Mr. Doyle again for
his good leadership.
As I previously stated, the Do Not Call legislation is extremely
popular and has been effective in largely eliminating the unwanted
intrusions associated with commercial telemarketing calls to the home.
We should all be proud of the success of the legislation and I want to
commend both the FCC and FTC for their efforts in this area. I am
confident that this language will benefit both the American people and
industry. FTC and industry concerns were well vetted and fully
considered as the bill moved through normal process. We added the
reporting requirement to ensure we are providing an accurate database
to the telemarketing industry so they are not hindered by making
registration permanent.
Since the Do Not Call registry falls within the jurisdiction and
enforcement of both the FCC and FTC, I hope there is continued
consistent application, direction, and enforcement by both agencies. We
have all worked hard to develop and implement the Do Not Call
legislation, and we must be cautious in protecting its integrity and
enforceability, particularly as it applies to charities and nonprofits.
Inconsistent direction or enforcement ultimately will weaken the
enforceability of the restrictions and undermine the statutory intent
of this successful Government program. Again, I thank the committee and
look forward to passage of this legislation.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, this has been a good debate on this
issue, and I want to thank both the gentlemen who have authored this
bill for their passion and for their leadership and what they do for
the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I just want to
add to Mr. Pickering's comment about the frugality of the Senate. I
think certainly if Mr. Pickering was in the Senate, we wouldn't have
that frugality.
Mr. PICKERING. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. PICKERING. I would be regretful if I did not mention the good
work of the staff, as did Mr. Doyle. And for me, on my staff, Hugh
Carroll has been tireless and has worked hard, and I appreciate his
good work on this effort.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3541 the
``Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007''. This bill enjoys wide
bipartisan support. Along with H.R. 2601, legislation considered by the
House immediately before this bill, these measures will strengthen and
ensure the continued operation of one of the most popular Federal
consumer protection programs ever adopted by the Congress, the registry
that allows consumers to list their phone numbers and thereby protect
themselves from unwanted telemarketing phone calls.
Current rules provide that telephone numbers be removed from the list
after 5 years, thus requiring consumers to re-register their numbers in
order to fend off pesky telemarketing calls. Most consumers are unaware
of this requirement. And I would observe that it places a particular
burden on the elderly, the group most often victimized by telemarketing
frauds.
The FTC testified before our Committee last month that they would not
remove any expiring numbers from the Do-Not-Call Registry, that is,
phone numbers will stay registered, pending action by Congress to
address this issue.
To that end, H.R. 3541 will eliminate the automatic removal of
telephone numbers registered on the Registry, subject to certain common
sense exceptions, such as at the request of the individual to whom the
number is assigned. To maintain the accuracy of the Registry, H.R. 3541
directs the FTC to ``periodically'' check telephone numbers on the
Registry against national or other appropriate databases, and remove
from such Registry telephone numbers that have been disconnected and
reassigned. The Committee intends for the FTC or any subcontractor to
check these numbers at least once a month and preferably more
frequently as technology allows. Nothing in this bill prohibits the FTC
from removing invalid telephone numbers from the Registry at any time.
The Committee expects the FTC to work with industry and technology
experts to ensure the accuracy of the Registry. The legislation directs
the FTC to report to Congress, not later than 9 months after date of
enactment, on efforts taken by the agency to improve the accuracy of
the Registry. I commend Representatives Doyle and Pickering for their
strong bipartisan leadership on this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this strong package of important
consumer protections. Let us hope for swift action on H.R. 3541, as
well as on the legislation establishing a permanent funding mechanism,
leading to quick enactment so that Americans are not once again
inundated with unwanted calls from telemarketers.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3541, the
Do Not Call Improvement Act. The legislation is simply very
straightforward and I believe merits the support of all Members.
The bill removes the requirement for the Federal Trade Commission to
remove consumers' phone numbers from the Registry. The original rules
for the Registry required consumers to re-register their phone number
every 5 years. This was intended to keep the list accurate over the
years as numbers were disconnected and reassigned to new customers. The
rules as they currently are would result in many millions of Americans
being removed from the Do-Not-Call list each year, whether they like it
or not. The bill before us changes these rules by requiring that
numbers on the Registry remain there, so that people's dinners don't
start getting interrupted by telemarketers all of a sudden. At the same
time, we direct the FTC to keep the list accurate by periodically
``scrubbing'' the list of invalid and disconnected numbers. I think
this strikes the right balance for consumers and the industry.
I urge support for the bill.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3541, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A Bill to amend the Do-not-
call Implementation Act to eliminate the automatic removal of telephone
numbers registered on the Federal `do-not-call' registry''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EXTENSION
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4341) to extend the trade adjustment assistance program under the
Trade Act of 1974 for 3 months.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4341
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
(a) Assistance for Workers.--Section 245(a) of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``March 31, 2008''.
(b) Assistance for Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and $4,000,000'' and inserting
``$4,000,000''; and
(2) by inserting after ``October 1, 2007,'' the following:
``and $4,000,000 for the 3-month period beginning on January
1, 2008,''.
[[Page 33709]]
(c) Assistance for Farmers.--Section 298(a) of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401g(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, and there are authorized'' and
inserting ``. There are authorized''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``There are
authorized to be appropriated and there are appropriated to
the Department of Agriculture to carry out this chapter
$9,000,000 for the 3-month period beginning on January 1,
2008.''.
(d) Extension of Termination Dates.--Section 285 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2007'' each place it appears and
inserting ``March 31, 2008''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
through (d) shall be effective as of January 1, 2008.
SEC. 2. OFFSETS.
(a) Time for Payment of Corporate Estimated Taxes.--The
percentage under subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased
by 0.25 percentage points.
(b) Customs User Fees.--Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``December 13,
2014'' and inserting ``December 20, 2014''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
will each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. TAA will run out very soon, and it's essential that that
not happen. This is a vital program for workers in this country, for
the firms for which they work, for farmers, and for their entire
communities.
We've been trying to not only extend TAA, but we've been trying to
reform it and to improve it. We have passed legislation in this House,
legislation that, indeed, reformed and enhanced and expanded TAA, and
it passed this House with some considerable bipartisan support. It
addressed issues like this:
Expands TAA to service workers;
Improves funding, because a number of States have essentially run out
of funds;
Streamlines the process for application for TAA because an unfriendly
regimen of rules has too often made it difficult for people to access
it;
Modernizes the unemployment system, which badly needs it;
Provides assistance to manufacturing communities hard hit by trade.
Unfortunately, though this bill passed comfortably in this House and
was an important landmark supported by our Speaker, by the majority
leader, by Chairman Rangel, by others, many of us on the Ways and Means
Committee and, as I said, with some considerable bipartisan support,
but unfortunately, the bill has essentially not moved in the other
body. And it has been blocked, I think, by a position in the other body
that it should be linked to something else.
Also, the administration essentially has opposed this legislation.
And it was really rather startling that that occurred. After all,
earlier this fall the President said this about TAA: ``I understand
that if you're forced to change a job halfway through a career it can
be painful for your family. I know that. And that is why I'm a big
believer in trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the
transition from one job to the next.''
Unfortunately, it was only a few weeks after that that we received,
on the eve of the markup of the bill in the Ways and Means Committee, a
letter from the Secretary of Labor opposing the bill that was before
the committee. And in the letter the Secretary said, ``negative impacts
with trade that are borne by the few,'' that this does not warrant the
changes we make in the legislation. Unfortunate language, indeed,
because there has been an impact of trade very substantially across the
board, not only in the manufacturing industries, but in the service
industries and beyond, and that that impact has been borne by many,
many more than a few.
So, what has happened is that we passed this legislation with some
bipartisan support, legislation that, as I say, expanded and reformed
TAA and also addressed overdue issues of unemployment counts. We're
just stuck because of the opposition of the administration, and also
because of inaction in the Senate.
So, here's what this legislation does:
It extends TAA for 3 months. Why 3 months? Three months because it's
the intention the majority, after we return after the holidays, if we
adjourn for the holidays, and I assume we will, to get moving quickly
to take up this vital reform of TAA within the first few months, to
make it a high priority in this House, and we hope in the entire
Congress, and we hope in the White House.
{time} 1630
So I come today on behalf of many of us viewing the importance of
this legislation and asking that this House vote for a 3-month
extension until March 31, 2008.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back myself so much time as I may
require.
I rise in support of this extension of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance, or TAA program, for 3 months beyond its expiration of
December 31. The TAA program provides important training, health care,
and other benefits to American workers adversely affected by trade.
While this bill will continue the program for 3 months, I believe 6
months would be better and would allow the Senate sufficient time to
pass the TAA reauthorization bill.
Also, the Senate and House must work together to develop what I hope
will be truly bipartisan legislation that helps workers affected by
trade and globalization get retrained and back to work sooner.
Unfortunately, the House-passed Democrat bill was not the product of a
bipartisan approach as I had hoped and did not include key Republican
reform proposals.
In light of this, an overwhelming majority of the Republicans did not
support it, and the bill drew a veto threat from the administration. In
contrast, a TAA reauthorization bill that committee Republicans offered
in an alternative on the floor was supported by 95 percent of all House
Republicans and 11 Democrats. This strong support reflects the
meaningful reforms in our 5-year TAA reauthorization, such as an
increased health coverage tax credit.
As debate moves forward, I hope that at least some of the key TAA
reforms in our bill will be considered and adopted. Several critical
reforms in the House Republican TAA bill were not included with the
House-passed language. They include providing more flexible training
options to get people back to work sooner, such as training before
layoffs, part-time training, and providing training scholarship for
workers to use over 4 years, provisions to enhance the capacity of
training providers, primarily community colleges to provide effective
training programs, new accountability measures for TAA program funds,
an extension and modernization of the Workforce Investment Act that
will better integrate it with TAA to expand services to all workers and
additional flexibility for States to operate UI programs that would
help workers get back on the job faster.
I also want to reiterate my opposition to how the majority paid for
the House-passed bill, and I hope we can revisit this issue as the
process moves ahead.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should discuss TAA expansion in
the context of initiatives that would expand trade opportunities for
U.S. workers, farmers, and producers. We must pass all of our pending
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea and reauthorize
trade promotion authority that allows the President a stronger hand to
negotiate these beneficial agreements in the first place.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to have any lengthy
debate about trade nor, I think, about TAA. But before I yield back my
time, since this is going to be a 3-month extension, and that means
there needs to be quick action and we intend to undertake it as soon as
we come back, I do want to emphasize a few points. Number one, the bill
that passed here addressed the issue of service workers. Essentially,
[[Page 33710]]
what Mr. Herger has referred to in his bill left the status quo and
left out virtually all service workers, and that is simply inadequate
and inappropriate.
It also did not touch the issue of funding. It did not streamline the
processes so many people today in the manufacturing field for example
when they lose their job because of trade simply can't work their way
through all of the red tape. Also it doesn't address the issues within
the unemployment compensation system and also doesn't refer to the
needs of communities especially hard hit in manufacturing areas.
So we should pass this bill with notice that we here on the majority
side intend to move quickly next year. I hope there can be a lot of
bipartisan discussion. We need to do it quickly.
Let me say one last thing about the gentleman from California's
statement about trade bills. We need to reform trade policy. We also
need to pass trade adjustment assistance, and the attempt to link the
two in terms of legislation simply will not work, and I don't think
should or will happen.
TAA can stand on its own feet. TAA is necessary for those thrown out
of work through no fault of their own because of the impact of trade.
And to try to use TAA as an instrumentality to push particular trade
bills simply shortchanges people in this country who lose their jobs,
communities that lose their base, firms that are left out because of
trade. Trade is not the only cause of dislocation in this country, but
it is a substantial cause that needs to be addressed by reforming trade
policy, number one, and we took major steps to begin to do that this
year on the majority side, and also to pass TAA.
So I hope Mr. Herger and the Republicans will join with us the first
3 months of next year, and let's get busy and pass TAA. I hope also
that the administration will drop its resistance and also stop trying
to use TAA as a bargaining tool. That is not fair to people who are
hurting economically through no fault of their own.
General Leave
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 4341.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with the loss of approximately three
million manufacturing jobs in the United States since 2001, many
families know the effects of increased foreign imports and the
outsourcing of their jobs all too well. HCTC was created to ensure that
our constituents who lost these good manufacturing jobs would still be
able to afford health insurance for themselves and their families. It
is unjust for our constituents who have lost these jobs to additionally
endure lost or inadequate health insurance because it is unaffordable.
Unfortunately the spouse of the wage earner will suffer the
devastating loss of this needed financial assistance to obtain health
care coverage when the qualifying wage earner becomes Medicare
eligible. The current eligibility requirements for the HCTC program
leave a Medicare ineligible spouse without continued assistance under
the HCTC, which in far too many cases means being left entirely without
health care insurance.
I am pleased that language was included in H.R. 3920, the Trade and
Globalization Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act that corrects this loophole and ensures that spouses and
widows will remain eligible for the HCTC. The House of Representatives
passed H.R. 3920 on October 31, 2007; however, this bill has not yet
become public law. Consequently, today the House will consider an
extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act through March 31,
2007.
As our constituents wait for H.R. 3920 to become law, there are still
those who are losing their eligibility for the HCTC and in danger of
losing health care coverage for their spouses. As more wage earners
approach Medicare eligibility, they fear for the well-being of their
spouses and incur mounting stress and anxiety. Passage of this
legislation is urgently needed to put an end to these hardships. An
extension of the current Trade Adjustment Assistance Act will not
ensure that our deserving constituents remain eligible for the HCTC. I
urge this body to make certain that the reauthorization of Trade
Adjustment Assistance is passed into public law in the urgent manner
necessary to protect hard-working Americans.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4341.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ADDRESSING VULNERABILITIES IN AVIATION SECURITY
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1413) to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) to address vulnerabilities in
aviation security by carrying out a pilot program to screen airport
workers with access to secure and sterile areas of airports, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1413
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ENHANCED PERIMETER SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROL
THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE SCREENING OF AIRPORT
WORKERS.
(a) Pilot Program.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration)
shall carry out a pilot program at 7 service airports to
screen all individuals with unescorted access to secure and
sterile areas of the airport in accordance with section
44903(h) of title 49, United States Code.
(b) Participating Airports.--At least 2 of the airports
participating in the pilot program shall be large hub
airports (as defined in section 40102 of title 49, United
States Code). At least 1 of the airports participating in the
pilot program shall be a category III airport. Each of the
remaining airports participating in the pilot program shall
represent a different airport security risk category (as
defined by the Assistant Secretary).
(c) Screening Standards.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraphs (2)
and (3), screening for individuals with unescorted access
under the pilot program shall be conducted under the same
standards as apply to passengers at airport security
screening checkpoints and, at a minimum of 1 airport, shall
be carried out by a private screening company that meets the
standards in accordance with section 44920(d) of title 49,
United States Code. That airport shall be an airport that
uses such a private screening company to carry out passenger
screenings as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Designated screening lane.--In addition to the
requirements under paragraph (1), each airport participating
in the pilot program shall designate at least one screening
lane at each airport security screening checkpoint to be used
to screen individuals with unescorted access on a priority
basis under the pilot program. Such lane may also be used to
screen passengers.
(3) Alternative means of screening.--At 1 of the 7 airports
participating in the pilot program, the Assistant Secretary
shall deploy, instead of the screening standards required
under paragraphs (1) and (2), alternative means of screening
all individuals with unescorted access to secure and sterile
areas of the airport. Alternative means of screening may
include--
(A) biometric technology for airport access control;
(B) behavior recognition programs;
(C) canines to screen individuals with unescorted access to
secure and sterile areas of the airport;
(D) targeted physical inspections of such individuals;
(E) video cameras; and
(F) increased vetting, training, and awareness programs for
such individuals.
(d) Vulnerability Assessments.--As part of the pilot
program under this section, the Assistant Secretary shall
conduct a vulnerability assessment of each airport
participating in the pilot program. Each such assessment
shall include an assessment of vulnerabilities relating to
access badge and uniform controls.
(e) Technology Assessments.--Airport operators at each
airport at which the pilot program under this section is
implemented shall conduct an assessment of the screening
technology being used at that airport and submit the results
of the assessment to the Assistant Secretary. The Assistant
Secretary shall compile the results of all the assessments
and provide them to each airport participating in the pilot
program.
(f) Operational Assessments.--As part of the pilot program
under this section, the Assistant Secretary shall conduct an
operational assessment at each airport participating in the
pilot program. Each such assessment shall include an
evaluation of--
[[Page 33711]]
(1) the effect on security of any increase in terminal
congestion created as a result of screening individuals with
unescorted access under the pilot program;
(2) the average wait times at screening checkpoints for
passengers and individuals with unescorted access;
(3) any additional personnel required to screen individuals
with unescorted access;
(4) the effect of screening individuals with unescorted
access on other security-related activities at the airport;
(5) any lost productivity of individuals with unescorted
access associated with airport participation in the pilot
program; and
(6) the rate at which ``prohibited items'' are detected and
confiscated from individuals with unescorted access.
(g) Duration.--The pilot program shall be carried out for a
period of not less than 180 days.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(i) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the last day
of the pilot program, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the
pilot program.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include the
following:
(A) An assessment of the effect of screening all airport
workers with access to secure and sterile airport areas on
screening and logistical resources.
(B) An assessment of the security improvements that are
achieved from screening such workers.
(C) An assessment of the costs of screening such workers.
(D) The results of the vulnerability assessments conducted
under subsection (d).
(E) An estimate of the infrastructure and personnel
requirements necessary to implement a screening program for
individuals with unescorted access at all commercial service
airports in the United States in order to process each such
individual and each passenger through each screening
checkpoint in fewer than 10 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
General Leave
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this bill and include therein any extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1413 creates a pilot program screening airport
workers at seven airports. Screening passengers but giving workers open
access is like installing a home security system but leaving the back
door open. We know criminal activity has resulted from this loophole
and we cannot take a chance that terrorists will exploit it. H.R. 1413
is a bipartisan approach to ensure security at our airports, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 1413, legislation sponsored by my
good friend and fellow New Yorker, Nita Lowey, and me that seeks to
close an important loophole in the airport security program.
Since 9/11, Congress and the airline industry have taken strong
affirmative actions to tighten security at our Nation's airports.
However, one of the few areas of security that has grown unchanged
since the horrific events of 9/11 is airport workers screening. While
airline passengers are searched from head to foot before we board a
plane or reach the gate, most airports do not screen 100 percent of
their employees when entering into secure areas.
Earlier this year at the Orlando International Airport just outside
my congressional district, airport employees were able to smuggle
loaded weapons onto a plane bound for Puerto Rico. This significant
breach in security could have been avoided with 100 percent screening
of airport workers. Thankfully, no one was hurt, and the employees'
intent was not to incite terror. However, had those guns been used to
hijack a plane to commit a larger terrorist act, I am confident that we
would have 100 percent screening at all our airports and that would
already be in place as we speak.
Let's not wait for such an attack to occur before we take action.
H.R. 1413 will create a pilot program for TSA to test the plausibility
of screening of all airport workers at seven airports. While some have
objected to the 100 percent worker screening in principle, they have no
broad federally operated test case upon which to base this opinion. The
value of this pilot project is that it allows TSA to evaluate
thoroughly the strengths and weaknesses of 100 percent airport worker
screening on a small scale. While no one wants more bureaucracy for
bureaucracy's sake, we do need to protect the traveling public.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from Florida from the airport that, I might add, does have
100 percent screening.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I had the honor and
privilege of chairing the House Aviation Subcommittee for some 6 years.
I inherited that responsibility some months after September 11 and
concluded my service as the Chair of that important subcommittee
January of this year. I now am the ranking member on the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee.
Just by way of my background, I have been involved in both the
creation of TSA and the evolution of TSA over these years, and, trying
to make certain, as I know Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite is doing,
Representative Nita Lowey is trying to do, and I think they are very
well intended and actually I hope to work with them, I just found out
about this proposal coming up today last night, and I do pledge to work
with them to try to make their intent the most effective intent,
protecting the American public. And I know that is what Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite does. That is her intent. And I think that is Mrs. Lowey's
intent here.
But what we have got to do is make certain that we aren't doing
something that really won't achieve the results. And I think the normal
screening of workers, as it has been done as we screen passengers,
would not be that effective. So I have no objection to a demonstration
project, but I think what we need is one that is sophisticated to try
to deal with finding out what the bad intent of supposedly good
aviation system workers may be.
{time} 1645
Most of what we have at the airport today, I hate to tell you, the
technology does not deal with the current threat. The current threat is
not someone taking a gun or a weapon, as we traditionally know it,
through airport screening checkpoints. In fact, USA Today has shown
even how flawed this system is, in revealing some of the results of
taking through not only those type items but also other items that may
pose a risk today.
The problem we have is people with bad intent who obtain employment
in this industry can do great harm. What we need to do is focus the
screening on going after that bad intent, because once they get past
the worker screening or passenger screening point, a worker has access
to chemicals, substances, tools, a treasure trove of items that can be
used to take down an aircraft, and that is what we want to prevent.
So I am not going to try to kill this measure. That is not my intent.
In fact, I didn't come out here to call for a roll call vote on this.
But what I would like to do is work with them to see that their intent,
which is to make certain that workers who may pose danger to the
system, we find a way to screen them that would be most effective in
protecting our passengers.
The worst thing we can do, and I will tell you this, I helped create
the Department of Homeland Security, I
[[Page 33712]]
helped author the TSA bill. But TSA and the Department of Homeland
Security is 177,000 employees. I compare it to sort of like pigeons you
may see in a plaza, and when Congress claps its hands, they will all
fly off in whatever direction we send them, but it may not always be
the best-intended.
I give you one final example. We ban lighters from being carried
onboard aircraft. We ban lighters, but we didn't ban cell phones or
cameras with a battery. Here's my cell phone. This is much more
dangerous as an ignition electronic device than any lighter that you
can carry onboard.
So sometimes we do things here with good intentions, like the lighter
ban, but they may not have the results we would like to achieve. So I
came here to tell both of the sponsors I appreciate what they are
trying to do, but I think we can take and craft their demonstration
project into a demonstration project that truly screens workers in a
way that will be beneficial to catch the potentially bad players and
that we can make this system safer.
So I compliment you on your well-intended efforts. I pledge to work
with you, and we will take it from there.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his wisdom and for
his willingness to work with us. I have no more speakers, and I urge
the Members to support this critical legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted Mr.
Mica does want to work with us. Certainly, the type of screening he is
talking about, where we are able to determine or hopefully determine
the intent of the workers coming in, is a very good one. But I think we
also need to be very vigilant to make sure that they are not bringing
in suitcase bombs in what may look like a worker's toolbox.
This situation was actually brought to my attention by TSA workers
who, at one of the airports that I was at, said to me, You know, we
have to screen you, but would you believe people are coming in the back
door without any kind of screening at all, other than a swipe card?
These are people who may work at the airport; they work at the
concession stands. And certainly the TSA workers are screened, Members
of Congress are screened, candidates for President are screened when
they go through the airport, but imagine this, that individuals are
coming in the back door with just a swipe card.
We need to make sure that money is well spent, I agree with Mr. Mica,
and I think that what we need is a variety of ways to deter any acts of
terrorism, and that clearly is what this pilot program is all about. I
look forward to working with Mr. Mica and being able to utilize his
many years of experience on this.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 1413.
H.R. 1413 was introduced by Representatives Lowey and Brown-Waite to
establish a pilot program to test the viability of physically screening
airport workers at seven (7) airports. I am pleased to report that this
bipartisan bill, as amended in Committee, not only requires TSA to test
physical screening but also alternative forms of screening, including:
biometrics, behavior recognition, and canine teams.
Consideration of H.R. 1413 is timely in light of the October 2007
arrest of 10 airline employees for operating a drug smuggling ring at
John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. The ring leader
allegedly directed JFK airport employees from inside the airport on how
to move heroin and cocaine into so-called ``safe areas'' of the
airport.
Mr. Speaker, most people that work in our nation's airports are
hardworking, trustworthy people who pose no threat to the traveling
public. However, in a post-9/11 world, we have to address the risk of
an ``inside job''--where an attack is planned and executed by an
airport worker who exploits security gaps. H.R. 1413 does just that.
H.R. 1413 does so in a manner that strives to assure that that people
that keep the planes flying are able to do their job. Specifically,
H.R. 1413 creates a 180-day pilot program where all the people that
access the terminal and the airplanes, not just the American Flying
Public, are screened.
To those who think this can't be done, I'm here to tell you ``it can
be done.'' They do it at London's Heathrow airport. They do it at
DeGaulle Airport in Paris. I understand that there are those who don't
want us to look at this approach. But in a post-9/11 world, failing to
do so is just plain wrong.
Under the leadership of Subcommittee Chairwoman Jackson-Lee, H.R.
1413 was agreed to ``as amended,'' on April 24th by voice vote. The
full committee considered, voted and reported favorably on August 1. I
strongly urge passage of this bill that takes a reasonable approach to
exploring how to better secure our airports, airplanes and travelers.
Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Brown-Waite are to be commended for their
leadership on this critical legislation. I look forward to continuing
to work with the bills sponsors and other interested parties to ensure
that TSA structures the pilot in a manner that provides Congress with
the best guidance on how to address this gap in security. I strongly
urge passage on this important homeland security measure.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1413, to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) to address vulnerabilities in
aviation security by carrying out a pilot program to screen airport
workers with access to secure and sterile areas of airports, introduced
by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Lowey. As a
member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Chair of the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure Protect, I believe
that this important piece of legislation, of which I am a proud
cosponsor, is absolutely imperative for insuring the protection of our
nation.
Today, aviation security is high on the list of priorities of air
travelers, the Federal Government, and the international air community.
Since September 11th we have made many improvements in the security of
our nation's transportation infrastructure. However our job is far from
over, whether it's more improvements to be made or gaps to close. In
matters of security, we must not become complacent--as our enemies
adapt, so must we. And we did, we now have a federal screening
workforce, we screen 100 percent of the checked baggage, we are in the
process of moving to 100 percent screening of air cargo and we are
constantly trying to find new technology to help all of these
functions. In addition we armed pilots and barricaded the cabin door,
still there is much more that needs to be done and this legislation is
an important step in the direction of making our nation more secure.
This important legislation includes a number of provisions that will
make American airports safer by directing the Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security to implement a number of new programs. In this day
and age when Presidential candidates and Members of Congress must go
through airport security and screening, it is unfathomable that airport
employees with access to sterile areas of the airport are still excused
from such screening. This legislation calls for the implementation of a
pilot program at five commercial service airports that will screen all
airport workers with access to sterile areas of the airport. This
program calls for screening of airport employees to be conducted under
the same standards as apply to passengers at security screening
checkpoints and to be carried out by private screeners at a designated
screening lane for their exclusive use at a minimum of two airports.
This will ensure that airport employees are held to the same standards
as all other people wishing to enter an airport. In order to further
ensure security, this bill requires that each airport participating in
said program is subject to a vulnerability assessment by the Department
of Homeland Security.
An endemic problem in the national security system is the lack of
specificity of legislation that is meant to secure our nation's
airports. This bill escapes that by specifying that at least two of the
participating airports be large hub airports, with the remaining
airports representing different airport security risk categories,
therefore ensuring a holistic assessment of our airports current
security risks. This legislation further specifies that each
participating airport operator conduct an assessment of the screening
technology used at the airport and to submit the results to the
Assistant Secretary. Following this comprehensive program, the United
States will be able to better assess the real security of its nation's
airports.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 1413 and I call on my
colleagues to support this important piece of legislation because I
strongly believe that it will strengthen our nation's efforts to
confront the existing vulnerabilities our current airport security
system and consequently make our nation more secure.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page 33713]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1413, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to direct the Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration)
to address vulnerabilities in aviation security by carrying out a pilot
program to screen airport workers with access to secure and sterile
areas of airports, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OF PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND
CLASSIFIED ANNEX
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the
House that the conference report to accompany H.R. 2082, the
Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008, has been filed in
accordance with House rules and that the classified schedule of
authorizations and the classified annex of the conference report is
available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence in room H-405 of the Capitol. The committee
office is open during regular business hours, and this evening during
our votes, for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this
material prior to the consideration of the conference report by the
House. Members wishing to review this material should contact the
committee to arrange a time and a date for that review.
In addition to signing the oath for access to classified information
specified in clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives
Rules, committee rules also require that Members agree in writing to a
nondisclosure agreement that indicates that the Member has been granted
access to the classified schedule of authorizations and classified
annex, and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the
committee with respect to the classified nature of that information and
the limitations on disclosure of such information.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1830
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Altmire) at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
House Resolution 842, by the yeas and nays;
House Resolution 847, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 4343, by the yeas and nays.
The vote on H.R. 3985 will be taken later in the week.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
EXPRESSING SYMPATHY TO THE VICTIMS OF CYCLONE SIDR IN SOUTHERN
BANGLADESH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 842,
as amended, 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 New York (Mr. Meeks) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 842, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388,
nays 0, not voting 43, as follows:
[Roll No. 1142]
YEAS--388
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
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
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
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
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
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 (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
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)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
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 (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
[[Page 33714]]
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
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--43
Alexander
Boswell
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Carson
Cleaver
Conyers
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Doolittle
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Gilchrest
Graves
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hunter
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Kind
King (IA)
Lantos
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Marchant
Matheson
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sessions
Smith (NJ)
Tancredo
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1852
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.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTMAS AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 847,
as amended, 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 New York (Mr. Meeks) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 847, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 372,
nays 9, answered ``present'' 10, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 1143]
YEAS--372
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
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
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
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
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
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
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
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--9
Ackerman
Clarke
DeGette
Hastings (FL)
Lee
McDermott
Scott (VA)
Stark
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--10
Conyers
Frank (MA)
Holt
Payne
Pence
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Wasserman Schultz
Welch (VT)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--40
Alexander
Boswell
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Carson
Cleaver
Cubin
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Dicks
Everett
Ferguson
Graves
Hooley
Hunter
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Kind
King (IA)
Lantos
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Marchant
Matheson
McHugh
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sessions
Tancredo
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1902
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
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.
Stated for:
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1143, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
FAIR TREATMENT FOR EXPERIENCED PILOTS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4343, 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 Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4343.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
[[Page 33715]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 390,
nays 0, not voting 41, as follows:
[Roll No. 1144]
YEAS--390
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
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
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
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
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
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
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 (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
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
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--41
Alexander
Boswell
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Carson
Chandler
Cleaver
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Everett
Ferguson
Graves
Hooley
Hunter
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Marchant
Matheson
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Olver
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Renzi
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sessions
Tancredo
Van Hollen
Wexler
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised less
than 2 minutes remain in the vote.
{time} 1908
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.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for Rollcall
votes 1142 through 1144 and ask for unanimous consent to enter into the
Record the following statement on the series of votes held on Tuesday,
December 11, 2007, beginning with Rollcall 1142.
Unfortunately, I was detained in my district; Missouri's Fifth, due
to a massive ice storm, which is crippling our community. My heart goes
out to those individuals who have lost power, and I salute the city and
utility workers, who are working tirelessly to restore lost utilities
in this freezing weather.
Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have cast the following
votes on H. Res. 842, Expressing sympathy to and pledging the support
of the House of Representatives and the people of the United States for
the victims of Cyclone Sidr in southern Bangladesh; H. Res. 847,
Recognizing the importance of Christmas; and H.R. 4343, the Fair
Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act of 2007:
Mr. Speaker, had I been present for H. Res. 842, roll No. 1142, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. Speaker, had I been present for H. Res. 847, roll No. 1143, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the H.R. 4343, roll No. 1144, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I regret that inclement weather prevented
me from being here to vote today. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 842, H. Res. 847, H.R. 4343, and I ask that my
statement be placed in the appropriate place in the Record to reflect
this.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 4193
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name
from H.R. 4193.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
HONORING ALBERT CAREY CASWELL OF THE CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the unsung
heroes of the United States Capitol. Here in the Capitol Building, we
have a group of fine individuals who serve the public by giving tours
of the Capitol and educating the public about the history of this great
institution.
But during the few years I have had the honor to serve in Congress, I
have noticed one member of the Capitol Guide Service who has
consistently gone above and beyond the call of duty. Albert Carey
Caswell has served as a Capitol guide for more than 20 years, and his
tenure has been marked with an ethic of civic outreach. He routinely
gives tours to disabled veterans from Walter Reed Medical Center and to
children with life-threatening diseases through Make-a-Wish Foundation.
Mr. Caswell does all of this on a volunteer basis on his own time. He
insists that the tours he give to these children and brave veterans be
coordinated and given on his watch.
Mr. Caswell is an accomplished poet and an extremely knowledgeable
tour
[[Page 33716]]
guide, but more importantly he is a great American. He embodies the
spirit of a true patriot, someone who grasps the importance of a cause
greater than himself and pursues it with energy and commitment. He is
the model of a civically minded citizen who is selflessly committed to
the greater good.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Clarke). 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.
____________________
{time} 1915
ADMINISTRATION GETS TWO THUMBS DOWN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the holiday movie season usually begins
each year around Christmas Day, but this year the holiday movie season
has begun early. It began this week, in fact, when the administration
premiered its new movie entitled, ``Iraq: The Sequel.''
As you will recall, the first Iraq movie began with the
administration warning us about weapons of mass destruction and
mushroom clouds. Then we invaded Iraq where we discovered that the
weapons of mass destruction didn't exist. But the administration kept
coming up with new reasons to keep the occupation going.
The American people gave this first Iraq two thumbs down, but that
hasn't discouraged our leaders in the White House. They have been busy
writing the same exact script for ``Iraq: The Sequel,'' which is all
about Iran.
In this movie, the administration warns us about Iranian weapons of
mass destruction, in this case a nuclear weapons program. Then it gives
us new visions of mushroom clouds by warning us about World War III.
Then we discover, as we did last week, that the nuclear weapons program
does not exist. In fact, it was suspended back in 2003. But the
administration continues to come up with new reasons to keep the crisis
going.
Yesterday we were told that Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous,
Iran will be dangerous. So the administration's drumbeat for war in
general, and against Iran in particular, goes on. Before we go back to
the dark days, Madam Speaker, the dark days of shock and awe, I have a
few questions to ask.
First, why did it take 4 long years to discover the truth about the
Iranian nuclear weapons program? Was this another example of
intelligence being manipulated for political purposes?
Why did the administration warn us in October that Iranian nuclear
weapons could start World War III when the Director of National
Intelligence went to the White House in August to say that Iran's
nuclear weapons system ``may be suspended''?
There is nothing, nothing more reckless and irresponsible than to
terrify the world about World War III when there is no basis for it.
Why did the administration continue to use threatening language
yesterday? Yesterday, when the truth was already known. Instead of
looking for opportunities for peace, this administration continues to
look for ways to keep tensions as high as possible.
My last question, Madam Speaker, is why does the administration seem
so intent on wrecking America's credibility? By doing so, this
administration has made the world a much more dangerous place and has
undercut our own national security. We are like the boy who cries wolf.
No one will believe what we say now, and that means we cannot lead the
world effectively against terrorism and towards peace.
The movies of ``Iraq'' and ``Iraq: The Sequel'' have both bombed. We
need a new plot, a plot that begins with responsible redeployment of
our troops out of Iraq, which would be the essential, responsible first
step.
When we do that, we can begin to bring together all the parties in
the region that have a stake in keeping a lid on violence and reducing
tensions. We must change course because that is the only way to regain
the moral leadership. And we must reshape events, and we must reshape
them in ways that are favorable to the United States and to peace
around the world.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1201
Mr. PICKERING. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1201.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
____________________
EYE ON THE SUPREME COURT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, last week hundreds of citizens stood in the
first snow of winter in Washington, D.C. for 2 hours, hoping to get a
coveted seat in the United States Supreme Court building to see the
oral arguments on the case of the detainees in Guantanamo prisoner of
war camp and what rights, if any, they have under our Constitution;
however, the Supreme Court gallery has a mere 50 seats for spectators.
One of those would-be viewers was a lawyer on my staff, Gina
Santucci. I wanted her there to find out more about the case and take
notes. But she, like most of the people in line, never got in to see
the arguments. There was no room in the room. Those that were allowed
into the proceedings were only permitted to stay 5 minutes before they
had to leave and make room for other people in the room.
Public interest in what takes place in the Supreme Court is a good
thing. It is important that Americans are concerned about what occurs
in the Supreme Court, and citizens want to observe the most powerful
court in action anywhere in the world. But most Americans will never
have this opportunity to see the questions asked by the Justices of the
Supreme Court or to hear the arguments over the meaning of our
Constitution or hear constitutional cases that will go down in history.
Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1299 to allow television cameras
to televise Supreme Court proceedings. Since then, both the House and
the Senate Judiciary Committees have heard arguments as to why cameras
should be allowed inside the Supreme Court.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up Senator Specter's
bill to allow cameras in the Supreme Court. Some Senators were
concerned that the Department of Justice opposed this bill. Justice
Department opposed this bill because they say they want to protect the
``collegial environment'' of the Court. I don't mean to intrude on what
a ``collegial environment'' is, but what is it?
I thought the business before the Supreme Court is a matter the
American people have an interest in, not just the college of lawyers
that appear before the court.
We have cameras in these House Chambers, and I never thought about
whether the camera here on the House floor affects the collegiality
between the fellow representatives that we work with. Most of us hardly
notice the camera at all. And today's cameras are so small and
unobtrusive, they are not noticed. They don't affect our daily routine
here in the House, but they allow Americans across the vastness of the
fruited plain to tune in to see what their government is up to every
day.
Now, I doubt if the Supreme Court TV channel will win the fall
sweeps, but it will allow Americans who live in the 50 States to
observe the oral arguments that take place. Some say they are against
cameras in the courtroom because attorneys play to the camera and try
to impress the viewing audience.
Madam Speaker, attorneys don't play to the camera, they play to the
jury. I know because I played to the jury for 8 years as a prosecutor
in Texas. However, there isn't even a jury to impress
[[Page 33717]]
in the Supreme Court. In fact, there really isn't a time to grandstand
in the Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court involve the
best appellate attorneys in the country, facing a spew of questions
from nine Justices who are asking a barrage of legal questions to these
lawyers making them justify their legal positions on their case.
I only explain how the oral arguments work in the Supreme Court
because most Americans are unaware of the proceedings and the
procedures since they don't have the opportunity to view Supreme Court
oral arguments personally. Unless there are cameras, Americans will
never have the chance to see what takes place in a courtroom, the most
powerful courtroom in the whole world, the Supreme Court courtroom.
I know cameras can be placed in a courtroom without disruption or
distraction because I did it. For 22 years, I served as a felony court
judge in Houston, Texas. I heard over 25,000 criminal cases and a
thousand jury trials. Some of those were filmed by the TV media. I even
televised a capital murder trial. My rules were simple and always
obeyed by the media: No filming of rape victims, children, the jury, or
certain other witnesses. The camera filmed what the jury saw and heard.
And, Madam Speaker, I had no problem with the media at all. We need to
let the public see a real trial in progress, and cameras have made that
possible.
Americans have the right to watch Supreme Court proceedings in
person. We have the best judicial system ever created in the history of
the world. Why not prove it by filming these proceedings? Americans
should not be deprived of the right to observe just because they cannot
physically sit in the Supreme Court courtroom. It is time to remove the
veil of secrecy from the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court and allow
cameras to film these important proceedings.
Justice would be better served if we open the doors to the Supreme
Court to cameras because justice is the one thing we should always
find.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
JOSH MILLER HEARTS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, there are no words to describe the pain we
feel when a young life is lost.
To know Josh Miller was to know a kindhearted and generous young man
with limitless potential. Josh was a Baberton High School sophomore
with a 4.0 grade point average, a linebacker who dreamed of playing
football for Ohio State one day.
But one day, without warning, these dreams were cut short. Josh had
never shown any signs of heart trouble, but during the final game of
the 2000 football season, he collapsed after leaving the field. By the
time his heart was shocked with an automated external defibrillator, it
was too late to save him.
Josh suffered a sudden cardiac arrest, which, according to the
American Heart Association, claims the lives of about 330,000 Americans
every year. The vast majority of these individuals, like Josh, will not
have displayed any signs of heart trouble beforehand; yet there is an
easy-to-use, relatively inexpensive piece of medical equipment that can
more than double the odds of survival for someone experiencing such a
sudden cardiac arrest.
An automated external defibrillator, or AED, is the single-most
effective treatment for starting the heart after sudden cardiac arrest.
And because chances of survival decrease up to 10 percent for every
minute that passes, every second is critical.
It is incredibly important that we take steps to educate the public
about the life-and-death difference that using these devices would
make. I would like to thank and to commend my colleague, Mr. Kuhl, for
his efforts in promoting increased access to AEDs through the
resolution passed this afternoon. Later this week, I will be
introducing a piece of legislation that takes another step to increase
the ability of AEDs in our communities.
The Josh Miller HEARTS Act will establish a grant program that will
help schools across the country purchase these lifesaving devices.
Schools are central gathering places in our communities, and placing
AEDs in our schools will not only save the lives of students enrolled
there, potentially, but they will be available for teachers and staff,
parents and volunteers, and the many other members of the community who
pass through the halls every single day.
This legislation will be modeled on a similar program recently
completed in the State of Ohio. Dr. Terry Gordon, a cardiologist at
Akron General Hospital, has dedicated his life to this campaign. And
his tireless efforts in Ohio led to the adoption of a statewide
initiative to put an AED into every school across the State. Already,
this program has saved the lives of 12 children and adults as a direct
result.
I hope we in Congress can build on Dr. Gordon's good work and carry
out this program at the national level. Losing a young life full of
promise, like Josh's, can bring about a sense of helplessness. But
today, we have an opportunity to act. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting this effort to bring AEDs into every single school across
this country.
____________________
{time} 1930
HONORING THE U.S. MARINE CORPS' DECISION TO ALLOW FAMILY OF FALLEN
MARINE TO ADOPT SON'S K-9 PARTNER, LEX
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, too often during wartime,
tragedy takes center stage and heart-warming stories never get told.
Tonight I would like to share a truly touching story with my colleagues
in the House and with the American people.
Corporal Dustin Jerome Lee was a United States Marine Corps working-
dog handler who was killed in action on March 21, 2007, in Fallujah,
Iraq. Corporal Lee and his canine partner, Lex, a 7-year-old German
shepherd from Camp Lejeune were a highly trained explosives detection
team. Lex, who was due for retirement after his combat tour in Iraq,
suffered shrapnel wounds from the same enemy-fired rocket-propelled
grenade that took Corporal Lee's life.
Following Corporal Lee's death, the Lee family began seeking to adopt
their son's canine companion who was with their son during the last
moments on Earth. However, after filing the necessary paperwork,
contacts at Marine Corps Logistic Base Albany indicated that Lex had
been medically evaluated and, although injured, was fit for duty and
not yet eligible for adoption.
I first learned of the Lee family's situation by reading the short
story, ``My Partner Dustin,'' written by John Burnam, author of ``Dog
Tags of Courage.''
Madam Speaker, at this time I will submit the text of the story for
the Congressional Record.
My Partner Dustin
(By John C. Burnam)
I'm a U.S. Marine and the primary element of a two-member
team trained to hunt and locate explosives. My partner and I
trained as a team for many months honing our expertise to
save American lives in the War on Terrorism in Iraq.
The date is March 21, 2007 and I was on the job in
Fallujah, Iraq when an enemy fired Rocket Propelled Grenade
(RPG) exploded in our midst. I was blasted to the ground. I'm
Stunned. My head is ringing and my body feels numb. My eyes
can't quite focus on anything.
My partner is lying next to me severely wounded and
bleeding. I move to him and touch him but he's not
responding. I feel sharp pains in my side and back. I'm
bleeding but deal with it and concentrate on comforting my
partner and protecting him from further harm.
Everything happened so fast that it caused disorientation
and confusion. My senses pick up the lingering smell of burnt
powder and smoke from the explosion. I hear lots of American
voices and heavy boot-steps hurrying all around us. They
reach our location and immediately attend to my partner.
[[Page 33718]]
And then they carry him away. I'm separated from my partner
for the first time. I'm not clear of thought and then I too
am carried way but to a different hospital.
I'm in a building lying on a table with lights above and
people talking. Still dazed and confused I hear a strange
voice say my name, ``Lex!'' I gesture a slight reflex of
acknowledgement. ``Lex! You are going to be okay buddy! Just
lay still. We are going to take care of your hurts, so stay
calm okay, Lex?'' My eyes dart around the room searching for
my partner, but he's not there and no one can interpret my
thoughts.
I'm released from the hospital and well enough to travel so
they transfer me from Iraq to a U.S. Marine Corp base in
Albany, Georgia. I really miss my partner, Dusty. I know
something has happened to him because he would never have
left me alone for so long.
Yes, my name is Lex. I'm a seven year old German shepherd
Military Working Dog. My master and loyal partner is Corporal
Dustin Jerome Lee, U.S. Marine Corps canine handler from
Mississippi. I'm well disciplined to my master's commands and
expertly trained to sniff out bombs and explosives. Where's
my master, Dusty? Where's Dusty, my partner? No one can
understand me but Dusty. Where's Dusty?
Iraq was to be my last combat tour before retirement. Dusty
talked to me all the time about going home and adopting me. I
sure do miss my Dusty. He is the best friend I've ever had. I
love that crazy Marine from Mississippi!
No one can measure the love and unconditional loyalty I
have for Dusty. I'd sacrifice my own life for him and he
knows it. I just wish I could have stopped that RPG or pushed
Dusty away from that powerful blast. It all happened in a
blink of an eye and I didn't see it coming until it was too
late. Now I sit alone in my kennel-run waiting for the day
Dusty shows up.
The U.S. Marines are treating me very well. I get enough
food and water and exercise each day. And the Veterinarian
comes by to examine my wounds on a regular basis. I just
can't sleep well at night. I wake up to every little noise
and I think about Dusty. Where can that Marine be?
The nights are long. The days turn into weeks. Still no
Dusty! My wounds are healing and the hair is growing back.
The pain still resides in my back but I can walk okay. I have
a piece of shrapnel near my spine that the Veterinarians
avoided removing for fear of further health complications.
I've been fortunate to be declared physically unable to
perform in a combat zone.
One of the dog handlers gave me a real good bath and
grooming. I felt so refreshed because I was on my way to meet
Dusty's family. Maybe Dusty will be there waiting for me.
When I arrived I sensed something was not quite right. Dusty
wasn't there and everyone was sad, but very happy to greet
me. I then realized that I was attending Dusty's funeral.
Everyone showed up to pay their respects.
Dusty is a real American hero and he was buried with full
military honors. I was so proud to have been his last best
friend and partner. At one particular moment of total silence
during the ceremony, I sniffed a slight scent in the air that
was very familiar. It smelled like Dusty. I figured he sent
me a signal that he knew I was there! I moaned a sigh of
grief that he would only hear and understand.
I was greeted by the Lee family with joy in their hearts.
The picture is of Dustin's mom, Rachel, and me in church. It
felt so warm and comfortable to be with my partner's loving
family. I wanted to stay but I was escorted away after the
funeral and back to Albany, Georgia. What is going to happen
to me now?
Wait a minute! I was due for retirement, right? Why did the
military take me to see Dusty's family and not leave me
there? I belong with them in Mississippi not here in Georgia.
There is something very wrong with this picture!
The Lee family adopting me would not be too much to ask
considering they will never again see their son, grandson,
brother, nephew and friend. Adopting me will keep a big part
of Dusty's life alive for them and for me too! I will enable
Dusty's family to experience what he already knew about me. I
loved and protected him everywhere we went and even on the
battlefield in Iraq. It's time the U.S. Marine Corps allowed
Dustin's family to adopt me. I'm not a young pup anymore, you
know! I'm of retirement age and I want to spend the rest of
my life with the Lee family. It's where I now belong!
After learning this story, I spoke with Corporal Lee's father, Jerome
Lee, by phone on several occasions. Mr. Lee continued to express the
joy and comfort that caring for Lex would bring to him and his family,
and he requested my assistance in securing the adoption of Lex.
After speaking with Mr. Lee, I began contacting the United States
Marine Corps to communicate and endorse their request. Recently, the
Marine Corps confirmed to me that the request would be granted and the
Lee family would be able to retrieve Lex from Marine Corps Logistic
Base Albany within the next 2 weeks.
Allowing the Lee family to adopt Lex will not only help lessen the
family's ongoing grief, but also serve as a fitting thank you to
parents who gave the ultimate gift of their son for this country.
I am so grateful to the United States Marine Corps and Commandant
James Conway for the tremendous gift they have chosen to bestow upon
Jerome and Rachel Lee.
I am also very grateful to Brigadier General Michael Regner and Major
General Robert Dickerson for their role in enabling the adoption to
proceed.
Although Lex will never replace their son, caring for Lex will bring
such joy and comfort to the Lee family, as well as to the dog himself.
Welcoming Lex into the Lee family will keep a big part of Corporal
Lee's life alive for their family.
Lex loved and protected Corporal Lee on the battlefield, and now
Corporal Lee's family will have the opportunity to love and protect Lex
in the peaceful surroundings of their home in Mississippi.
The United States Marine Corps has demonstrated its tremendous
compassion and understanding by making this adoption a reality for the
parents of one of our Nation's fallen heroes.
I close, Madam Speaker, by asking God to please bless the United
States Marine Corps and all of our men and women in uniform, and may
God continue to bless America.
Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. The Lee family is from Quitman, Mississippi. The dad is a
State Trooper. The mom is a public school teacher. I want to thank you
for doing this. I regret that the request was not made of my office.
But it just once again proves what a decent Joe you are, Walter. Thank
you for doing that
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman. And I will
tell the gentleman, before he sits down, when I read this story it
brought tears to my eyes. And I asked Mr. Burnam, who had been in
Vietnam himself as a dog handler, What should I do, what could I do. He
said, Do what your heart tells you to do. And my dear friend from
Mississippi, I didn't even know where this man was in Mississippi. I
just picked up the phone because Camp Lejeune was in my district. But
thank you for what you said. And may God continue to bless America.
____________________
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN THIS CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about what has not
been accomplished in this Congress, and what it looks like we may be
facing in an omnibus bill.
Last week we were told that we would be here on Friday of this coming
week, after we had been told about a month ago that we would be able to
be in our districts on Friday. I know that I made many plans to be in
the district, speak to school groups that had been asking me to speak,
meet with chamber of commerce people to talk about concerns that they
had, and to do lots of things in the district.
We have been denied many opportunities this year to be in our
district to hear from the folks in the district the things that are on
their minds and what's really important in the country, because the
majority has insisted that we stay in session 5 days a week. But if you
look at the bills that have been passed in those days that we've been
here, you'd see that they were not things that primarily the Congress
needs to be concerning itself with.
We do need to be concerning ourselves with the appropriations bills,
funding the war on terror, taking care of tax relief for middle-income
Americans, many, many things that we should be doing. But, instead, we
are literally wasting our time on insignificant issues and not dealing
with those things we should be dealing with.
[[Page 33719]]
It was announced last week that we would be dealing with an omnibus
appropriations bill. Why an omnibus appropriations bill? Because the
majority has been unable to pass 10 of the vital appropriations bills
that our government relies for its funding on.
We have passed the Defense bill and the President has signed it.
We've passed the Labor-HHS bill. The President vetoed it and the veto
was upheld. So we are coming to the end of a continuing resolution that
was passed that expires on Friday, and we're facing the prospect of
lumping 11 appropriations bills together and passing them in one fell
swoop. Well, we know that is just a recipe for disaster.
Last week we were given the Energy bill, 15 hours before we voted on
it, a 1,000-plus page bill, and it had all kinds of problems with it.
Buying Lexus hybrids for the Beverly Hills police, many, many things in
there that the American people would not approve of. And I fear that in
the omnibus bill we're going to see a lot of those kinds of things.
Now, we don't know yet what's going to be in the omnibus bill, but in
addition to a tremendous number of earmarks, we are probably going to
see sanctions against Cuba weakened. We are probably going to see the
Mexico City policy overturned. The House and Senate versions of the
State Department appropriations bill permits grants and subsidies for
organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of
family planning, overturning the Bush administration's Mexico City
policy. We don't need to be doing that. The American people do not want
us to take their hard-earned money to fund abortions.
It is probably going to provide federally funded benefits for
domestic partners. Before being stripped from the House-passed
Financial Services general government appropriations bill, a provision
would have allowed unmarried cohabiting couples in the District of
Columbia to qualify for Federal benefits on the same basis as legally
married couples. That provision could be brought back to life in the
majority's omnibus legislation.
Ending an IRS private debt collection program, the majority spending
bill could limit funding to implement the Internal Revenue Service's
use of private collection firms to collect unpaid taxes. The private
debt collection initiative is expected to collect $1.3 billion in taxes
owed to the government that would otherwise go uncollected.
Undermining regulatory reform, a provision in the House-passed
Financial Services general government appropriations bill, again, H.R.
2829, would kill efforts to increase the quality, accountability, and
transparency of the Federal Government's regulatory review process. It
would result in a fox guarding the hen house approach to approving
Federal rules and regulations.
We don't need an omnibus bill. We need to vote on these bills one at
a time, Madam Speaker.
____________________
BLOOD LEVELS OF MERCURY ARE RELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OF AUTISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, it's late at night here in the
Capitol, and most of my colleagues are in their offices or have gone
home. But I want to talk about an issue that's very, very important
that we've been talking about now for the last 8 years.
I was chairman of the Government Reform Committee for 6 years, and
during that time, my grandson became autistic; and we checked to find
out what was the cause, trying to find out, because my daughter and her
husband were just extremely upset about it, as we were as grandparents.
And we found that he had received nine shots in one day, seven of which
had a product called themarasol, a preservative, in it. And the
themarasol was 50 percent ethylmercury. And so I decided to have
hearings to try to find out if the ethylmercury in those vaccines had
anything to do with the autistic problem my grandson had. And we found,
by having many, many hearings over a 4-year period, we found that
scientists from all over the world and leading doctors and educators
here that work with autistic children, that the mercury in the vaccines
did contribute to the autistic epidemic that we had.
We used to have one in 10,000 children that were diagnosed as being
autistic. One in 10,000. Today the Centers for Disease Control will
tell you it's one out of 150. It's an absolute epidemic in this
country. And we have been fighting and fighting and fighting to make
sure that those families who have been damaged and those children who
have been damaged by autism get some kind of compensation. And that's
why, and I think in 1986 we passed what was called the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Fund, and it took some of the money from the
pharmaceutical companies when they sold their vaccine products to put
into this fund to take care of people who are damaged by vaccines. And
one of the reasons we did that was because of the issue of autism,
although at that time I didn't know much about it.
In any event, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund has about $3
billion in it, and the people who's children have been adversely
affected by mercury and have autism have not been able to get anything
out of that. They have to go through a process and see a special
master, and he has to judge whether or not the information that he has
and the information they have lead them to believe that the mercury in
the vaccines caused autism. And so far the special masters have not
been able to ascertain, according to them, that the mercury in the
vaccines does cause autism.
Well, last week, 2 years ago, let's see, 4 years ago there was a
report, 2004, that said that there was definitely no connection between
the mercury and the vaccinations and the children getting autism. Well,
this past November, just last month, two doctors, Dr. Catherine DeSoto
and Dr. Robert T. Hitlan, both very renowned doctors across this
country, they have Ph.D.s in medicine, they wrote an article in the
Journal of Child Neurology. And you can't discount this. What they're
saying is fact. I want to read to you the summary of what they said.
They said: ``The question of what is leading to the apparent increase
in autism is of great importance. Like the link between aspirin and
heart attack, even a small effect can have a major health implication.
If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely
crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stated
and that no link occurs.''
Now, get this: ``We have reanalyzed the data set forth originally
reported in 2004 and have found that the original P value was in error
and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of
mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the
hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that
persons with autism may be less efficient and more variable at
eliminating mercury from the blood.''
The fact of the matter is the mercury in the vaccines has autism.
It's not the only cause of autism. But now we have scientific evidence
by two leading doctors in the Journal of Child Neurology that says
without doubt, the mercury in the vaccines does cause autism, is a
major contributing factor.
Well, I've written, contacted Congressman Kucinich, who's chairman of
the subcommittee that deals with this in the Capitol, and I've also
contacted the special masters that decide these cases and have urged
them to re-evaluate all of these cases where people who have autistic
children have found that the mercury in the vaccines may have been a
major cause.
Now we know that it is a cause of autism, and those people who have
suffered, and those kids who have suffered need to be compensated out
of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.
So I'd like to say to my colleagues, I hope you will join me in
making sure that the information I just read gets out to everybody.
These kids are going to live to be 50, 60, 70 years old, and unless
there's some help for them, they're
[[Page 33720]]
going to be a real burden on the taxpayers and on society. We have an
obligation to make sure they're taken care of.
I hope all of my colleagues will read this statement tonight and help
us to change the attitude of our health agencies and the special
masters dealing with this problem.
In November 2007, the well-respected scientific journal, the Journal
of Child Neurology, published an article authored by Drs. M. Catherine
DeSoto and Robert T. Hiltlan (PhDs), detailing their findings on the
relationship between mercury and autism spectrum disorders. The article
was entitled ``Blood Levels of Mercury are Related to Diagnosis of
Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set.''
To summarize the article, Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan reanalyzed a data
set the subject of a 2004 study that found no relationship between
mercury and autism. By reexamining the data set, Drs. DeSoto and
Hiltlan determined that the conclusions of the 2004 study were wrong,
and that a relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and
diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.
As Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan noted in their article, there has been a
marked increase in the diagnosis of autism in this country over the
last 20 years. In fact we have gone from an autism rate of 1 in 10,000
to 1 in 150. So, answering the question of what is (and is not) a
possible contributing cause of autism is crucial, not only to the
millions of American families currently affected by autism but to
future generations.
We simply cannot dismiss or downplay scientific research, which has
the potential to unlock the mysteries surrounding what is causing our
Nation's autism crisis. We owe it to the thousands of families living
with autism to follow the science wherever it may lead.
That's why in late November, I wrote to the Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Representative Dennis Kucinich; and
the Special Masters assigned to the Congressionally-created Office of
Vaccine Program within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alerting them
to the findings in Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan's latest research.
Specifically, I asked the Special Masters to take Drs. DeSoto and
Hiltlan's latest findings into consideration as they carry out their
mandate of managing and adjudicating childhood vaccine claims. I asked
Chairman Kucinich to hold a hearing on the environmental risks of
mercury in childhood vaccines before the 110th Congress ends.
Given the high stakes involved, scientific reports discussing a
connection between blood mercury levels and autism deserve serious
consideration and review by the medical and scientific community.
During my tenure as Chairman of the House Committee on Government and
Reform, I spent 6 years researching and hearing testimony from the
autism advocacy and scientific communities about the autism epidemic
sweeping our country. Over and over again, questions of causation,
namely the use of thimerosal--the mercury-based vaccine preservative--
in childhood vaccines were raised.
Here's what I learned:
A number of credible national and international scientists testified
before the Committee that mercury in vaccines is a contributing factor
in developing neurological disorders, including, but not limited to,
modest declines in intelligent quotient, autism, and Alzheimer's
disease. And the body of evidence to support that conclusion gets
larger everyday.
Experience tells us that, as with any other epidemic, while there may
be underlying genetic susceptibilities, there usually is also some type
of environmental trigger as well--be it exposure to a virus, fungus,
heavy metal, or pollutant. There has never, to the best of my
knowledge, been a purely genetic epidemic.
Genetics alone cannot explain how we went from 1 in 10,000 children
with autism spectrum disorders 20 years ago to 1 in 150 today. The
increase happened far too quickly for a genetic shift.
As mercury is a known bio-accumulative neurotoxin, it is biologically
plausible that it is a contributing factor to our Nation's autism
epidemic.
Autism has no cure, and while it is a life-changing condition, it is
not a life-threatening disease. This means that the autistic children
of today will be the autistic adults and autistic seniors, 20, 30, 50,
even 70 years from now. Our Nation is ill prepared to deal with the
complex educational, financial, housing, and health care challenges
posed by a generation of autistic individuals.
My only grandson is autistic, so this is an issue that is very close
to my heart; and for the last several years I have fought hard to raise
awareness of this disease, and increase research into the causes of
autism, as well as new treatments for those suffering with autism.
As a Nation, I believe, we have a collective responsibility to do
everything we can to not only stop the further spread of this disease
but to help the millions of children, adults and families afflicted
with it.
Journal of Child Neurology
Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A
Reanalysis of an Important Data Set
(By M. Catherine DeSoto, PhD, and Robert T. Hitlan, PhD)
The question of what is leading to the apparent increase in
autism is of great importance. Like the link between aspirin
and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health
implications. If there is any link between autism and
mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of
the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs. We
have reanalyzed the data set originally reported by Ip et al.
in 2004 and have found that the original p value was in error
and that a significant relation dose exist between the blood
levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum
disorder. Moreover, the hair sample analysis results offer
some support for the idea that persons with autism may be
less efficient and more variable at eliminating mercury from
the blood.
Keywords: autism; mercury; environmental health;
neurotoxin; neurodevelopment; blood.
There is a marked increase in the diagnosis of autism. The
question of what is (and is not) related to this increase is
crucial to millions of persons affected by the disorder. This
article reanalyzes an original data set regarding the
relation between blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by Ip et al. based on our
finding of discrepancies in the original article.\1\
A review of what is known about the neurotoxic effects of
mercury is beyond the scope of this paper,\2\ but the
observable symptoms of acute mercury poisoning have been
reported to match up with many of the problems observed in
autism.\4\ Furthermore, mercury poisoning has sometimes been
presumptively diagnosed as autism of unknown etiology until
the mercury poisoning has been uncovered.\4\ Because there
has been a several-fold increase in environmental mercury
exposure, the hypothesis that the rise in autism could be
related to an environmental increase in mercury levels is a
reasonable one to pursue. Autism may result from a
combination of genetic susceptibility (perhaps in the form of
reduced ability to remove mercury or other neurotoxins from
the system) and environmental exposure at key times in
development.5,7 This would mean a generalized
increase in mercury levels would be expected to co-occur with
a generalized increase in autism. but some people exposed to
relatively high mercury would not be affected if, for
example, their bodies were very efficient eliminators of such
toxins. Only if an exposed infant or fetus also had a genetic
susceptibility that makes one less able to remove mercury (or
other heavy metals) would normal levels of mercury exposure
lead to problems. Alternatively, it could be that genes that
help detoxify get switched on and start to express themselves
a little later than normal in those genetically predisposed
to autism; or perhaps. autism results from some combination
of these theories.
Nevertheless, if mercury does play any causal role in
facilitating a diagnosis of autism, there would likely be at
least some relation between high mercury measured in the
blood and symptoms of autism even if ability to metabolize
mediates the relationship between exposure and neural
toxicity. This is because even if exposure is identical,
those who remove mercury less effectively should still have
higher levels in the blood. Interestingly, results of hair
samples could be expected to be somewhat mixed. The level of
mercury in hair may be better understood as an indication of
how much mercury has been removed by the body as opposed to
the level in the body.\6\ If people are approximately equal
in their ability to remove circulating mercury from the
bloodstream, then these 2 indicators should match up closely,
but if a person's ability to excrete is low, their hair
samples might not be elevated even when their blood levels
are high.
Fido and Al-Saad found that mercury levels in hair samples
were higher in children diagnosed with autism.\8\ These
children were aged 4 to 7. In contrast, Kern et al. reported
that mercury hair levels were not significantly different,
but were lower at a marginally significant level.\9\ Kern et
al. used younger children, ages 1 to 6. Holmes et al.
performed the most direct test of the hypothesis that
autistic children may be deficient in terms of ability to
remove mercury from circulation.\6\ This study estimated
mercury exposure of the mothers via a mercury exposure survey
questionnaire. They then analyzed the first haircuts of the
autistic children and a group of controls (the first haircuts
would reflect mercury excretion in utero and very early
life). In the autistic group, severity of autism was
inversely related to hair mercury levels. This means that the
more severe autistic cases actually had less excretion of
mercury. Furthermore,
[[Page 33721]]
among the normal children, hair levels of mercury were
correlated to the mother's mercury exposure (as would of
course be expected). But among the autistic children, there
was no linear relation between the mother's mercury exposure
and excretion of mercury in the hair. As the authors state,
this pattern of results is easily understood if one considers
``detoxification capacity of a subset of infants,''\6\ such
that the bodies of those diagnosed with autism appeared to be
less able to excrete and/or metabolize the mercury they were
exposed to.
As the rise in autism is relatively recent, it is not
surprising that research into the etiology has not kept pace.
Indeed, there are few published articles that consider blood
levels of children with mercury that utilize a control group;
a psycInfo search using the words ``autism,'' ``mercury,''
and ``blood'' yields only one hit.\1\ Given the high stakes
involved, it is crucial that early reports of the connection
between blood mercury levels and autism not be misstated.
Even a small effect size would be of great theoretical and
practical consequence.
In 2004, Ip et al. reported that no relationship existed
between mercury blood levels and diagnosis of autistic
spectrum disorder among a group of children with an average
age of approximately 7 years. While attempting to estimate
the effect size based on the Ip et al. statistics, we
realized that the numbers reported by Ip et at could not be
correct. The means and standard deviations reported in the
2004 article yielded an easily significant t value (autism
mean = 19.53 nmol/L, SD = 5.6, n = 82; control mean = 17.68
nmol/L, SD = 2.48, n = 55 gives a t = 2.283, two-tailed P =
.024 or one-tailed P = .012). Ip et al. wrote that the P
value was ``(P) = .15,'' 1(p432) and that their
data indicate ``there is no causal relationship between
mercury and as an environmental neurotoxin and autism.''\1\
After the error was brought to the attention of the authors,
a new analysis was conducted by the original authors and they
found the original t test to be in error and the P value to
be a mistake (refer to Erratum, p. 1324). Based on their
corrected analysis, the authors report the revised P value
for their t test to actually be P = .056. We disagree on
several grounds that these data indicate no significant
effect exists, and report on a completely new reanalysis of
the original data set.
Methods
Outliers were removed prior to statistical analysis. An
outlier is defined as a score that is ``substantially greater
or less than the values obtained from any other
individual.''\10\ Outliers have an unduly large influence on
the outcome of a statistical test. What actually qualifies as
an outlier differs depending on the research question and the
statistician analyzing the results; however, values greater
than 3 standard deviations either above or below the mean
generally qualify as extreme cases.\11\ Within the Ip et al.
data, there were 2 such values that were not removed prior to
our reanalysis. These 2 values were more than 3 standard
deviations above the mean, and both of these values were far
from any other score. (Other scores were within 3 points of
the next individual; these 2 scores were each 15 or more
points away from any other score in the distribution.) To
avoid the appearance that these 2 outliers were removed to
influence the statistical outcome as opposed to objective
criteria for cleaning a data set, it should be noted that the
biggest outlier of the 2 was an unusually high blood mercury
level of 98, which was in the autistic group. To be clear--if
anything, removal of the outliers resulted in a more
conservative test as it actually decreased the mean
difference between the 2 groups.
Results
Logistic regression was performed using blood mercury level
as the predictor and the autistic/control group as the
criterion. Results of this reanalysis indicate that blood
mercury level can be used to predict autism diagnosis. Data
included: r = .20, r\2\ = .04, F(1, 133) = 5.76, P = .017.
This finding indicates that there is a statistically
significant relationship between mercury levels in the blood
and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.
There was no difference in the mean hair levels where
t(l35) = .24 and one-tailed P = .40; this is essentially the
same result reported in the original article. However, given
that hair levels would normally be expected to be highly
correlated to blood levels, it might be surprising that blood
levels could predict an autism spectrum diagnosis, but that
hair mercury levels could not. Indeed, hair and mercury
levels for the full sample were correlated (r = .86, P <
.001) indicating that about 75% of the variance in hair
levels was accounted for by the mercury level in the blood.
To us, the question turned to what the other 25% of the
variance might be due, and whether the assumptions of the t
test were violated. Although not the central focus of this
report, these results could certainly help to inform future
researchers of the nature of the relation between autism and
mercury, and we include this information for completeness.
Exploratory Analysis. If one hypothesizes that persons with
autism are less able to excrete mercury, especially when
their blood levels get in the higher range, one might expect
that the correlation between blood and hair levels would
break down at the higher blood levels among the autism
spectrum group (a type of heteroscedasticity).\5\ Another way
of looking at it, the relationship between blood level and
hair excretion may be different for persons with autism than
those without autism. Levine's test of equality of variance
indicated the variance in hair mercury was not evenly
distributed between the autism and control groups (F = 5.98,
P = .017). We calculated the correlation for persons whose
circulating levels of mercury were in the top quartile
separately for the autism and control groups. The correlation
between blood and hair levels of mercury was r = .91 for the
control group (accounting for 84% of the variance). For the
autistic group, the correlation was r = .73, meaning only
about 55% of the variance in the hair mercury levels was
attributable to the blood mercury level differences.
To check the hypothesis that hair excretion was overall
lower than would otherwise be predicted based on a certain
blood level in the autistic group, a best fit regression line
was calculated (y = 10.3, x = -2.48) indicting that for each
unit increase in hair level, blood level increased by 10.3
units. Attest on the residuals showed that autistic
participants were significantly more likely to have lower
hair mercury levels than would be predicted as a function of
their blood levels, t(133) = -2.92, P < .005; see Figure 1).
It should also be noted that the presence of unequal
variances or nonrandom residuals (in this case, autistic
persons are both more likely to have greater variability at
high levels of circulating mercury and a lower hair value for
a given blood level) are both violations of important
assumptions of the t test; a t test of hair mercury is
therefore probably not a valid means to predict autism
diagnosis as a function of mercury exposure. We performed an
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with autism diagnosis as the
independent variable and hair mercury level as the dependent
predictor using blood levels as a covariate. Results indicate
that hair level may be related to diagnosis of autism, not as
a predictor in terms of absolute value, but such that for
equivalent circulating levels of mercury in the body, those
with ASD excreted less than normal such that F(1,134) = 3.9
and P = .05. To sum, the relationship between blood levels of
mercury and mercury excreted in the hair is reduced for those
with autism compared with nonautistic persons; furthermore,
the difference between autistic and nonautistic persons is
most pronounced at high levels of mercury.
Discussion
In statistics, obtaining a probability value of P < .05
indicates that the obtained test statistic (based on one's
sample) is extremely unlikely (less then 5% chance) to have
been obtained by chance alone. By convention, this value is
usually set at .05 (as a balance of type 1 and type 2
errors); however, this value is, in fact, arbitrary and
statistical probability tables for hypothesis testing always
include a range of probability values--not only probability
at the .05 level. Given that this is the first direct test of
this hypothesis and considering the potential importance of
finding a relation between mercury blood levels and autism,
it is just as important to avoid a false negative as a false
positive. As the original authors have now currently
calculated, the obtained difference suggests that there is
probably a real difference (specifically that the chance that
a real effect exists is about 94%, or, conversely, that the
chance null effect is true is less than 6%, which misses the
conventional .05--or 5%--mark of statistical significance).
Given the close value to conventional significance, most
researchers would not call this a firm rejection of the
hypothesis, but might say it was marginally significant. Most
researchers facing a P value of .056 would not want to
categorically state that results ``indicate that there is no
casual relation between mercury level . . . and autism.''\1\
It concerns us that the original authors would want to let
this conclusion stand in light of the new P value (which
differs markedly from the .15 previously reported in 2004).
Another issue to consider is the question of a one-tailed
or a two-tailed hypothesis test. Usually, researchers use a
two-tailed test, which tests if there is a ``difference''
between 2 groups. However, when the literature leads a
researcher to propose a specific direction of the difference,
a one-tailed test is called for, ``Often a researcher begins
an experiment with a specific prediction about the treatment
effect. For example, a special training program is expected
to increase student performance, or alcohol consumption is
expected to slow reaction times . . . The result is a
directional test, or what is commonly called a one-tailed
test.''\10\
Whether to use a one-tailed test or a two-tailed test can
be decided based on considering what would happen if the
results ended up in the opposite direction of what one
suspects. In this case, it would mean that the blood mercury
levels were lower in the autistic group. Would this support
the original hypothesis? (No!) However, if this were to
happen, that is, if the autistic group were significantly
lower in their blood mercury levels than the normal group,
the researchers would find themselves in the incongruous
[[Page 33722]]
position of having to accept their hypothesis that autism is
related to elevated levels of mercury in the blood! The key
point here is that their hypothesis was directional, and a
one-tailed test should have been used. In this case, the just
missed significance of their new analysis using a two-tailed
t-test (P = .056) would have reached a conventional level of
statistical significance (with P <.03).
Although the statistics can be tedious, the bottom line is
that only by an apparent error in the original data analysis
was the original lack of effect found. The authors' revised
calculation (t test) still has problems (two-tailed test for
a directional hypothesis, not removing clear outliers). And
finally, the willingness to characterize a t test with a .056
level of statistical significance as no effect is
questionable, especially in this particular case.
Of utmost importance (which outweighs the discomfort of
writing about an error made by colleagues whom we know are
generally competent researchers) is that potential
researchers who are trying to understand what is and is not
behind the rise in autism are not misled by even the
slightest misinformation. It is imperative that researchers,
medical professionals, and the public at large have the full
set of information. To put it in perspective, the connection
between taking aspirin and prevention of heart attack has an
effect size equal to .038 which represents an effect size
approximately equal to what we find between circulating
levels and ASD diagnosis in this age group.\12\ Just as
important is the fact that for those physicians in the
aspirin group who did have a heart attack, the heart attack
was less likely to be fatal. The effect size for this latter
effect was .08 and did not represent a significant difference
from the placebo group by traditional dichotomous
significance testing.\13\ Yet, this does not mean no effect
exists or that the effect is not of practical importance. We
would encourage all researchers to not only report whether a
test of mercury and autism reaches significance with the
sample size used, but to report the exact statistic and also
effect sizes to help future researchers resolve all the
factors involved in the etiology of autism.
References
1. Ip P, Wong V, Ho M, Lee J, Wong W. Mercury exposure in
children with autistic spectrum disorder. J Child Neuro.
2004; 19:431-434.
2. National Academy of Sciences. Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
3. Bernard S, Enayati A, Redwood L, et al. Autism: a novel
form of mercury poisoning. Med Hypoth. 2001;56:462-471.
4. Chrysochoou C, Rutishauser C, Rauher-Luthy C, et al. An
11-month-old boy with psychomotor-regression and auto-
aggressive behavior. Eur J Pediatr. 2003; 162:559-56.
5. Adams JB, Romdalvic J, Sadagopa VH, Legator MS. Mercury,
lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus
controls. J Toxicol Eviron Health. 2007;70:1046-1051.
6. Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of
mercury in first haby haircuts of autistic children. Int J
Toxico. 2003; 22:277-285.
7. Walker SJ, Segal J, Aschner M. Cultured lymphocytes from
autistic children and nonautistic siblings up-regulate heat
shock protein RNA in response to thimerosal challenge.
Neurotoxicol. 2006; 27:685-692.
8. Fido A, Al-Saad S. Toxic race elements in the hair of
children with autism. Autism. 2005;9:290-298.
9. Kern JK, Grannerman BD, Triverdi MH, Adams J.
Sulfhydryl-reative metals in autism. J Toxicol Environ
Health. 2007;70:715-721.
10. Gravetter FJ, Wallnau LB. Essentials of Statistics for
the Behavioral Sciences. 4th ed. Pacific Grove, CA:
Wadsworth; 2005.
11. Tabachnik B, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics.
New York: Prentice Hall; 2006.
12. Steering Committee of the Physicians' Health Study
Research Group. Preliminary report: findings from the aspirin
component of the ongoing physicians' health study. N Engl J
Med. 1988;318:262-264.
13. Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R. Statistical procedures and the
justification of knowledge in psychological science. AM
Psychol. 1989;44:1276-1284.
____________________
{time} 1945
PUBLICATION OF THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 110TH
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, in accordance with clause 2(a) of rule XI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the
rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for printing in the
Congressional Record. The Committee on Energy and Commerce adopted
these rules by a voice vote, a quorum being present, at our
organizational meeting on January 10, 2007.
RULES FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 110TH CONGRESS
(Adopted January 10, 2007)
RULE 1.--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) Rules of the Committee.--The Rules of the House are the
rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereinafter
the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as is
applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day,
and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of
a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, is
nondebatable and privileged in the Committee and its
subcommittees.
(b) Rules of the Subcommittees.--Each subcommittee of the
Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the
authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so
far as applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee,
not inconsistent with the Rules of the House, shall be
binding on each subcommittee of the Committee.
RULE 2.--TIME AND PLACE OF MEETINGS
(a) Regular Meeting Days.--The Committee shall meet on the
fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the
consideration of bills, resolutions, and other business, if
the House is in session on that day. If the House is not in
session on that day and the Committee has not met during such
month, the Committee shall meet at the earliest practicable
opportunity when the House is again in session. The chairman
of the Committee may, at his discretion, cancel, delay, or
defer any meeting required under this section, after
consultation with the ranking minority member.
(b) Additional Meetings.--The chairman may call and
convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of
the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution
pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other
Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such
purposes pursuant to that call of the chairman.
(c) Vice Chairmen; Presiding Member.--The chairman shall
designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice
chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority
member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each
subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or
subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any
meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the
chairman. If the chairman and vice chairman of the Committee
or subcommittee are not present at any meeting or hearing,
the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall
preside at the meeting or hearing.
(d) Open Meetings and Hearings.--Except as provided by the
Rules of the House, each meeting of the Committee or any of
its subcommittees for the transaction of business, including
the markup of legislation, and each hearing, shall be open to
the public including to radio, television and still
photography coverage, consistent with the provisions of rule
XI of the Rules of the House.
RULE 3.--AGENDA
The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee meeting
(other than a hearing), setting out the date, time, place,
and all items of business to be considered, shall be provided
to each member of the Committee at least 36 hours in advance
of such meeting.
RULE 4.--PROCEDURE
(a)(1) Hearings.--The date, time, place, and subject matter
of any hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees
shall be announced at least one week in advance of the
commencement of such hearing, unless the Committee or
subcommittee determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House that there is good cause to
begin the hearing sooner.
(2)(A) Meetings.--The date, time, place, and subject matter
of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday,
Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session,
shall be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in
session on such days) in advance of the commencement of such
meeting.
(3) Motions.--Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to
day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24
hours), and to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a
bill or resolution if printed copies are available shall be
decided without debate.
(B) Other Meetings.--The date, time, place, and subject
matter of a meeting (other than a hearing or a meeting to
which subparagraph (A) applies) shall be announced at least
72 hours in advance of the commencement of such meeting.
(b)(1) Requirements for Testimony.--Each witness who is to
appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with
the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in
advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as
determined by the chairman of the Committee or a
subcommittee, of a written statement of his or her proposed
testimony to provide to members and staff of the Committee or
subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. Each
witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also
provide a copy of such written testimony in
[[Page 33723]]
an electronic format prescribed by the chairman. Each witness
shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary
of the argument. The chairman of the Committee or of a
subcommittee, or the presiding member, may waive the
requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof.
(2) Additional Requirements for Testimony.--To the greatest
extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness
appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a
curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source
(by agency and program) of any federal grant (or subgrant
thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during
the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal
years by the witness or by an entity represented by the
witness.
(c)(1) Questioning Witnesses.--The right to interrogate the
witnesses before the Committee or any of its subcommittees
shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each
member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of
witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has
had an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be
recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a
witness until each member of the Committee present has been
recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee or
subcommittee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the
interrogation of witnesses, the chairman shall recognize in
order of appearance members who were not present when the
meeting was called to order after all members who were
present when the meeting was called to order have been
recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee or
subcommittee, as the case may be.
(2) Questions for the Record.--Each member may submit to
the Chairman of the Committee or the subcommittee additional
questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the
questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the
Committee no later than ten business days following a
hearing. The Chairman shall transmit all questions received
from members of the Committee or the subcommittee to the
appropriate witness, and include the transmittal letter and
the responses from the witnesses in the hearing record.
(d) Explanation of Subcommittee Action.--No bill,
recommendation, or other matter reported by a subcommittee
shall be considered by the full Committee unless the text of
the matter reported, together with an explanation, has been
available to members of the Committee for at least 36 hours.
Such explanation shall include a summary of the major
provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the
relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary of
the need for the legislation. All subcommittee actions shall
be reported promptly by the clerk of the Committee to all
members of the Committee.
(e) Opening Statements.--(1) All written opening statements
at hearings conducted by the committee or any of its
subcommittees shall be made part of the permanent hearing
record.
(2) Statements shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the
chairman and ranking minority member (or their respective
designee) of the Committee or subcommittee, as applicable,
and 3 minutes each for all other members. With the consent of
the Committee, prior to the recognition of the first witness
for testimony, any Member, when recognized for an opening
statement, may completely defer his or her opening statement
and instead use those three minutes during the initial round
of questioning.
(3) At any hearing of the full Committee, the chairman may
limit opening statements for Members (including, at the
discretion of the Chairman, the chairman and ranking minority
member) to one minute. At any hearing conducted by any
subcommittee, the chairman of that subcommittee, with the
consent of its ranking minority member, may reduce the time
for statements by members or defer statements until the
conclusion of testimony.
RULE 5.--WAIVER OF AGENDA, NOTICE, AND LAYOVER REQUIREMENTS
Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by
a majority of those present and voting (a majority being
present) of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may
be.
RULE 6.--QUORUM
Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing
at which there are present not fewer than two members of the
Committee or subcommittee in question. A majority of the
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the
purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a
subpoena, or of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to
clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as
provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)). For the purposes of
taking any action other than those specified in the preceding
sentence, one-third of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum.
RULE 7.--OFFICIAL COMMITTEE RECORDS
(a)(1) Journal.--The proceedings of the Committee shall be
recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show
those present at each meeting, and include a record of the
vote on any question on which a record vote is demanded and a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition voted. A copy of the journal shall be furnished
to the ranking minority member.
(2) Record Votes.--A record vote may be demanded by one-
fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a
quorum, by any one member. No demand for a record vote shall
be made or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a
record vote or in the apparent absence of a quorum. The
result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee
shall be made available in the Committee office for
inspection by the public, as provided in Rule XI, clause 2(e)
of the Rules of the House.
(b) Archived Records.--The records of the Committee at the
National Archives and Records Administration shall be made
available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the
Rules of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking
minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)
or clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a record otherwise
available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee
for a determination on the written request of any member of
the Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking
minority member on any communication from the Archivist of
the United States or the Clerk of the House concerning the
disposition of noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of
the Rule.
RULE 8.--SUBCOMMITTEES
There shall be such standing subcommittees with such
jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party
caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size
of the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority
party caucus prior to the start of the process for
establishing subcommittee chairmanships and assignments.
RULE 9.--POWERS AND DUTIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the
Committee on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee
chairmen shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the
approval of the chairman of the Committee with a view toward
assuring the availability of meeting rooms and avoiding
simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee
meetings or hearings whenever possible.
RULE 10.--REFERENCE OF LEGISLATION AND OTHER MATTERS
All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee
shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate
jurisdiction within two weeks of the date of receipt by the
Committee unless action is taken by the full committee within
those two weeks, or by majority vote of the members of the
Committee, consideration is to be by the full Committee. In
the case of legislation or other matter within the
jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee, the chairman of
the Committee may, in his discretion, refer the matter
simultaneously to two or more subcommittees for concurrent
consideration, or may designate a subcommittee of primary
jurisdiction and also refer the matter to one or more
additional subcommittees for consideration in sequence
(subject to appropriate time limitations), either on its
initial referral or after the matter has been reported by the
subcommittee of primary jurisdiction. Such authority shall
include the authority to refer such legislation or matter to
an ad hoc subcommittee appointed by the chairman, with the
approval of the Committee, from the members of the
subcommittee having legislative or oversight jurisdiction.
RULE 11.--RATIO OF SUBCOMMITTEES
The majority caucus of the Committee shall determine an
appropriate ratio of majority to minority party members for
each subcommittee and the chairman shall negotiate that ratio
with the minority party, provided that the ratio of party
members on each subcommittee shall be no less favorable to
the majority than that of the full Committee, nor shall such
ratio provide for a majority of less than two majority
members.
RULE 12.--SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
(a) Selection of Subcommittee Members.--Prior to any
organizational meeting held by the Committee, the majority
and minority caucuses shall select their respective members
of the standing subcommittees.
(b) Ex Officio Members.--The chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee shall be ex officio members with
voting privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not
assigned as members and may be counted for purposes of
establishing a quorum in such subcommittees.
RULE 13.--MANAGING LEGISLATION ON THE HOUSE FLOOR
The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which
member shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to
the House.
RULE 14.--COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL AND CLERICAL STAFF APPOINTMENTS
(a) Delegation of Staff.--Whenever the chairman of the
Committee determines that any professional staff member
appointed
[[Page 33724]]
pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X of the House
of Representatives, who is assigned to such chairman and not
to the ranking minority member, by reason of such
professional staff member's expertise or qualifications will
be of assistance to one or more subcommittees in carrying out
their assigned responsibilities, he may delegate such member
to such subcommittees for such purpose. A delegation of a
member of the professional staff pursuant to this subsection
shall be made after consultation with subcommittee chairmen
and with the approval of the subcommittee chairman or
chairmen involved.
(b) Minority Professional Staff.--Professional staff
members appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House
of Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority
member of the Committee and not to the chairman of the
Committee, shall be assigned to such Committee business as
the minority party members of the Committee consider
advisable.
(c) Additional Staff Appointments.--In addition to the
professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X
of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the
Committee shall be entitled to make such appointments to the
professional and clerical staff of the Committee as may be
provided within the budget approved for such purposes by the
Committee. Such appointee shall be assigned to such business
of the full Committee as the chairman of the Committee
considers advisable.
(d) Sufficient Staff.--The chairman shall ensure that
sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to
carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the
Committee.
(e) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of
Committee Staff.--The chairman shall ensure that the minority
members of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of
Committee staff.
(f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services.--Any
contract for the temporary services or intermittent service
of individual consultants or organizations to make studies or
advise the Committee or its subcommittees with respect to any
matter within their jurisdiction shall be deemed to have been
approved by a majority of the members of the Committee if
approved by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee. Such approval shall not be deemed to have been
given if at least one-third of the members of the Committee
request in writing that the Committee formally act on such a
contract, if the request is made within 10 days after the
latest date on which such chairman or chairmen, and such
ranking minority member or members, approve such contract.
Rule 15.--Supervision, Duties of Staff
(a) Supervision of Majority Staff.--The professional and
clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority
shall be under the supervision and direction of the chairman
who, in consultation with the chairmen of the subcommittees,
shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of
such staff members and delegate such authority as he
determines appropriate.
(b) Supervision of Minority Staff.--The professional and
clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the
supervision and direction of the minority members of the
Committee, who may delegate such authority as they determine
appropriate.
Rule 16.--Committee Budget
(a) Preparation of Committee Budget.--The chairman of the
Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority
member of the Committee and the chairmen of the
subcommittees, shall for the 110th Congress prepare a
preliminary budget for the Committee, with such budget
including necessary amounts for professional and clerical
staff, travel, investigations, equipment and miscellaneous
expenses of the Committee and the subcommittees, and which
shall be adequate to fully discharge the Committee's
responsibilities for legislation and oversight. Such budget
shall be presented by the chairman to the majority party
caucus of the Committee and thereafter to the full Committee
for its approval.
(b) Approval of the Committee Budget.--The chairman shall
take whatever action is necessary to have the budget as
finally approved by the Committee duly authorized by the
House. No proposed Committee budget may be submitted to the
Committee on House Administration unless it has been
presented to and approved by the majority party caucus and
thereafter by the full Committee. The chairman of the
Committee may authorize all necessary expenses in accordance
with these rules and within the limits of the Committee's
budget as approved by the House.
(c) Monthly Expenditures Report.--Committee members shall
be furnished a copy of each monthly report, prepared by the
chairman for the Committee on House Administration, which
shows expenditures made during the reporting period and
cumulative for the year by the Committee and subcommittees,
anticipated expenditures for the projected Committee program,
and detailed information on travel.
Rule 17.--Broadcasting of Committee Hearings
Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be
covered in whole or in part by radio or television or still
photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule
XI of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any hearing or
other proceeding of the Committee or any subcommittee thereof
by television, radio, or still photography shall be under the
direct supervision of the chairman of the Committee, the
subcommittee chairman, or other member of the Committee
presiding at such hearing or other proceeding and may be
terminated by such member in accordance with the Rules of the
House.
Rule 18.--Comptroller General Audits
The chairman of the Committee is authorized to request
verification examinations by the Comptroller General of the
United States pursuant to Title V, Part A of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163), after
consultation with the members of the Committee.
Rule 19.--Subpoenas
The Committee, or any subcommittee, may authorize and issue
a subpoena under clause 2(m)(2)(A) of Rule XI of the House,
if authorized by a majority of the members of the Committee
or subcommittee (as the case may be) voting, a quorum being
present. Authorized subpoenas may be issued over the
signature of the chairman of the Committee or any member
designated by the Committee, and may be served by any person
designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of the
Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas under such clause
during any period for which the House has adjourned for a
period in excess of 3 days when, in the opinion of the
chairman, authorization and issuance of the subpoena is
necessary to obtain the material set forth in the subpoena.
The chairman shall report to the members of the Committee on
the authorization and issuance of a subpoena during the
recess period as soon as practicable but in no event later
than one week after service of such subpoena.
Rule 20.--Travel of Members and Staff
(a) Approval of Travel.--Consistent with the primary
expense resolution and such additional expense resolutions as
may have been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds
set aside for the Committee for any member or any staff
member shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the
chairman. Travel may be authorized by the chairman for any
member and any staff member in connection with the attendance
of hearings conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee
thereof and meetings, conferences, and investigations which
involve activities or subject matter under the general
jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is
given there shall be submitted to the chairman in writing the
following: (1) the purpose of the travel; (2) the dates
during which the travel is to be made and the date or dates
of the event for which the travel is being made; (3) the
location of the event for which the travel is to be made; and
(4) the names of members and staff seeking authorization.
(b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff.--In
the case of travel by minority party members and minority
party professional staff for the purpose set out in (a), the
prior approval, not only of the chairman but also of the
ranking minority member, shall be required. Such prior
authorization shall be given by the chairman only upon the
representation by the ranking minority member in writing
setting forth those items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and
(4) of paragraph (a).
____________________
BLUE DOG COALITION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, this evening, as most Tuesday evenings, I'm
joined by members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog
Coalition as we come to the floor of the United States House of
Representatives to talk about the debt and the deficit and what that
means for the future of this country and how so many of today's
priorities continue to go unmet because of this.
Today's national debt is $9,169,206,830,867 and some change. For
every man, woman and child in America, their share of the national
debt, $30,205.
As you walk the halls of Congress, Madam Speaker, as you walk the
halls of the Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn House Office Buildings, you
will easily know when you're walking by the door of a fellow Blue Dog
member because you will see this poster that reminds us of the national
debt, as well as your share.
This evening we want to talk about PAYGO. It's an acronym for pay-as-
you-go, and basically there was a lot
[[Page 33725]]
made to do about the first 100 legislative hours in this new Democratic
majority. Well, the 47 of us in the fiscally conservative Democratic
Blue Dog Coalition were proud of what we were able to accomplish in
this first legislative hour under this new Democratic majority, and
that was reinstating the PAYGO rules, which means pay-as-you-go. If you
have got a new program you want to fund, you've got to show us how
you're going to pay for it. If you want to cut a tax, you've got to
show us how you're going to pay for it.
The business of borrowing money from China to fund programs and tax
cuts in this country are over, and we want to thank the new Democratic
leadership for their commitment, their commitment not to bring a bill
to this floor that's not paid for.
At this time to talk more about this issue and a lot of talk about
AMT, the alternative minimum tax is going to touch a lot more people
this year. We want to protect those people. We want to make sure
they're not taxed, but we also want to make sure that that bill that
comes to this floor is paid for. It doesn't make sense to protect
people from taxes if we're simply borrowing the money from China and
then asking our children and grandchildren to foot the bill.
That's why I was very disappointed last week when the Senate voted
88-5 to fix the AMT. They took the easy way out. It wasn't paid for.
The Senate's plan borrows $50 billion just for this year, $50 billion
from China to pay for a fix to the alternative minimum tax. We have a
plan in the House not only to fix it but to pay for it, and we voted
for that a couple of weeks ago on the House floor and we're going to
vote on it again this week.
And to talk more about this and what it all means for this country
and for future generations is one of the founders of the Blue Dog
Coalition, my friend, John Tanner from Tennessee.
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, thank you very much, and I will be brief
because we have a lot of Blue Dogs here tonight that are going to speak
to this issue, and they will elaborate on what I have to say.
The PAYGO rule, as we have here now as Mr. Ross pointed out, is
basically what all of us do in our private lives. We live within our
means. We pay our bills, and we hope we have some left to invest in the
future. This government has done none of that. And some people around
here have argued about the AMT situation that you alluded to, that we
don't have to pay for that because it wasn't intended to affect these
people; therefore, it doesn't exist. If I said that in Tennessee, they
would say that fellow's been in Washington too long. Only in Washington
would somebody even dare make a statement as ludicrous as that is.
We've also heard people here in this town say deficits don't matter.
Well, if deficits don't matter, why don't we abolish the tax code and
just borrow what we need? Of course deficits matter; they matter to all
of us.
Some people around here think the laws of arithmetic stop at the
steps of the Capitol and the front door of the White House. Well, they
don't, and this is why.
As we are plunging this country into debt that's been done on a
massive scale in the last 6 years, that no political leadership in the
history of this country has gone there, we are transferring more and
more of our assets to foreign-held powers. We transferred over $700
billion in the form of interest payments overseas just in the last 72
months.
They talk about, well, we don't have to pay for this because we
didn't intend it. Somebody's going to pay for it. There's no free
lunch. People have been looking for a free lunch since the dawn of
civilization. It does not exist, and I would contend that if we are
going to keep our moral authority to govern as stewards of this
country, then the time and place where we are now, elected to public
office, if we do not reverse this and start paying our bills, we will
undermine, I believe, that and we'll also undermine this country.
I think this is a defining moment for us, and we're going to fight.
Davy Crockett was from my district. We're going to make this an Alamo-
type situation around this issue because this is a critical tool of
this Congress and the American people in order to act financially and
responsibly.
I can't thank the Blue Dogs enough for their devotion to this idea of
we're going to leave this place better than when we found it, and
that's what this is all about.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Tennessee, a founder of the Blue Dog Coalition, John Tanner, for
joining us this evening for this Special Order.
Madam Speaker, there's 47 of us in the fiscally conservative
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dog Coalition is just another
name for fiscally conservative Democrats, and one of our newest members
who has joined us for the 110th session of Congress, and we're just
delighted to have her, is our friend Kirsten Gillibrand from New York's
20th district.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Ross.
For the sake of our children's future, I'm strongly urging the Senate
to ensure that the AMT patch that we're going to be considering this
week complies with the PAYGO rules. The House has already passed a
responsible AMT bill, which will prevent 23 million taxpayers from
being hit by the AMT, while also finding appropriate offsets so that
the national debt will not be increased.
I have introduced a resolution, H.J. Res. 45, which is a balanced
budget amendment to the United States Constitution. If my constituents
in upstate New York have to balance their checkbook every month, so
should the Federal Government.
The AMT affected 4.2 million Americans last year. If Congress does
not act, it will affect 23 million Americans this year, most of them
middle-class families.
In my district, 66,000 families will be affected if this bill is not
passed. Almost half of the 23 million taxpayers that will be affected
are married with children. The average AMT taxpayer will owe over
$6,000 in additional taxes. Small business owners are going to be one
of the hardest hit by the AMT.
The reason why we have to pay for this and ensure we follow pay-as-
you-go standards is because America's debt is over $9 trillion. Our
Federal debt increases by $1.4 billion a day, at an astonishing rate of
$1 million a minute. Our national debt is equal to over $30,000 for
every man, woman and child and infant in this country.
The Federal Government spent over $400 billion last year on interest
payments on the national debt. After Social Security, Medicare and
defense spending, interest payments on the debt are the third largest
expenditure by the Federal Government. The amount of money that we
spend on interest payments will decrease the amount of money America
will have in the future for spending on our national priorities such as
health care, education, energy independence, our troops.
Lowering the debt is essential not only for our economic security,
but it is essential for our national security. Foreign governments and
investors now hold $2.2 trillion, which is 44 percent of all publicly
held U.S. debt. That's up nearly 10 percent from last year. China owns
the second-most amount of our debt, and oil exporting countries such as
Saudi Arabia account for the fourth-most held U.S. debt.
Paying for AMT is possible. The House has already passed in a
bipartisan way a PAYGO-compliant bill. For future generations, we must
be responsible and not add to the national debt.
Just to give folks at home an understanding of what this money means,
let me just give you a couple of translations. This year we paid $239
billion in interest on the national debt. That same amount of money, if
we use it for other purposes, would literally pay for every U.S.
family's refrigerator to be stocked for 7 months. It would pay for
filling every U.S. family's gas tank for 10 months at today's gas
prices. It would pay for providing 4 years of in-state public tuition
for 10 million students, and it would pay 1 year's salary for 8 million
new teachers.
The Federal Government has sent over $709 billion abroad in the form
of interest payments since President
[[Page 33726]]
Bush took office, $155 billion in 2007 alone. The same amount would
fund any of the following: 12,000 new elementary schools, 7,000 new
veterans clinics, and all road and bridge construction and improvements
for the next 10 years.
I beseech the Senate to follow a fiscal, responsible and prudent
course of action and pay for the AMT.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. For
those just joining us, to set the stage, Madam Speaker, the Senate, we
sent the Senate an AMT fix, alternative minimum tax fix, to ensure
people didn't get hit with this unfair tax, and we paid for it. They
sent it back to us without being paid for. Instead, they want to borrow
$50 billion from China, and that's what got 47 members of the fiscally
conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition worked up, and for a good
reason.
I'm pleased to be joined by a fellow Blue Dog member from
California's 20th Congressional District, my friend Jim Costa.
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss the
importance of this pay-as-you-go system that my colleague from
Arkansas, Congressman Ross, and my other colleagues have spoken on thus
far.
What you're going to hear this evening across the breadth and width
of Representatives from throughout the country is a common and
reoccurring theme, and that is, as Blue Dogs, we believe that putting
our fiscal House in order is among the highest of priorities that we
are sent here back to Washington to do. And so, therefore, it is a very
important discussion that we are having with you this evening, as many
Americans sit at their home having dinner and wondering just really
what's going on in Washington.
What's going on is really trying to draw a line in the sand. Are we
about trying to establish and stay with fiscal responsibility or not?
Now, PAYGO is a tool, as was mentioned, to try to ensure that any
additional expenditures of our Federal budget be paid for. That's not
the only tool, but it is one of the few tools that we now have in
place. Certainly as Blue Dog members, we are looking and trying to
figure out how we can do other efforts to focus on budget cutting and
reestablishing our priorities. But right now pay-as-you-go is the most
important tool that we have available to us.
Now, let me give you a little history of how all this took place. In
1990, when the Budget Enforcement Act was passed, there was an attempt
to reign in deficits that had occurred for over 30 years, Federal
deficits that had been experienced since 1970. This Act, passed by a
Democratic Congress in 1990 and signed by a Republican President,
President George Bush the First, sought to control the budgetary impact
of legislation through the enforcement of the provisions that we now
refer to as pay-as-you-go.
Now, that was law and that was enforced for 10 years, about. Then in
2001, with a new Republican majority in Congress, our current
President, President George Bush the Second, abandoned the PAYGO
provisions.
{time} 2000
And that, I think, among other factors took our projected budget
surplus, then at $5.6 trillion over a 10-year period, and created the
current budget deficit that we have today, which is over $2 trillion
over that same time period. Yes, I think it's disappointing for all
Americans that a sensible tax policy, an investment in smart growth in
our country that was achieved between 1990 and 2001 on a bipartisan
basis, has been squandered in the last 6 years to the large
unsustainable deficit that we have today.
Now, where are we? Well, at the beginning of this year, the new
Democratic majority returned to Congress a path of fiscal
responsibility. As Congressman Ross and others mentioned, PAYGO was one
of the first provisions we enacted. Under these rules we have in every
piece of legislation that we have acted on this year enforced the PAYGO
principle. This promise we made to the American people we intend to
keep true to our word. We have already made great strides in bringing
our fiscal house in order; but if we want to continue that, we must
include this with all legislation, which includes the alternative
minimum tax. It needs to comply with PAYGO.
Currently, our national debt is over $9 trillion, with much of it
being held by foreign governments. In 2007, China alone had increased
the holdings of U.S. Treasury securities by nearly 500 percent in the
last 6 years, from $74 billion in July, 2001, to $408 billion in July
of this year. Overall, and it has been said before, this administration
has borrowed more money from foreign sources throughout the world than
the previous 42 Presidents combined. Let me repeat that: overall, this
administration has borrowed more money from foreign sources than all
the previous 42 Presidents combined.
As a proud member of the Blue Dog Caucus, I strongly believe that
fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are essential to make our
economy and our country strong and prosperous. Government should not be
allowed to spend more than it takes in. Common sense tells us that. Any
strategy of our Nation's budget must include a strategy for reducing
these record deficits so that we don't pass them on to our children.
Without adequate controls, prolonged deficit spending will weaken our
ability to fund worthwhile domestic spending programs and jeopardize
our national security. That's at the heart of this discussion.
I further believe that it's fiscally and morally irresponsible,
therefore, to place the burden of today's deficit on our children and
grandchildren. And that's why PAYGO is so important, that we draw the
line and make this fight this week.
The alternative minimum tax is important. We passed that relief on
that over a week ago. But it's not worth borrowing from China to pay
for the alternative minimum tax. We can do this in a commonsense way,
and that's what the Blue Dogs are asking you to support our efforts in.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from California for joining us.
And, Madam Speaker, this is a Special Order hosted by the fiscally
conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. And at this time, as we
discuss this PAYGO and AMT issue deeper and further and put it in
context, I'd like to call on a former co-Chair of the Blue Dog
Coalition, Baron Hill from Indiana.
Mr. HILL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, we have a lot of Blue Dogs here this evening to talk
about this issue because Blue Dogs feel very passionate about PAYGO
rules and our national debt. The national debt exceeds over $9
trillion. One of the largest expenditures in our Nation's budget,
second or third only to military spending, is the interest that we pay
on that national debt.
Now, we are at a critical time because now we are at a stage of the
legislative process where the rubber meets the road. As has already
been mentioned here, there is a large issue looming next year for
millions of Americans, and that issue is the alternative minimum tax.
The alternative minimum tax was passed many years ago with the idea
that only the wealthy who didn't pay any income taxes ought not to have
that advantage, and so the alternative minimum tax was put in place.
Little did we know when it was passed many years ago that we would
advance up to 2007, which is the present time, and we would find that
next year when people have to pay their income taxes, they will learn
that many middle-class Americans will have to pay this tax as well.
So not only the wealthy will have to pay the alternative minimum tax
but also many millions of middle-class people will have to pay the AMT.
We need to fix that. And the Blue Dogs are committed to making sure
that we provide tax relief for those millions of middle-class Americans
who are going to be hit with this tax next year.
But this is where the rubber meets the road, because by giving
millions of middle-class Americans tax relief, it's going to cost more
than $50 billion. We have got to figure out a way to pay for that
because in this House, we have pay-as-you-go rules, which simply
[[Page 33727]]
means that if we are going to cut taxes or we are going to increase
spending, we have got to figure out a way to pay for it. The many Blue
Dogs here this evening are here passionately to make sure that we hold
our ground because a storm is brewing here, Madam Speaker.
By passing this new alternative minimum tax, there are those in this
Chamber and those in the other Chamber who do not want to pay for it.
And the Blue Dogs stand before you today in front of America to make
sure that we have the political courage to pay for this tax relief for
millions of Americans in this country. Because if we don't do this,
that $9 trillion that we are already in debt increases to $10 trillion
and $11 trillion and then $12 trillion, and it goes on and on and on
and on.
There are those in this body and the other who don't believe that
this is an important enough issue and therefore we should ignore the
PAYGO rules. That's the storm that is brewing in the next couple of
days. And the Blue Dogs stand before the American people to say that we
are still going to fight the battle of making sure that we restore
fiscal discipline to this body. And that's the reason why so many
passionate Blue Dogs are here this evening, because that storm is
brewing. The time is ticking away. The threat of exceeding our
expenditures over what we take in from income is at a threshold. And
that's the reason why so many Blue Dog Democrats are here to talk about
it this evening. And I hope the American people are listening.
To put it in perspective and why these rules are so important to be
in place, it's important to note that since President Bush took office,
the gross national debt has increased by $3.427 trillion. And since
President Bush took office, we have borrowed $1.2 trillion from foreign
sources. We've got to stop this madness.
Now, there are those in this body and outside this body, certain
newspapers that consider themselves conservative newspapers like the
Wall Street Journal, who believe that this issue is not important, that
the Blue Dogs are wrong on this. We are not wrong on this. We have got
to stop this madness, and we have to implement those PAYGO rules. It
worked in the 1990s up until 2002 when we actually reversed our
Nation's budget deficits and had surpluses. And it was because we stuck
to the very rules that we are talking about tonight. And if we don't
stick by these rules, then the days of deficit spending are going to
return.
When the Democrats took over control of Congress in last year's
elections, we promised to implement these PAYGO rules and stop the
madness of these huge deficits that we had in place. And now we're on
the verge of breaking the very rules that we put in place, and that is
the reason why the Blue Dogs stand before you this evening.
I am proud to be a Blue Dog. I'm proud that the Blue Dogs have pushed
this issue to restore fiscal sanity to our Nation's budget. And I think
it's the reason why we have so many that are about to speak about it.
I give the gentleman from Arkansas my appreciation for allowing me to
speak on this very important issue.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for his
insight on this issue.
Madam Speaker, let me make it clear that the Blue Dog Coalition wants
to ensure that no additional taxpayers are liable for the AMT tax this
year. Let me also make it clear that, unlike the Senate, we want a bill
that's paid for. We don't want to simply borrow the money from China to
fund a tax cut or to provide tax relief in this country. And that's
what makes us different in this new Democratic majority from what we
had in the previous Congresses under the Republican control. They have
given us the largest debt ever, the largest deficit ever; and the time
has come to put an end to that. And someone that understands that
better than anyone is the Blue Dog co-Chair for policy, my friend
Dennis Moore from Kansas.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Thank you, Congressman Ross, for the time this
evening to speak to the American people about what's happening in our
country with our deficit, with our debt, and what we need to do to
correct this problem for future generations in our country.
You've heard several speakers talk tonight about the debt that our
Nation has accumulated, $9.1 trillion. That's gone up almost $3.4
trillion in the past 6 years since President Bush took office.
As policy co-Chair, I had an opportunity to go with about eight other
Democrats to the White House to meet with the President a few months
ago. We each had 2 minutes to speak. And when it was my turn, I said,
Mr. President, I'm a year older than you are. I had 7\1/2\
grandchildren at the time, eight now, and I said, Mr. President, we
have mortgaged their future. I said, We've got to start living like
most American families living within a budget. This should not be about
Democrats and Republicans. We have got to be responsible. It's our
moral duty to our kids and grandkids.
And he looked at me and he said, You've got a point.
Well, I know I have a point, but we need to work on this together.
That's what we are all saying here tonight is we have mortgaged the
future of our children and grandchildren, and that's absolutely the
wrong thing to do.
In the first days of this new Congress this year, Congress, at least
the House, passed a pay-as-you-go rule and reinstated a rule that
expired in 2002. And for several years without that rule, our deficit
and our debt rose dramatically. That's why all of us, the 47 Blue Dog
Democrats here, think it is so important that we reinstate that rule,
and it has been reinstated now, but that we follow this rule and make
sure that we don't spend more money as a Nation than we take in; that
we live within our means like most American families do.
You've been told by other speakers here tonight that China, Japan,
and other foreign nations own more than $1 trillion of United States
debt. That is a disgrace. It's something that we have got to change. We
can't afford to let other nations make important decisions about our
future. It's our future. It belongs to future generations in this
country. And we have got to make sure that we are in control and not
other nations in this world.
And I will just stop by saying this: PAYGO sounds funny. All it is,
is pay-as-you-go. If you have a new spending proposal, a new program
proposal, or a tax cut, section 1 is here is my proposal and section 2
is here's how it's paid for so it's revenue neutral, doesn't add to our
deficit or our debt.
Again, Madam Speaker, we need to start living like most American
families do within a budget. It's the right thing to do for our
country, and it's certainly the right thing to do for future
generations in our country.
Thank you, Congressman Ross.
Mr. ROSS. I want to thank the gentleman from Kansas for joining us.
Madam Speaker, in the next 35 minutes, we've got a number of Blue
Dogs, fiscally conservative Democrats, that have taken to the floor of
the House tonight to join me in talking about the importance of PAYGO,
pay-as-you-go, the kind of principle that was in place in this Chamber
when President Clinton gave us the first balanced budget of any
Democrat or Republican in about 40 years.
At this time I would like to call on a former co-Chair of the Blue
Dogs from the State of Tennessee, someone that has helped lead this
effort and who brings a lot of insight to this issue, the former co-
Chair for policy of the Blue Dogs, and that's my friend Jim Cooper from
Tennessee.
Mr. COOPER. I thank my friend from Arkansas for yielding, and I will
be very brief.
This PAYGO principle is fundamental to good government. All it means
is that you pay as you go, you pay your bills. That's what this
Congress should do, just as every American family knows that they
should pay their bills. It's a fundamental principle. We cannot afford
to let this principle lapse. It was in place from 1990 to 2002. That
was the period of the greatest economic expansion in American history,
under the Clinton administration.
[[Page 33728]]
Unfortunately, the Republican majority in this House allowed PAYGO to
lapse. But none other than Alan Greenspan, the former head of the
Federal Reserve, has said that this is the single most important reform
that this Congress could undertake to address fiscal discipline.
So I support my colleagues in supporting PAYGO. We have got to make
this principle stand. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. ROSS. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee, former co-
Chair of the Blue Dogs, for joining us and in being a part of standing
firm on the floor of the House of Representatives in support of PAYGO.
Some people may say, what's this business all about? Well, the House
passed a bill to provide tax relief for millions of people, and it was
paid for. We sent it to the Senate and they didn't like it; so they
sent it back unpaid for. Their idea was to borrow $50 billion from
someplace like China to pay for it.
{time} 2015
Well, we're going to send it back again, probably tomorrow, Madam
Speaker, with another pay-for. And some people are maybe saying, ``Huh?
So how are you going to pay for it?'' Well, it's not glamorous, but it
makes sense to me. We're going to pay for it by closing loopholes
allowing hedge fund managers to defer compensation in offshore
accounts. There's no reason why the Senate shouldn't be able to join us
in supporting that. It pays for it instead of borrowing the money from
China and provides the tax relief that we need for middle-class working
families all across this country.
I would like to call on a former cochair for communications of the
Blue Dogs, my friend from California, a member of the Rules Committee,
very involved in this whole issue, and that's Dennis Cardoza.
Mr. CARDOZA. I would like to thank the chairman for recognizing me
and yielding to me. I also want to thank Mr. Ross for being such a
leader on this issue and for being a leader on so many of the Blue Dog
causes that he brings to the floor every week. And there is no
question, Mr. Ross, that there is no issue that's more important to the
Blue Dogs than this issue of PAYGO.
Madam Speaker, passing PAYGO rules at the beginning of the 110th
Congress fulfilled an absolute pledge to the American people that this
new Congress was going to spend taxpayers' dollars and money
responsibly and without continuing to run up the deficit. It was a very
important initial step when we passed the House rules this year.
Waiving this rule now would break that pledge to pay for the
alternative minimum tax and would be a rollback in what we've committed
to do for the American people. And I believe that breaking the PAYGO
rules would return us to the disastrous fiscal policies of the past
Congresses under the Republican administration of this House and would
be a terrible mistake.
After allowing the PAYGO rules to expire, the Republicans enacted
legislation increasing the national debt by nearly $1.4 trillion over 6
years. Twenty-one percent of all individual income taxes of the year
2008 will go towards paying the interest on the national debt. They
won't help cure a sick child, they won't help educate one of our bright
young people in this country, your tax dollars, 21 percent of which
will go strictly to pay interest on the $9 trillion that have been run
up in the national debt.
This ``debt tax,'' as we call it, is a direct consequence of the
reckless fiscal policies that have happened, for the most part, over
the last 6 years. The President and the Republican majority have put us
on a fiscally unsustainable path, and the Blue Dogs are unwilling to
pass this undue burden onto future generations of Americans.
The Blue Dogs demanded a new rule, as we talked about earlier, that
put PAYGO back into place. And when we took over the Congress, the
Democrats restored the PAYGO rules to ensure that the government spends
within its means, just like American families have to do.
In complying with the PAYGO rules, this House has overwhelmingly
relied on spending cuts to offset increases in higher priority
programs. Over 80 percent of the increases in spending for priority
programs passed by this House have been offset by cuts in lower
priority or wasteful spending programs.
The Blue Dogs are committed to addressing this country's long-term
fiscal challenges, and that is why we have insisted that PAYGO rules be
applied to all mandatory spending increases.
This Democratic Congress has made great strides to get our fiscal
house back in order. If we want to continue down this path towards
fiscal sanity, we must ensure that every piece of legislation we
consider, including the AMT bill that we're going to be considering
this week, comply with the PAYGO rules.
Mr. Chairman, again, I very much appreciate your leadership, and I
thank you for recognizing me and yielding me time.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from California, who has contributed
greatly as the former cochair of the Blue Dogs and now a member of the
Rules Committee.
The reason all of this is so important is because of this: Today, the
U.S. national debt, $9,169,206,830,867, you divide that by every man,
woman and child in America, and your share, Madam Speaker, is $30,205.
Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has
increased by nearly $3.5 trillion, $3.427 trillion. That's $41.54
billion per month. That's $9.57 billion per week. That's $1.37 billion
per day. That's $56.93 million per hour. That's $948,907 per minute.
And that's $15,815 per second. Any way you divide it out, Madam
Speaker, for a country boy from south Arkansas, that's a whole lot of
money. And this group, the Blue Dogs, fiscally conservative Democrats,
are trying to restore common sense, accountability, and fiscal
discipline to our national government. And right in the middle of it
all is my friend from Louisiana, a fellow Blue Dog member, Charlie
Melancon.
Mr. MELANCON. I want to thank you, Congressman Ross, for reserving
this time. And I would like to thank the leadership, Madam Speaker, for
taking the initiative to reinstate the PAYGO rules.
As has been stated previously by my counterparts, my colleagues and
the Blue Dogs, this is one element of government that we need to adhere
to. It's shameful that the government hasn't been doing this all along.
As stated earlier, we have a debt that far exceeds all 42 previous
administrations collectively. That does not bode well for this country.
We were a strong Nation prior to World War II. We have been a strong
Nation for centuries. But as you look at the devaluation of the dollar,
the fact that China controls a large portion of our debt, that they, at
one point in time last January, considered selling off some of their
treasury notes, but were fearful that they may devalue the American
dollar, thus lowering their value of their investments, that tells you
something. And now that the dollar is sliding, China is reconsidering
that.
And where does that put us? That puts us really in a trick bag. We
are facing a comparative value of dollars, or currencies. Canada has
passed us up. The Euro is far and away. The British pound is far
exceeding the value that the average American can even afford to think
about going to Europe to visit.
You know, I grew up in south Louisiana in a conservative household,
in a conservative community for that matter, but one of the things that
we were taught by our parents in our household was if you don't have
it, you can't spend it. And even if you get a credit card, you've still
got to pay for it someday. And that's basically what the Blue Dogs are
about, trying to bring some fiscal responsibility to our government.
Regardless of what party you're in, this is about our future.
Now, up until recently I was not a grandfather, but now I am. Before,
when I ran for the Congress in my late fifties, I wasn't running for
the Congress as a career, I wasn't running for the Congress to make a
career later, I was coming to the Congress that the
[[Page 33729]]
people so decided to try and help right this government and do what's
right by the people of this country. The frustration is that you can't
have it both ways. And the both ways is you can't help the people back
home that need the help, whether it's building schools, whether it's
building, in our case, levees, building highways and roads and bridges,
educating the kids, doing cancer research. These things cost money. And
without the involvement of our government, we wouldn't be the most
advanced country that we are today. But we're moving down a slippery
slope. We have spent ourselves into a debt that is estimated to be in
excess of $9 trillion, $30,000 plus for every man, woman and child. So,
that means my two kids and their spouses and my grandson have a debt
that will take them quite a bit of time if they were to decide, well, I
want to pay my share, take them quite a bit of their lifetime to put
that money aside. And that money that they would put aside would be
better served to educate my grandson, for them to build a house when
the time comes, for them to be able to afford to do things, to live a
quality of life that all Americans would love to and expect to have.
Madam Speaker, I stand here today with my colleagues, the Blue Dogs,
and worry about the people of this country. That's what we were sent
here to do, worry about their welfare, worry about their well-being,
and to take action that illustrates that we do care about them and this
country. And by not adhering to the PAYGO rule, by not finding the pay-
fors in these pieces of legislation, we endanger the future of all
citizens of this country.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. And as our friend
John Tanner from Tennessee has said so eloquently, this administration,
this President has borrowed more money from foreigners than the
previous 42 Presidents combined.
Since President Bush took office, our Nation has borrowed $1.23
trillion from foreign sources. That's a big number. Let's break it
down. That's $15.45 billion per month. That's $3.54 billion per week.
That's $505.6 million per day. That's $21.07 million per hour. That's
$351,113 per minute. And that's $5,852 per second.
So, Madam Speaker, that's why we're here. We want to restore common
sense and fiscal discipline to our national government. We want to put
an end to this reckless spending and this debt and this deficit, and to
help us do that is my friend from Ohio, new member of the Blue Dogs,
serving his first term in the 110th session of Congress, Zack Space
from Ohio's 18th congressional district.
Mr. SPACE. I thank my friend from Arkansas.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to be a part of this group that places
such a high priority on fiscal responsibility, the Blue Dogs.
I really believe that we live in a crossroads of history and that
there are several seminal issues of our day that in and of themselves
would be considered the seminal issue of virtually any other era,
whether you're talking about the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the
challenges posed by globalization, the challenges facing our
environment, all very important issues, and indeed, seminal. But yet
another seminal issue, one which is much more insidious and not so
readily identifiable, but nonetheless serious, is that posed by our
national debt. $9.17 trillion, a number that by any account is
virtually incomprehensible; $236 billion a year being paid in interest
on that debt. I have not done the math, but I suspect that if you broke
that down for every one of the 435 congressional districts in our
country, you would find that each Member of Congress, each
congressional district could use several hundred million dollars a year
from that figure to build roads, repair bridges, cure diseases, educate
children and do the kinds of things that make us a strong Nation.
This debt is sapping us of vital resources, and it is, in the words
of my colleague earlier today, the gentleman from Tennessee, one of our
leaders, John Tanner, making us a weaker Nation.
PAYGO, a simple concept, one that, again, my colleague from Tennessee
referenced as something we expect of our government in the same way
that we expect it from our families, live within our means. The
alternative minimum tax is poised to draw in 23 million Americans who
were never intended to be the victims of that tax. We need to fix it.
We must fix it. This House has voted to fix it in a fiscally
responsible way, in a way that is paid for.
Now, the Blue Dogs stand for the proposition that we stand behind
that and that we don't irresponsibly fix the tax, we do it in a
responsible fashion. Back home in Ohio's 18th District, in towns like
Chillicothe and Zanesville and New Philadelphia, Ohio, we can't
understand what $9.1 trillion is. I certainly don't get it. It's
incomprehensible. But we do understand the need, the pressing need of
this Nation to once again engage in fiscal responsibility, acting in a
way that we expect our citizens to act.
And with that, I am very proud to be a member of this organization
and will continue to stand behind that basic and fundamental principle
of fiscal responsibility.
{time} 2030
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his insight.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Indiana, Brad Ellsworth, from Indiana's Eighth Congressional
District. A new member of the Blue Dogs in the 110th session of
Congress, Brad Ellsworth.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas recognizing
me, Madam Speaker.
It is an honor to follow my good friend from Ohio in his eloquent
words about what we are here to talk about tonight. When I ran for
Congress, the good people of the Eighth District of Indiana sent me and
gave a message. I heard that message loud and clear, that they wanted
me to come, if they would hire me to come and do my part to get the
House's fiscal orders back in shape.
When I came to Congress a year ago in January, I started looking for
people that thought the same way I did, that pay-as-you-go was just a
natural thing. And I found a group called the Blue Dogs. Now, I have
got to admit I didn't know what a Blue Dog was. And I would venture to
guess that most of the people in Indiana didn't know what a Blue Dog
was. But I know now. And it is a group that I am proud to associate
myself with.
I have got to tell you, Madam Speaker, that the folks back in the
Eighth District in Indiana in Terre Haute, Greencastle, and Evansville
probably feel like they are being choked blue now. That is how the Blue
Dogs got their name. They were being choked blue. And the people of our
country are being choked blue by our constant running up the debt and
deficit in this country.
One thing I learned as a little kid growing up in school was you say
what you are going to do, and then you do what you say you are going to
do. And that includes everybody in this House, the 435 Members. People
like to complain about their taxes. They like to complain about this
debt, and they have a right to. But what they do know is they expect
government services, and they expect us to spend their money wisely.
And so they know that when they want to drive on our Federal highways,
and they know that when they call, they want our homeland protected by
border security. So when they hear about government contracts gone bad,
military spending, that waste, fraud and abuse accounts up to $88
billion in a few investigations, they get a little weary of that, and
so do I.
We can't run this House like this. We wouldn't run our personal homes
like this, we wouldn't run a personal business like this, and we can't
run the people's House like this. We have done some good in this House.
We passed the PAYGO legislation, one of the first things we did in the
first week of this 110th Congress. We have cut earmarks in half. We
have closed tax loopholes. But it is not enough.
Congressman Ross, the poster you show when you speak has gone up
since
[[Page 33730]]
I came into this office and displayed my poster. It was $29,000 per
person for every man, woman and child in this country when we started,
and now it is 30, even though we have done some good. So we can't relax
now until we start chipping away piece by piece, chunk by chunk and
bring that back down so that we are not strapping every man, woman and
child in this country with now a $30,000 debt.
It is imperative that we continue to observe the PAYGO rules of this
House. And when and only when we do that will we see this number start
going in the reverse and get our affairs back in order.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Madam Speaker, if you
have any questions, comments or concerns you can e-mail us, Madam
Speaker, at [email protected].
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space) was saying that he didn't have
his calculator with him, but he knew it was a lot of interest that had
been paid. This year we have paid $239 billion in interest on the
national debt. That is close to $1 billion a day, without a calculator.
But with a calculator, and to put it in perspective, the same amount we
would pay for any of the following, stocking every family in America's
refrigerator for 7 months, filling every U.S. gas tank, and that is not
easy to do this these days, for 10 months, filling every American's gas
tank for 10 months at today's gas prices, providing 4 years of in-state
public tuition for 10.2 million students. I have a daughter in college
now. I can appreciate that one. Paying 1 year of salary for 8 million
new teachers. We could do any one of those things, Madam Speaker, with
the amount of interest we have paid on the national debt this year.
The whole point here, Madam Speaker, is we will continue, this
demonstrates it right here, the reds, the amounts we are spending on
interest, the light blue, or the turquoise as we would say back home,
is the amount we are spending on education. The dark green is how much
we are spending on veterans. And the purple is how much we are spending
on homeland security.
America's priorities, Madam Speaker, are out of whack. And they are
going to remain out of whack until we get our fiscal house in order.
And no one understands this better than the leader of the Blue Dogs,
the administrative co-Chair for the Blue Dogs who spends a lot of time
on these issues, and I can't thank him enough for being here and
waiting patiently all night and letting all our fellow Blue Dog members
go, we have had a dozen tonight, that is a lot, to come to the floor of
the House tonight to talk about these issues. We have about 10 minutes
left. The gentleman from Florida, Allen Boyd, can have as much of it as
he wants.
Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank my friend, Madam Speaker, for yielding,
and it is a great privilege to join my Blue Dog colleagues here on the
House floor to talk about these issues that are of such great import to
the American people and to the children of America today, because they
are the ones who will be, in the end, mostly affected by these policies
that we are having great debates about today.
Now, my fellow Blue Dog colleagues have spoken very eloquently and
succinctly about PAYGO, what it is, how it got started, how it works,
and the importance of it. Just in brief summary, I will remind our
viewers that PAYGO was a principle that was first put in place in 1990
by then-President George H.W. Bush, commonly referred to around these
parts of the country as Bush 41.
With a Democratic Congress and Republican administration, they began
to realize the misguided policy of deficits, large annual deficits, so
they did something about it. After the election in 1992, when President
Clinton became President, and then in 1994, the Republican revolution
where you had a Democratic President and Republican-led Congress, in
1997, those principles of PAYGO were continued in the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997.
In 1999, we saw for the first time in 30 years a balanced budget. And
we could see surpluses, Madam Speaker, as far as the eye could see. It
looked great for America at that point in time. We had money to deal
with national security. We had money to fix the problems that we know
exist in Medicare and Social Security, the long-term problems, which
are so important. Those two programs are so important to the future of
this country.
What happened? In 2001, we got a new President, President George W.
Bush, commonly known in these circles as Bush 43. And this
administration, along with the Congress back then, decided that PAYGO
wasn't a good idea because they couldn't do the policies of their tax
cuts they wanted, as much as they wanted to do and live within those
rules of PAYGO, so they abandoned the PAYGO rule, the PAYGO principle.
As a result, from 2000 to today, 2007, you have had a swing of
several trillion dollars in terms of the surpluses versus the deficit.
So we are in a bad situation. We are in a bad situation; and during the
campaigns last year, people running for the House and the Senate across
this country campaigned on this issue, that we had to restore fiscal
responsibility to our government. You heard from four members of the
Blue Dog, freshmen members, who are brand-new here tonight. This is
their first term as Members of Congress. They campaigned on this issue.
They understand it. They understand the importance of it. Their
constituents back home do.
Madam Speaker, our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, our majority leader, Steny
Hoyer, our Ways and Means chairman, Charlie Rangel, and our budget
chairman, John Spratt, and other Democratic leaders, in addition to the
Blue Dogs, vowed to put an end to the reckless fiscal policy that has
existed in our government for the last 6 years. And under the
leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, and with the
help of the Blue Dogs, we put in place this PAYGO principle on the very
first day when this new Congress took power in early January of this
year.
That is what the American people wanted us to do. They wanted us to
stop acting foolishly when it comes to fiscal management. We are like a
board of directors, Madam Speaker, of a major corporation. It is our
job to manage the resources, the fiscal financial resources, of this
country in a prudent way for our stockholders, who are our people back
home.
And we said we have to stop spending more than we take in. There are
lots of tools that you can use, as has been said here earlier, but the
one that we have in place right now, the one that we have been able to
get in place, given the current political environment, is this PAYGO
rule, and we need to abide by it. We don't need to abandon it.
Congress without those tools in place has not exhibited the
willpower, if you will, to make tough choices when it comes to spending
or tax cuts. So that is why it is important that we have tools like
PAYGO. If you don't have the ability, the will or the backbone to make
choices about how we responsibly spend the taxpayers' money, then what
are we doing here? This Congress, under the leadership, under the
Democratic leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer has shown that it
has the ability and the will and the backbone to be good stewards of
the taxpayers' tax dollars that they send here for us to spend. Every
single bill, Madam Speaker, that is passed by the House this year has
complied with PAYGO rules. Whether it was the farm bill, SCHIP
reauthorization, or AMT relief, every bill has complied with the PAYGO
rules. And do you know what, Madam Speaker? Seventy-five percent of the
pay-fors have been spending cuts and not revenue raisers.
Sadly, very sadly, the Senate last week failed in their duties as
leaders of this country and as responsible stewards of our taxpayer
dollars when they passed an AMT bill that was not paid for. The Senate
was held hostage by the Republican caucus in the Senate and they
blocked a House AMT bill that was paid for from even being heard on the
Senate floor.
The Blue Dogs, Madam Speaker, and the House leadership are standing
behind PAYGO for one simple reason: it is the right thing to do. It may
not be
[[Page 33731]]
the easy thing to do or the politically easy thing to do, but, Madam
Speaker, I didn't take this job because I thought it was going to be
easy. I took this job to do right by the people of the Second
Congressional District of Florida and the American people.
The House of Representatives will again pass an AMT bill this week
that is paid for. It is possible to do it. The Senate will have another
opportunity to do what is right and responsible. And I strongly urge
the Senate to have the gumption and the will and the good sense to keep
the promise they made to the American people to be good stewards of the
taxpayers' dollars and pass an AMT bill that does not violate the PAYGO
rules and that is paid for.
{time} 2045
Again, I want to thank my fellow cochair, Mike Ross from Arkansas,
for his steady leadership on this issue and so many others, but also
steady leadership in forming these Tuesday night Special Orders, in
which we have had a chance to come talk to the American people about
issues of much importance.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Florida, the administrative
cochair of the Blue Dogs, Mr. Allen Boyd from Florida's Second
Congressional District, for being a part of this Special Order this
evening, as he is so many Tuesday evenings.
What we are talking about here, Madam Speaker, is the Republican
Congress, the Republican administration, after having a balanced budget
under President Clinton for the first time in 40 years, gave us the
largest debt ever in our Nation's history, largest deficit ever in our
Nation's history, and there has been a lot of talk about all this.
Mr. Tanner was talking earlier about how this administration has
borrowed more money from foreigners than the previous 42 Presidents
combined. That has to be paid back with interest. And to put it in
perspective, the Federal Government has sent $709 billion abroad in the
form of interest payments since President Bush took office, and $155
billion in 2007 alone. The same amount would fund any of the following:
The amount of money this administration has sent to foreigners to pay
interest on the debt that we have borrowed from them to fund tax cuts
in this country for folks earning over $400,000 a year. With the
interest paid on this debt, this foreign debt, the amount of your tax
money, Madam Speaker, that we have sent overseas, with that amount of
money, we could have built 12,000 new elementary schools, 7,000 new
veterans clinics, and I might remind you, Madam Speaker, we have a new
generation of veterans coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq. And get
this: We could have funded all road and bridge construction and
improvements for 10 years.
It's about priorities, and it's time this Nation got its priorities
in order. It's time we got our fiscal house in order. Make no mistake
about it, Madam Speaker, for the second time this week we are going to
send to the Senate an AMT fix that ensures that no, not one, additional
taxpayer is liable for the AMT tax. Not one. Madam Speaker, we are
paying for it, and as conservative Democrats we are reaching across the
aisle and we are begging, we are begging Republicans to join us in
doing the right thing and fixing this the right way.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 2082, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. CARDOZA (during the Special Order of Mr. Ross), from the
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 110-487)
on the resolution (H. Res. 859) providing for consideration of the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the
Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 1585, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. CARDOZA (during the Special Order of Mr. Ross), from the
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 110-488)
on the resolution (H. Res. 860) providing for consideration of the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, 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. 4351, AMT
RELIEF ACT OF 2007
Mr. CARDOZA (during the Special Order of Mr. Ross), from the
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 110-489)
on the resolution (H. Res. 861) providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, 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. 4299,
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
Mr. CARDOZA (during the Special Order of Mr. Ross), from the
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 110-490)
on the resolution (H. Res. 862) providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4299) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department
of the Treasury, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Garrett for
this privilege of this time.
Madam Speaker, I believe the cornerstone of all human freedom is that
of religious freedom. Indeed, a small separatist church congregation in
England possessed a desire so strong to practice their faith freely
that it compelled them to cross the ocean in a little wooden ship
called the Mayflower.
While theirs was a quest to be able to practice the faith of
Christianity, a central tenet of their Christian faith was the belief
that all human beings were given the right by God to embrace whatever
religious conviction they truly held in their hearts, and that human
beings should protect that right for each other.
Madam Speaker, today we considered and passed H. Res. 847,
``recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.'' Of
course, Madam Speaker, there will be those who will criticize any
effort to recognize a particular faith or holiday. However, Madam
Speaker, aside from the debatable aspects of this resolution, or any
other, those who are even slightly acquainted with history know that
the Bible, the founding document of the Christian faith, was the
essential rationale and substance that inspired our Declaration of
Independence and was, further, the bedrock foundational document of the
Western world.
The objective of this resolution is to honor those Judeo-Christian
principles that have shaped American history and policy since the
founding of our Nation and that have informed and influenced our ideas
of justice and equality 7 years into the 21st century. Indeed,
[[Page 33732]]
Madam Speaker, it was the Christian principles hailed in this
resolution that led our country to be the very first beacon of
religious freedom in the history of the world and, further, to finally
reject the practice of human slavery that had plagued civilization
across the world for nearly 7,000 years.
Madam Speaker, I believe that it would be wrong for this body to ever
pass any law that would compel or forbid any person in this Nation or
any other nation to accept or reject any article of faith, so long as
they did not deprive their fellow Americans or human beings of those
same constitutional rights. However, in recognizing the influence of
Christianity upon Western civilization, we are also commending the
unshakable commitment of Christian principles, the very ones that
compelled our Founding Fathers to resolutely declare that all men are
created equal by God himself, and that because they are created equal,
they are also created free, Madam Speaker, and that includes being free
to embrace the religion of their own conviction.
Religious freedom is a central component of the Christian faith this
resolution references. Indeed, the message of the one born on Christmas
Day was from a savior who came to offer every member of the human
family ultimate and eternal freedom, even at the cost of his own life.
Madam Speaker, as we enjoy our religious freedom in this season of
peace, may we not forget that at this very moment American men and
women in uniform are fighting a battle across the world so that all
Americans might continue to freely exercise their faith, and that that
right might ultimately some day be extended to all of mankind.
President Roosevelt probably said it best, Madam Speaker. He said in
his Christmas Eve Nation message to the Nation, December 24, 1941,
``Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the dignity
and brotherhood of man, which Christmas Day signifies more than any
other day or any other symbol. Against enemies who preach the
principles of hate and practice them, we set our faith in human love
and in God's care for us and all men everywhere.''
So, Madam Speaker, with those feelings in mind and with love in my
heart for people of every faith, let me here on this floor exercise my
own religious freedom and wish you and everyone else under the sound of
my voice a happy, holy, and merry Christmas.
____________________
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. As I come to the floor tonight, the first
week of December, standing here in the Nation's Capitol of the greatest
Nation on Earth, today, and has ever been, I think about our
constituents back home in the great State of New Jersey and across the
country as well as they look to our Nation's Capitol and expect us to
do the responsible things on their behalf and on the behalf of freedom
and liberty around the world as well. And a portion of that
responsibility, of course, is handling their hard-earned tax dollars as
they send them to us here in Washington to administer this government
and spending, some of which was just addressed by the other side of the
aisle.
For the next hour, I would like to engage in a discussion of these
issues and shed some light on them, perhaps pointing out some of the
fallacies in some of the arguments that we just heard from the other
side of the aisle on these points.
As we begin there, I think there is no place better to begin as to
try to address some of those points that have been raised. So at this
time I would be honored to have a fellow colleague join us at the floor
right now. I yield the floor to Ms. Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you so much, Congressman Garrett. I appreciate your
putting together this Special Order tonight and focusing on spending
and on where we are here, as you said, in the second week of December
in the greatest country in the world.
I was listening for a few minutes to our colleagues who preceded us,
who called themselves the Blue Dog Democrats, and I was really
fascinated to hear them talk about how fiscally responsible they have
been, and I know that you're going to talk a little bit later about the
total tax increases that they have proposed, the total spending that
they have proposed. And I am fascinated that our colleagues can stand
here and talk about being fiscally responsible, I think, and assume
that nobody is adding up what it is they are doing. And they show their
charts about the debt and how much each person is responsible for that
debt, and I am intrigued that if you look at the record, you would see
that most of the Blue Dogs vote every time for these fiscally
irresponsible bills that are being brought up. So I want to say to the
American people, if they believe that these folks have been fiscally
responsible, then I have got some swampland in Mexico that I'd like to
sell them.
I felt like, in listening to them, that I was like Alice in
Wonderland, where the language means the opposite of what it is, or
1984, particularly 1984, where white is black and black is white. That
is what it feels like when you're listening to them talk about being
fiscally responsible. It's unbelievable.
One thing I do agree with them, it is about priorities, and it's
obvious that their priorities and our priorities and the priorities of
the American people are two different things. For one thing, our
colleague used the example that we could be building 12,000 new
elementary schools. Well, the Federal Government has absolutely no
business building elementary schools. There is absolutely nothing in
the Constitution which gives us any right to be involved in education,
and particularly in building buildings at the local level.
I am astonished at some of the things that they say, again, and
assume that nobody is going to question them.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentlelady yield?
I think the gentlelady makes an interesting but important point at
the same time, in that if we see our role here in Congress as to
satisfy every desire, wish, whim, and I am not saying education is a
whim, but desires, wish, needs, as well of our constituency back at
home, in your State and mine, then of course that wish list or the
desire list or that need list would go on ad infinitum. Then we can
become here, as one may say, as the 51st State, the 51st State
legislature, trying to solve every single issue, whether it's building
new schools, filling in potholes back at home on the street in front of
someone's house, or any other minutia that is back in the States.
Obviously, some of these things are quite vital to you and I and our
constituents, but the question is where do those dollars and cents come
from, where do the responsibilities lie? If we are going to assume at
all, then I can tell you that this budget is going to balloon even
further than where the Democrats already want the budget to balloon.
But it is, just as you said before, an issue of, and I will probably
say it 22 more times before the night is over, an issue of setting
priorities, and part of setting priorities is setting what are our
responsibilities. So you hit the nail on the head when you begin to
look at that, how do you set priorities, what is our responsibility. If
we can just hone in on what our responsibility is and if we can get
doing those things well first, then everything else comes in time.
I yield back.
Ms. FOXX. Well, I hope you will repeat that 22 more times tonight,
and we need to be repeating that every single day. It's one of the
issues I talk about over and over again, what are our priorities, what
is the role of the Federal Government. As you say, we could be seen as
a 51st State and be trying to deal with every single issue, but the
Constitution is really clear about what our role is, I think.
As you point out, here we are in the middle of December, and what has
this Congress accomplished? So much was promised by the majority last
year when they were running for office and condemning Republicans for
being
[[Page 33733]]
profligate spenders and being irresponsible about the way we spent
money. I will tell you that we can't hold a candle to what it is they
want to do.
{time} 2100
I think it was bad enough that Republicans before I got here
ballooned the budget beyond where it should have been. And I have to
say that I understand why the American people got upset with us last
year, why we lost our majority. They felt that we were profligate
spenders, as I said. But the Democrats promised something different. We
are standing on our principles now, and they are stunned by that. We
are earning our way back into the majority by living up to the image
and the reputation that Republicans have had over the years of being
careful with the way money is spent.
And, of course, today I heard other Democrats talking about the fact
that this was going to be a cut in the budget. Well, only in Washington
is a smaller increase than what they want considered a cut or level
funding considered a cut. The increase in what the President asked for,
and again I know you are going to go into much greater detail about
this, a 3.1 percent increase in spending overall was requested by the
President; and yet, the majority party is saying that the fault is with
the White House and it refuses to negotiate, that the President won't
negotiate with them. They say we are engaged in political posturing. If
that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I certainly have never
seen that. They are totally surprised by the fact that the President
and we are standing on our principles.
They think they can get by with simply increasing spending. They
asked for $22 billion plus a lot of money in emergency spending; so
then they come back and say, well, we will just split the difference.
It will only be $11 billion and you should compromise with us. And the
fact that we don't want to increase spending that much more over the
3.1 percent requested by the President stuns them. So the way they get
around it is, here we are again the middle of December, and they have
not passed the appropriations bills that we should have passed. And I
want to talk some about what they promised they would do and what they
have done. And we have compiled a list of promises.
On November 8 of last year, Speaker-elect Pelosi said: Democrats are
prepared to govern and ready to lead.
Here we are, only one appropriations bill that has passed, and that
is the Defense bill. Thank goodness that has happened.
Another Democratic promise: open, honest, and ethical Congress.
Speaker-elect Pelosi: we will make this the most honest, ethical, and
open Congress in history.
And what do we get? We get bills brought on the floor at the last
minute, thousand-page bills. We get no time to read them, and we are
asked to vote on them.
We are also told by the Blue Dogs and by others that they believe in
something called PAYGO. Now, PAYGO, they would have you believe, is a
way for us to get back fiscal responsibility. Well, I want to say that
if you look up PAYGO in the dictionary, it means new taxes. That is
what PAYGO means to them, new taxes. It doesn't mean cutting spending.
And it only applies to a very small part of our budget, but they want
to try to fool the American people into thinking that it means
something different than what it means.
They criticize the Senate for having passed an AMT bill last week,
which is a clean bill. It simply delays the increase in taxes that
would go to about 23 million Americans, something they have never paid.
And to the House, the fiscally responsible way to do this is to add new
taxes to other Americans to, quote, pay for, that is, offset, taxes
that have never been paid by another group of Americans.
That is some of the most twisted logic that I have ever heard in my
entire life. I know that these people never could have taken logic in
high school or in college.
They also promised no more borrowing from Social Security. But what
that means is that the money that is currently being spent from the
Social Security fund will not be spent from the Social Security fund.
But that is not what they are doing. They are spending that and a whole
lot more. And Rob Andrews last year, or this year, promised that we
would not borrow any more money from the Social Security fund. Every
one of their promises has been broken, and they are taking us down a
very fiscally irresponsible budget.
The energy bill that was passed last week is a no-energy bill. It
included nothing to increase domestic energy production. As Christmas
approaches, 5,000 troops are going to return from Iraq; but they are
holding hostage the bipartisan legislation to fund key benefits for
them and their families. It has been 6 months since the House
overwhelmingly passed the veterans and troops funding bill and 3 months
since the Senate did the same, but they have put that bipartisan bill
into this omnibus bill that we are going to be dealing with, which will
have billions in wasteful, unrelated pork.
We are seeing a tremendous problem here with only one of the 12
appropriations bills passed, a year wasted while they have brought
before us unnecessary bills to vote on and while they have voted 41
times on measures to withdraw from Iraq, and they have let the
important work of this Congress go by the by.
I hope again that the American people are paying close attention and
reading between the lines on the things that they are saying, and I am
going to yield back to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina, and I do believe that the American public is paying
attention; and they are doing better than that, they are reading
between the lines. And they know when they are being talked to straight
and honestly, just as you have been for the last few moments now
setting forth what the record is with regard to what the Republicans'
intentions have been and will be in the future with regard to getting
the fiscal house in order of this country, and what the actual record
has been for the last 11-plus, almost 12, months now, as we stand here
under Democrat control.
Some of the numbers, I must say, that we talk about when we discuss
this issue are quite large. It is really hard to get your hands around
them, to get a handle on them. When you are talking about total
spending in 2008 in the fiscal budget of $2.9 trillion, who can imagine
that size number? When you are talking even a smaller number about an
increase of $118 billion over 2007, $118 billion? We just can't relate
to it.
What we have to all bring it right down to is the fact that this is
the American public tax dollars at heart, and it does mean dollars and
cents to people at home listening to us tonight, working all week long,
paying their bills. It does mean something to the American family's
budget, how the tax increases that have been proposed by the other side
of the aisle are going to impact upon them and their lack of
responsibility when it comes to the issue that curbing spending will
have an impact upon them as well.
I am very pleased that I have been joined here tonight by another
strong stalwart leader on this entire issue of fiscal responsibility. I
have the pleasure of serving with him on several committees, but most
importantly right now on the Budget Committee where he has been an
outspoken critic of wanton expenses and spending, both now under
Democratic control but also, too, when the Republicans controlled. So I
would like to yield such time as he needs to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for leading
this Special Order this evening. I thank him for his leadership on
behalf of the people of New Jersey and behalf of the people of New
York. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) never loses an
opportunity to fight for the family budget.
And we know that families are struggling during this Christmas
season; we know that their energy bills have increased. We know the
price at the pump is high. Home heating oil for those, particularly in
the Northeast,
[[Page 33734]]
not in my part in the country in Texas, they face challenges there.
They face challenges in trying to deal with their health care costs.
And what is the answer of this new Democrat majority? Well, it is the
same answer as all Democrat majorities: tax more and spend more.
I am unacquainted with any society in the history of the world that
somehow has taxed its way into prosperity. And, ultimately, more
spending leads to more taxation; and this is a Congress that continues
to spend more and more and more. Already, the Federal Government is
spending on average over $23,000 per family of four, Mr. Speaker. And
this is the highest level, the highest level since World War II on an
inflation-adjusted basis. And yet this Democrat majority wants to spend
even more of the people's money.
Earlier in the year, in their budget they had the single largest tax
increase in American history that, when fully implemented over a 5-year
period, is going to add $3,000 per year for an average family of four.
Now, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what will that extra $3,000 in taxes
taken away from American families to be given to the Federal
Government, what is that going to do to the hopes and dreams of the
average American family? How is that going to help them fill up their
F-150 pickup trucks? How is that going to help them pay their home
heating oil bills? How is that going to help them send a child to
college? Well, the answer is that it is not.
Often, when we are having spending debates in the Nation's Capitol,
Mr. Speaker, we are not really debating how much we spend, but we are
debating who is going to do the spending. Is it going to be American
families? Are they going to be allowed to keep what they have earned,
what they have worked hard for? Are they going to be able to keep the
bread on their table? Or are they going to have to give even a larger
share to Washington? Notwithstanding the fact, notwithstanding the fact
that they are already paying on average $23,000 per family of four.
Now, when you come to the floor of the House, you often hear our
Democrat colleagues decry how we are not investing in this budget
function or we are not investing in this budget function enough. Well,
people are entitled to their own opinions; they are just not entitled
to their own facts. And if you look over the last 10 years, for
example, the international affairs budget has increased 130 percent;
the energy budget, 293 percent. Now, transportation, 71 percent;
health, 79.4 percent. And the list goes on and on. And in that same 10-
year period, the family budget has grown by about 34, 35 percent. And
so you have government on average growing over twice the rate of the
family budget, and inflation over that same period has been just a
little over 2 percent. So if you wanted to keep the same government
that you had, you would have grown it at 2 percent a year; and,
instead, it is being grown at closer to 6 to 7 percent.
Ultimately, American families will not be able to pay this bill. More
and more taxes are being imposed on them. And so every time one of our
Democrat colleagues comes to the floor to suggest another great new
government program to be added to the other 10,000 programs, Federal
programs that are already on the books, it puts pressure on the family
budget. And, again, it is not fair to their dreams, their hopes, their
aspirations for their families, on top of this $3,000 a year increase
to the average family of four that will be phased in over 5 years in
their budget. They have gone through and offered to increase taxes at
least half a dozen times on American families and the American economy.
{time} 2115
Mr. HENSARLING. We passed H.R. 6, $7.7 billion over 10 years; H.R.
976, $1.3 billion over 10 years; H.R. 1562, $241 million over the next
10 years; H.R. 2419, $12.1 billion, and the list goes on and on and on.
Again, as Americans are striving to pay for their health care costs,
their transportation costs, their education costs, why should they be
giving more money to Washington, D.C.? And at this time when they are
trying to make ends meet on top of the tax increase in their budget, on
top of at least seven or eight tax increases propose this year, you
have the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), propose what has now become known in the press
as the mother of all tax increases.
He will put a huge, almost 30 percent tax on millions of small
businesses all across this Nation. Ninety percent of all Americans will
pay more taxes under this bill. It will bring in an estimated $3
trillion taken away from American families and American small
businesses. This threatens millions of jobs.
If we truly care about the American family and the economic perils
and struggles that they face, then we want to make sure, number one,
they keep the job that they already have instead of sending jobs
overseas through excess taxation, regulation and litigation. And again,
all of this spending ultimately has to be paid for, and it has to be
paid for by a larger tax burden on the American family and a job-
killing tax burden on American small business.
So here we are when most American families are trying to put together
a budget so they can participate and make sure that all of the children
and grandchildren are taken care of at Christmas, and here we have a
Democrat majority in Congress who are trying to pass an even larger
budget, the largest budget in the history of the Federal Government,
taking more money away from their Christmases, taking away the goodies
in their stockings to feed this ever-increasing, tax-and-spend beast
that they have created.
Again, I am unfamiliar with any society in history that somehow has
taxed its way into prosperity, and that's what all this spending is
resulting in now. So I am happy to join the gentleman from New Jersey
to come to the floor now and make sure that the American people are
seeing what is happening.
There is a process, and process ultimately leads to policy. We had a
process in place that was supposed to pass separate spending bills so
Members of Congress could actually read the bills. Wouldn't that be a
novel idea, that you actually have an opportunity to read the bill
before you vote on it. And Democrats would absolutely come to the House
floor and criticize and excoriate Republicans if they didn't pass these
bills on time, and now they have passed one out of a dozen. So they are
going to roll them all into this thing called an omnibus, and the only
bus quality about it is it is a fiscal bus; it is going to flatten the
American taxpayer.
So, soon we will be presented with a thousand-page bill that we have
hours to read that will be filled with pork-laden special interest
projects which this Democrat majority claimed they were going to clean
up. But instead, they have made it worse with all of their special
earmarks, be it the tribute to the chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee who takes $2 million of American family money to create a
museum to himself; be it the gentleman from Pennsylvania who set up
what the Wall Street Journal has referred to as Murtha, Inc., where now
companies go out and hire lobbyists, and if they locate in his
district, all of a sudden earmarks appear. There is no transparency
there. There is no accountability there. But all of this is going to
get wrapped up into one great big omnibus bill.
So when many of us would like to be with our families, and many of us
have our families back home in our districts, not in Washington, D.C.,
instead we are here doing what we have to do, and that is protect the
American families out there from this tax-and-spend machine that
threatens their education and housing dreams, threatens their health
care dreams, to ensure that the Federal budget does not grow beyond the
ability of the family budget to pay for it.
Already the unfunded obligations of the Federal Government are in
excess of $144,000 per individual, and yet the Democrats keep on
spending along.
[[Page 33735]]
There will be a day of reckoning. And so I am sure that the Democrats
will come to this House floor and say we are only debating $22 billion
in this omnibus spending bill.
Number one, I hope I am never in Washington so long that I have
concluded that $22 billion is not a lot of money. $22 billion is more
than we are spending on veterans health care in this Nation. It is a
lot of money. And due to this artifice called baseline budgeting, that
is going to grow in 5 years to be a $200 billion figure, imposing again
thousands of dollars of taxes on the average American family when they
are struggling to make ends meet.
And so this debate is really about two different roads. One road
leads us to the largest tax increase in American history to be followed
by an even larger tax increase in American history, one that threatens
our children and grandchildren with a lower standard of living. And
that is not my words. Those are the words of the comptroller general,
the chief fiduciary officer of the Federal Government. He said right
now the government we have, and I paraphrase, the government we have,
if left on automatic pilot, no new spending programs, no new benefit
increases, threatens the next generation with either, one, a doubling
of their tax burden or, two, a Federal Government that consists of
little more than Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And yet the
Democrats won't reform these programs. They keep on taxing and they
keep on spending.
I don't plan to be a party to that. There is another path. It is a
path to fiscal responsibility. It is a path to make sure that the
Federal budget does not grow beyond the ability of the family budget to
pay for it. That is why Republicans will come to this House floor to
make sure that this omnibus doesn't run over the American taxpayer and
to make sure that the American people can have greater freedom and
opportunity than we have had before. But to do that, we have to put
America on the path of fiscal responsibility and to live within a
budget.
Don't let the Federal budget grow beyond the family's budget to pay
for it. You cannot grow government at 6 and 7 and 8 percent a year and
have the family budget grow at 3 percent a year. You can't sit here and
tax American families at 3 and 4 and $5,000 more per year and then
somehow claim that you have the Nation's priorities right. The priority
of this Nation ought to be protecting the pocketbooks and security and
freedoms of the American family.
So again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. He is one of the
stellar leaders in this body in fiscal responsibility. He is a man who
is always committed to principle, a real workhorse in this institution,
and I am honored to be on the House floor tonight.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I again thank the gentleman from Texas for
your work and for coming to the floor and for the points you make here.
You point out several significant points. One is the dichotomy
between what has been said by the other side of the aisle, both before
the election and now during the course of the year, and literally just
moments ago before I came to the floor this hour as the Blue Dogs were
on the floor speaking.
Let me take a moment to remind those here with us what was said by
the other side when it comes to fiscal responsibility and their ability
to get going rolling forward, because the gentleman from Texas made
reference to the point we are likely to see an omnibus bill that none
of us had an opportunity to consider, just as has been the case with
other bills that have come to the floor.
Back on November 8, 2006, a little over a year ago, Democrat Speaker
Pelosi said Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead.
Would that be true, whether she was prepared to govern and lead a
year ago, here we are a year later, and we are still waiting for their
appropriation bills to make the way through the process. Here we are in
the second week in December, which means we are already, October,
November, December, all those months, a quarter into the next fiscal
year, and we are still waiting for those appropriation bills to make it
through the House, Senate, and onto the President's desk. Were they
really ready to lead a year ago if they can't get it done at this point
in time? I guess not.
A year ago their Democrat caucus chairman, Mr. Clyburn, said
Democrats offer a new direction which includes fiscal responsibility.
If you just put the period after ``they offer a new direction,'' maybe
that would be more telling. Their direction is deeper in debt for the
country, and therefore for the American family's budget as well,
because their solution is always increase taxes.
You might find that odd to think their solution is always to increase
taxes if you simply listen to their rhetoric, because back in March of
this year their majority leader said there are no tax increases in this
budget, referring to the budget which came through the Budget Committee
and eventually came to the floor of the House.
If there are no tax increases, why do we know that the tax increases
are going up significantly, upwards to $400 billion on the American
public because of the bills that the Democrat majority has put through?
I would point out to the gentleman from Texas that just prior to
coming to the floor, the other side was speaking. It was the Blue Dog
Democrats, and their solution, and you don't have to, as the gentlelady
from North Carolina says, read between the lines. Their solution to
this issue of fiscal responsibility is only one-sided, and that is
revenue, revenue enhancement, which is a nice way of saying tax
increases.
How do we know that? The Record proves the case. The chart to my left
shows the Republican minority attempted during various appropriation
bills that were coming down to say that maybe the solution when your
fiscal house is not in order is not always to raise taxes; maybe part
of the solution is to rein in spending, something that every family has
to do from time to time. When an American family has a problem with
their budget and they are not able to make ends meet at the end of the
month or week, what do they do? They usually have to rein in spending
and set priorities. We suggested that. I know that the gentleman from
Texas was part of this process as well to suggest perhaps what we
should do is not make any draconian cuts, not say we are going to
eliminate this program or that program, although some programs are
certainly worthy of being eliminated. We had a much more modest
proposal, and that was simply to say can we go for a 1-percent
reduction in spending.
What was the Democrats' response to that? Well, on bill after bill
after bill after bill, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven of the
House appropriation bills proposed by the House Democrat majority, on
each case we suggested can we afford a 1-percent across-the-board
reduction to try to bring our House in fiscal responsibility.
Mr. HENSARLING. Would the gentleman yield on that one point?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would definitely yield.
Mr. HENSARLING. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that really a 1-
percent reduction in the requested increase? And so, for example, the
Democrats may have suggested that some account grow by 6.7 percent, and
this amendment said no, let's let it grow at 5.7 percent instead. So
what we are calling a reduction, was that not really a reduction in the
requested increase? Because at the end of the day, the Federal budget
was still going to grow.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that point. The gentleman is
absolutely correct. It is not a reduction in overall spending so we can
say today we are spending a dollar and tomorrow we would be spending 99
cents. In fact, today we are spending a dollar and we may be going up
to $1.05, let's bring it down to $1.04-something as far as the actual
spending. So the actual spending would still be going up, but we were
suggesting going up on a slightly lower curve.
{time} 2130
Democrats voting in favor of that modicum of fiscal responsibility.
Well, we could get into single digits several times, with 10, 7, 11,
13, 11, 11, 11; only
[[Page 33736]]
11 votes out of that entire side of the aisle. I'm not sure where any
of the Blue Dogs were on that one when they had the opportunity to rein
in spending.
You know, I think if I recall correctly, and you can correct me if
I'm wrong, the reason they said that they could not be supportive of
being more fiscally responsible and support any measure was that we
were not being compassionate enough. But the element of compassion in
Washington, DC. apparently is measured by simply how much more money
you throw at the problem. Whether or not that program is efficient,
whether that program has been rated as being adequate and getting the
job done, the measure of compassion in Washington is always whether or
not you are throwing even more money than the party next to you is
doing.
I guess it comes down to a very simply thing like this: at the end of
the day they want to be able to go home to their kids or grandkids and
say, well, we were more compassionate than those Republicans because we
spent more money than they did on a particular problem.
Mr. HENSARLING. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I shall yield, yeah.
Mr. HENSARLING. It is interesting. Rarely do you come to the House
floor that somebody says, don't you have compassion? Don't you want to
take money away from this American family and hand it over to this
program over here?
And, again, I want our society to spend more money on education. I
want them to spend more money on health care. I want them to spend more
money on housing. I'm just not indifferent as to who does the spending.
I want American families to do the spending. They want the Federal
Government bureaucrats to do the spending after taking a huge hair cut
for all the waste and fraud and abuse and duplication that takes place
in the Nation's Capitol.
What I hear from my constituents, and I have the great honor of
representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, which is Dallas
and east Texas, and I hear from people like the Kirkendahls in Garland
who wrote me: ``Congressman, at this point, between taxes and utilities
we are at the breaking point of being able to keep a home. If we have
an increase of over $2,000 per year in taxes, it may well be the straw
that broke the camel's back.''
Well, where is the Democratic compassion for the Kirkendahl family as
they try to keep their home?
I heard from the Taylor family in Forney, Texas also in my district:
``Dear Congressman, I'm on the verge of foreclosure after 15 years in
my house. I won't be able to make it if taxes continue to rise.''
Well, where is this Democrat compassion for the Taylor family in
Forney? I'm having trouble seeing it.
And so they forget about the people who actually do the work and pay
the taxes, because it's their dreams once again. And so compassion, I
believe that compassion ultimately shouldn't be measured by the size of
a government check. It ought to be measured by the size of a paycheck.
And all this Democrat spending is fueling more taxes, which will kill
the jobs, kill jobs in this American economy. We start replacing
paychecks with welfare checks; there's no compassion in that.
And I'll yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just a quick two points, one on the
compassion issue is perhaps it is appropriate when you're dealing with
money to say that if I'm taking money out of my own pocket and deciding
that I will spend this on a particular program, I can honestly say if I
wish to be so boastful that I am being compassionate for that
individual.
But we know that the Federal Government is in debt right now. We are
involved in deficit spending, which means that we are not only spending
more money than we are currently taking in from the current taxpayers
in this country, but also we are going into debt borrowing as well. So
where are we borrowing from?
Well, we are borrowing from the next generation. So in that
hypothetical conversation that a Member from the other side of the
aisle must have when they go back to their children and say, well, I
was compassionate today because I decided to vote ``no'' on all these
fiscally responsible measures that the Republicans propose as far as
reining in the spending on this side. Well, the compassion that the
father or mother Member would have to say to his child, I am being
compassionate because I am simply basically giving you an additional
debt on my children, and my children and your children will be
obligated for all of these expenses.
Now, to the other point that you were raising as far as the letters
and the phone calls that you get from your members or from your
constituents who are concerned about what we are doing here and that
they are on the brink of foreclosure, or brink of fiscal solvency in
their own right, well, that's perfectly understandable, especially in
light of all that has transpired over the last 11 months with regard to
new taxes that have been proposed by this Democrat majority. And I'll
just refer to the chart here for a moment. And if you care to speak on
any of these, you're welcome to.
These are new majority proposals, new taxes at every turn. I digress.
What was Senator Hillary Clinton's statement with regard as running as
a Presidential candidate, which I believe she said something to the
effect of, I have more ideas than this country can afford to spend
dollars on, or something to that effect. Well, apparently the other
side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, has the same idea,
that they have more proposals, more bright ideas to spend on than we
have money in the bank nor does the American family have in their bank
as well. But they're going to still go and try and spend them, and
they're going to do it by raising taxes.
So what do we have here? One, two, three, four, five, about seven
different new tax proposals. Fiscal year 2008 budget $392.5 billion tax
increase. Of course the gentleman from Texas recalls that we saw that
at the very beginning of this year in about March or April of this year
when we saw at that time that was the largest tax increase in U.S.
history. The largest tax increase. And where is that going to be on?
It's going to be on the backs of American families.
Secondly, $15 billion in new energy taxes. Well, we just passed 2
weeks ago, or last week I guess it was, we passed the energy bill, and
that's even in addition to that as far as the tax increases that will
be on energy production in this country. $5.8 billion in new tobacco
taxes, $7.5 billion, again these are all in billions. If you can't get
your hands around it, those large numbers, but that's what we're
talking about. $7.5 billion in new taxes in the farm bill. A nickel-
per-gallon tax increase on gas for infrastructure. So if we're not
already paying enough at the pump and, remember, that also was one of
the promises that the gentlelady from North Carolina was referring to
before, a whole list, before you came in a whole list of promises made
by the new majority that they were going to do.
One of them was an energy policy to reduce the price of gasoline. I
can tell you in my neck of the woods prices are higher now
substantially than when the majority came in. Now they want to add a
nickel tax on top of that. A 50 cent-per-gallon tax, increase on gas
for global warming. So now you're up to 55 cents on gas.
New taxes on homeownership by ending mortgage deductions and a new
tax on every American with a private health plan. And actually this
list is an abbreviated list that can go even further than this as far
as taxes on the American public.
And with that I'll yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding once again.
And it is sometimes difficult for people to understand billions and
trillions of dollars. But they certainly understand hundreds and
thousands of dollars coming out of their paycheck. And so to put this
in some kind of context, this largest single tax increase in history
that was part of the Democrat budget
[[Page 33737]]
resolution earlier this year, that equates to roughly $3,000 per year
per family of four tax increase, $3,000. So I hope people all across
America who are listening to this debate will listen very closely and
write their Members of Congress, call their Members of Congress, e-mail
their Members of Congress.
Do you really want that $3,000-per-year tax increase on your family?
Can you afford that, to send more money to Washington, D.C. when
they're already spending an average of $23,000 per family of four, the
highest level since World War II?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And if the gentleman will yield.
Mr. HENSARLING. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The gentleman and I also, besides being on
the Budget Committee, I also have the honor of serving with him on the
Financial Services Committee. And one of the issues that we're dealing
with right now of course is with the subprime situation, subprime
situation as far as the tightening of the credit market of course and
the decline of home prices that is probably going to continue for some
period of time, peaking with regard to the resets sometime in February
or March of next year. But most experts would agree that the price of
homes in this country on average will be going down 3, 4, 5 percent;
and this will continue during the course of 2008. And it's one of the
reasons, as well, why we see consumer confidence beginning to erode,
after a substantial period, a lengthy period of where consumer
confidence was up.
So when you think about the economic situation of the American family
right now, energy costs going through the roof. I heard a figure the
other day, I think they said on average American homeowners are going
to spend around $2,000 more this year just to heat their homes. There's
2,000 bucks more out of their wallets. That's in addition to more money
out of their pockets for gasoline, going to and from work. And that's
in addition to the fact that the values of the house in certain pockets
of this country will be going down. Their financial situation for the
American public is being constricted.
And what is the solution that we are hearing from the other side of
the aisle while the family budget is being tightened like that?
Well, it's Uncle Sam reaching out and saying, can we have,
Washington, have 2, $3,000 more so we can spend it down here on who
knows what. And some of those who-knows-whats, you remember earlier on
in this year, with all the pork spending that was coming from the other
side of the aisle, you recall this discussion of some of the pork that
was thrown into legislation, $50 million for wild blueberry subsidies,
farm bill, $17 million for the National Sports program, $20 million for
the National Writing Project, $6 million for unused plane tickets,
$36,000 for Kentucky to protect bingo halls and on and on infinitum.
Anyone who listens to the gentleman from Texas or the gentleman from
Arizona talk about earmarks will know about the wasteful spending that
goes on here. But that's what's going to continue to go on so long as
Washington is controlled by the other side of the aisle that says we
can continue to spend without limitation because we are not setting
those priorities. But we will be willing, the Democrats will be willing
to reach out and take more money out of the family's pocket. So that
really is the issue here at home.
And I always remember this expression from the gentleman from Texas:
the focus has got to be on the family budget and not on the Washington
budget. The other side of the aisle obviously has misplaced that axiom
and has put the focus entirely on the Washington budget, as opposed to
the Federal, the individual budget.
Again, if you were here earlier when the other side of the aisle was
saying that their solutions to the fiscal dilemma that we're in right
now and the problems need to be addressed in a fiscally responsible
manner, never once during that entire hour discussion, and never once
during any of our hearings that I can recall in the Budget Committee,
have we heard from them the basic suggestion that the answer lies in
the spending side of the equation as opposed to revenue.
In Washington, we really do have a spending problem, not a revenue
problem. The revenue continues to come in at unprecedented rates, and
that despite the fact that we had tax cuts going back as far as 2003,
despite the fact that we lowered the tax rates for Americans so that
they can keep more money in their pockets. The amount of revenue coming
into Washington continues to go up, most times over the last several
years, actually in the double-digit range year over year.
So it's not a revenue problem that we have experienced. It is a
spending problem. I'm just waiting for the day that the other side of
the aisle begins to realize that and will begin to work with us on some
of these issues that you and I and others in the RSC as well have
decided is the appropriate approach, reining in this budget as the
family does.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding once again. And
although I haven't kept a running tally, to the best of my knowledge,
I'm unacquainted with any Federal program that has met its demise in
this Congress. Instead, when you think about the 10,000 Federal
programs that are already on the books, this Democrat majority is
adding to them, with the exception of one agency in the Department of
Labor that's supposed to provide accountability to labor union bosses
to make sure that they don't misuse labor union funds. That was the
only single agency that I'm aware of that has received a budget
decrease of roughly 10,000 Federal programs, one to ensure the
integrity of labor union funds to be protected from misuse and
fraudulent use and criminal use by labor union bosses.
And so, again, the tax and spend machine goes on. And American
families have to decide for themselves as they watch this debate during
the holiday season what's going to be best for their families. Do they
want to have a tax increase in the neighborhood of $3,000 per family of
four? Is that going to help them? Will sending that money to Washington
help them with their fuel bills? Will sending that money to Washington
better help them send their children to college? Will sending that
money to Washington help them meet their mortgage payments,
particularly if they have an adjustable rate mortgage and it resets?
{time} 2145
We're talking about the here and now, but we also have to look at the
future. As the gentleman was talking about, we hear the word
``compassion'' thrown on this floor frequently. People will quote
scripture and talk about what have you done for the least of these. I
always thought the least of these were those who do not vote and those
who have yet to be born. They're the ones who tend to get ignored in
this process.
So why now with all of this spending that the Democrat majority is
doing, where is it leading us? Well, let me quote from the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke: Without early and meaningful action
to address the growth of the Federal budget, particularly entitlement
spending, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future
generations bearing much of the cost. Again, where is the compassion
there?
Let me quote from the Brookings Institution, not exactly a bastion of
conservative thought: The Nation's fiscal situation is out of control
and could do serious damage to the economy in coming decades, sapping
our national strength, making it more difficult to respond to
unforeseen contingencies and passing on an unfair burden to future
generations. Again, the least of these.
The General Accountability Office: The rising costs of government are
a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our
country and could bankrupt America.
And these aren't my words. These aren't the words of the Republican
minority. I mean, this is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head
of the General Accountability Office, the liberal Brookings
Institution.
[[Page 33738]]
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. And to get an idea, again, as to how that
all plays out or actually where that all comes from, I gave you before
a list, just a partial list of the tax increases that would be coming
down the pike under the new Democrat majority.
Let's look at it as you would look at your own income tax return in a
way. Part of the tax increases that you will see will go from the top
to the bottom. So you can say compassion to either the richest or the
poorest. The ordinary income tax at the top rates will be going up, 35
percent to 39.6 percent. Capital gains tax, which are not only for the
rich, it's for our senior citizens as well who are relying on their
retirement accounts, the annuities that they have put away during the
course of their life, their pensions and the like which are invested,
and now they're taking those funds out as far as capital gains. That's
what they're living on on a fixed income. What do we see there with
capital gains, 15 percent to 20 percent. That's a 5 percent increase,
or actually a 30 percent increase over the 15 percent.
Dividends, likewise, increase 15 percent up to 39.6 percent, more
than a double increase there.
Estate taxes. Well, estate tax, of course, is something we've debated
on this floor for a long time, for the small farmer, for the small
business person. Their taxes are going to go from 0 percent to 55
percent, basically making a lot of small farmers and little families
when they sit down at the end of the year saying we may actually have
to sell our business to hold on, and this is why.
Finally, for the lower income tax bracket, child tax credit from
$1,000 to $500. Now, to people who actually really need that money,
that extra $500 can be crucial. That could be a month's rent payment.
That could be a food bill. That could be a car payment. They're
reducing it from $1,000 down to $500.
And finally, the lowest income earners, the bottom income individuals
and families in this country, they, too, will be bearing the brunt of
the tax increases and the prolific spending that we see down here by
seeing the lowest tax bracket go from 10 percent to 15 percent.
Percentage-wise, of course, that's a 50 percent tax increase when you
think about it, from 10 percent up to 15 percent, as far as a
percentage increase.
So from the richest to the poorest will all be suffering, and the
dollars and cents, as you make out, the gentleman from Texas, very
well, comes out to how they pay their bills at the end of the month.
I yield back.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey in talking
about how terrible these tax increases are going to be on the American
family, but it will be not only in direct terms to having a lesser
paycheck, it also threatens the very existence of their paycheck.
I toured a small business in my district about a year ago called
Jacksonville Industries. They're kind of an aluminum dye cast
manufacturer, and before we had passed tax relief, they were on the
verge of having to lay off two people.
And when I look at what's happening in capital gains and dividends,
which really help fuels job creation, you can't have capitalism without
capital.
Because of the tax relief the Republican Congress has passed, they
were able to go out and buy some new machinery. I don't recall what
it's called, and I don't exactly know what it does, but it was big and
it was noisy, and most importantly, it made them more competitive. And
because they were more competitive, and I want to say they had about 20
workers, instead of laying off two workers, they hired two new workers,
all because of tax relief. Tax relief allowed them to invest in the
American free enterprise system.
And so instead of having four people who could have been on
unemployment and four people who could have been on welfare and four
people who could have been on food stamps, instead, you had four people
who had jobs, who had a future, who put a roof over their head, who put
groceries on the table because of a paycheck, and yet the Democrat tax
increases threaten that very paycheck.
Now, they offer compassion. Oh, we have this welfare check over here.
We're going to increase the government budget over here. But you cannot
increase the Federal budget without decreasing the family budget, and
that's what this debate is going to be about this week.
Which path do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the path of
increasing the Federal budget, threatening future generations with
bankruptcy, with this fiscal cancer that's going to grow throughout our
Nation, or do you want to be on the path where the Federal budget
doesn't grow beyond the family budget ability to pay for it, a budget
that doesn't include tax increases at a time when American families are
struggling to pay their health care bills, their heating bills, their
housing bills?
That's what it really is. It's a debate about two different paths.
Now, they may look small to Democrats. They claim $22 billion isn't a
lot of money. Maybe $22 billion today, and that is a lot of money, but
that's quickly going to grow to $200 billion, and within a generation
that's going to cause a doubling of taxes on the next generation. And
children and grandchildren of America, if we don't stop this and stop
it this week, will have a lower standard of living, less freedom and
less opportunity, and that's why it so's critical that we win this
debate this week.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman again.
You can see this sort of going on in a microcosm from the State that
I'm from, the great State of New Jersey, where a poll was done a month
or so ago I understand that said if you had the opportunity, would you
leave the State, and 50 percent of the respondents said, yes, they
would. If you look at the actual demographic numbers over the last
year, between 72- or 76,000 New Jerseyans have left the State of New
Jersey. One of the reasons why they indicate they've left the State is
because taxes are so high. They cannot afford to live in that State. So
the individuals leave, the families leave, businesses leave the State,
which will cause obviously a death spiral, if you will, to the overall
economy of the State of New Jersey if it's going to continue.
Mr. HENSARLING. Would you be happy to tell the citizens of New Jersey
who are fleeing the high taxes that they can come to the Lone Star
State where we have low taxes and great economic growth? We'd be happy
to have them.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I'm sure the gentleman would like to have
them. I would like them to stay in the State of New Jersey and just see
that our fiscal house is set in order in the State of New Jersey, where
the Democrats just raised the sales tax by a penny and corporate taxes
as well, and property taxes continue to go through the roof.
But that's a microcosm of the United States of America as well.
People are doing what Ronald Reagan once said, and that is they're
voting with their feet and leaving the State. Businesses will be doing
the exact same thing as we begin to see taxes go up across the board in
the United States if those hard decisions are not being made of
prioritization.
I believe we're getting near the end of our time here. I will extend
a hand to the other side of the aisle, as we continue this debate
during the course of the week, to the Blue Dogs or any other Members
who came down to the floor during this night or other nights as well
who are looking for fiscal responsibility. If we can come to an
agreement that the answer is not raising taxes but, rather, reining in
spending, I believe it was the RSC a year ago that came up with a list
of, correct me if I'm wrong, approximately a half a billion dollars in
savings in overall spending by the Federal Government. We'd be glad to
share that information with the Democrat majority if they would just
take even just less than 5 percent of that to rein in their spending to
keep it under the control of where the American public would like to
have it.
[[Page 33739]]
____________________
A NEW VISION FOR OUR ENERGY FUTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to talk
about a great vision for America's clean energy future, and it's very
timely that America adopts a new vision for our energy future because
we know Americans have some challenges when it comes to energy right
now.
We're going to, tonight, talk about a vision for a way to
revolutionize how we use and how we generate our energy that will solve
some of the problems that Americans are experiencing tonight, and I
think there shouldn't be any debate about what those challenges are.
We are paying well over $3 a gallon for gasoline, with no relief in
sight. We've seen it go from, I don't know, $30 or $40 a barrel during
the start of the Bush administration to now approaching $100, $95, $100
a barrel. Again, fossil fuel costs continue to go up.
We're engaged in a security threat from the Middle East where we are
sending about a half a million dollars a minute to the Middle East to
the place, to the terrorists who come to attack us, and sending money
to the Middle East and have them turn around and attack us as the 22
generals who testified in front of our global warming committee told us
is not a very prudent security policy.
We're engaged in a war in the Middle East, the place that there is
security concerns because that's where a significant part of the oil is
in the world.
So we know we have economic challenges because of rising gas prices.
It's hitting us right in the pocketbook every time we go to the pump.
We know we have security concerns because of our addiction to the
Middle East, and now we know that global warming is an additional
threat that we simply have to respond to.
Now that Americans have seen 1 million square miles of the Arctic
melt, the size of six Californias simply disappeared, melted in the
Arctic this year, together with the melting of the tundra, the changing
weather patterns. We've certainly seen it with our rainstorms we had in
my State. I represent the State of Washington. We had 10 inches of rain
in 24 hours, an unprecedented event. This type of heavy precipitation
events are consistent with global warming. We know we have a global
warming threat that we've got to deal with.
So we know that we have some challenges when it comes to energy, and
we know none of those challenges are going to get better unless we do
something about it. This energy problem is not going to get solved by
the tooth fairy or simply sort of pleasant wishes for the market to
solve the problem. We know we have to act. We know we have to have a
plan. We know we have to have a vision. And we know it has to rely on
something that we're rich in in America.
And there's one thing I've got some good news tonight we'll talk
about at length. We are rich in intellectual talent in America. We are
the best innovators, best tinkerers, the best inventors humans have
ever seen. And there was a fellow back in May 25, 1961, who really
understood that. He came to this Chamber on May 25, 1961, John F.
Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy came and stood right behind me in here and
said that America was going to accept the challenge of putting a man on
the Moon in 10 years and bringing him back safely. Now, that was a
President who understood the innate capability of the American people
to invent their way to solve any challenge we set our mind to.
And President Kennedy really, that was a gutsy thing to say again. He
was ahead of the curve. He was ahead of the technology. That technology
to get to the Moon was hardly even on the back of an envelope at that
time. You know, at that moment, our missiles were blowing up on the
launch pad. The Russians were way ahead of us in the space race. We'd
only put Spam in a can up for 15 minutes. We hadn't even invented Tang
yet.
We didn't know how we were going to get to the Moon, but John F.
Kennedy knew that we could invent our way to solve this technological
challenge and we did it. And we're here tonight to say that Americans
have the same level of can-do spirit, the same level of optimism, the
same level of technological prowess that we had in the 1960s, and that
we can do for clean energy what John F. Kennedy did for space, which is
to create a whole new clean energy revolution for the economy of
America and grow our economy at the same time.
So I've introduced with some of my colleagues a bill called the New
Apollo Energy Act. The New Apollo Energy Act basically uses the word
``Apollo'' because it's the inspiration for what we know we can do,
which is to invent our way to a new clean energy future just like
Kennedy in the original Apollo project did for the Moon project.
{time} 2200
Well, I have some really good news. The House of Representatives last
Thursday, with 235 votes, with some bipartisan support, essentially
committed ourselves and accomplished five steps towards this clean
energy future, and we are shortly going to take a fifth large leap for
mankind in clean energy. So stealing a little bit of the language from
the original Apollo 11 project, we now have had five small steps for
energy independence and clean energy, and we are now starting to work
on one giant leap for America's clean energy revolution.
And I wanted to talk tonight about those five steps that we have
taken in the House, and the bill is now over the Senate, and one of the
reasons we are here tonight is to encourage the Senate to follow the
House's lead to the extent we can and move forward on these clean
energy steps. And before I yield to my friend, Ron Klein, who has been
a great leader in the freshmen class on these issues, I want to start
with just the first step that we took last Thursday.
Last Thursday the House of Representatives, in a history-making step
forward, passed the first improvement in our fuel economy standards in
30 years. For 30 years Americans' efficiency standards have been
frozen, locked in stone and haven't made 1-mile-per-gallon improvement
since 1983. In fact, and this blows my mind, the cars we drive get less
mileage today than they did in 1983. We have mapped the human genome.
We have invented the Internet. But the cars we drive get less mileage.
Well, we're doing something about that. After 30 years of Congress
being captured by forces against and in opposition of progress, we have
increased by 40 percent the mileage standards by the year 2022 from 25
miles a gallon to 35 miles a gallon. That is a square deal for
Americans. It is common sense, and we have done it in a way that
protects our domestic manufacturers so that they are not exposed to a
flood of new imports from across the seas, and we do that by having
what is called the two-fleet rule that has been preserved.
Now, the reason this makes sense and the reason it's going to work is
a combination of a couple of factors. First, it is a fact that we have
got the best geniuses in the world right here in America when it comes
to designing cars, and I know because they are designing some cars that
are going to blow this record out of the way. By 2022 we are going to
have cars that are way beyond 35 miles a gallon. I want to talk about
one of those cars.
One of them is the General Motors Volt. And I have here today a
picture of the General Motors Volt, a car that General Motors hopes to
have in production 5 years from now. This car exists. I saw it at the
Anaheim Electric Car Association Convention last weekend in Anaheim,
California. And this car is a miracle because it is what's called a
plug-in hybrid car. This car uses new lithium-ion batteries designed by
A123 Battery Company in Massachusetts. And this car you plug in. You go
home at night and plug it into your garage outlet. You unplug it in the
morning. You drive 40 miles with no gasoline at all, free of gasoline
from the Mid East or anywhere else, for that
[[Page 33740]]
matter; 40 miles, zero pollution for 1 to 2 cents a mile. Gasoline
costs 9 to 12 cents a mile to run your car for 40 miles. After 40 miles
if you want to drive 40 miles, and 40 percent of Americans' average
trips are over 40 miles a day, then you use hybrid technology to use a
combination of gasoline and someday cellulosic ethanol and electricity
like the hybrids now run to run your normal 250-, 300-mile range.
Now, that is a tremendous deal for Americans who get low-priced fuel
for 40 miles, zero CO2. Similar cars that are on the road
today get 100 miles a gallon of gasoline today using this combination
of electricity. And when we use cellulosic ethanol, we'll get 500 miles
a gallon of gasoline using a combination of electricity, a hybrid. Now,
this technology is going to blow that CAFE standard away. And after
talking to the scientists at this electric car convention, I am very
convinced that this is going to happen, and GM has certainly put big
money behind this. So I'm very excited about the first step, which is
to improve automobile efficiency, to talk about that tonight.
With that I would like to yield to my friend Ron Klein from Florida,
who has been a leader in the freshmen class. Thank goodness this
freshmen class has shown up. That's one of the reasons we are making
these strides tonight.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I would like to thank my good friend from
Washington, who has been working on these issues and talking and moving
toward getting the Congress to act on behalf of the American people on
energy issues for 10 years-plus.
And as you and I have talked about this this year, I have learned a
lot from you. I know that I personally have had 20 years of my own
personal beliefs that Americans can accomplish anything. You've talked
to me about the Manhattan Project. We all know about Sputnik. And these
were callings of a generation ago to say when America wants to do
something, we want to focus our scientists, our education, our
entrepreneurs, all the elements that come together so that Americans
can accomplish anything, we did it. And this is the moment in time in
the national security side in making sure that we never have to make
another foreign policy decision based on where the next drop of oil is
coming from; the new economy side, and that's the job creation that you
are talking about and many people are talking about, the entrepreneurs
at home in our communities that are developing the GM Volt and the
other car companies and all the entrepreneurs that are developing the
alternative means of furnishing energy that are different from fossil
fuels; and certainly the environmental side.
And being from Florida and your being from the other corner of our
country, we have a great sensitivity to our environment. And I
represent a coast of 75 miles at sea level; so we are particularly
sensitive that we do everything we can to make sure that our
environment is protected, that we don't do things to affect the global
temperature, which may, in fact, change the level of the ocean and, of
course, do a lot of other damage.
These are very exciting times. And, again, as a member of the
freshman class and with Democrats and Republicans in our class, we have
all come to that same conclusion that you have come to along with many
others and the leadership of this Congress to say this is not a choice
of drilling more off the coast of Florida or in Alaska. Those are false
choices. When you hear the discussion that we have to drill or we can't
become energy independent, that's ridiculous. What we really need to be
doing is focusing, as this bill does, on alternative renewable energy
sources.
And one of the things that I am very excited about also is the
correcting of something that Congress did a year or so ago, and I know
you were against this at the time, but it was passed by the leaders at
that time in the Congress and the President signed it. The President
correctly said a couple of years ago in his State of the Union we are
addicted to oil.
So what did Congress do over your objections and others? They
basically gave some $15 billion or some number like that to the oil
companies to subsidize them for more oil drilling. Now, we all believe
in a capitalist system. We believe in for-profit and companies
prospering. And the oil companies right now are making more money than
any company in the history of the United States. So I find it
particularly offensive as a taxpayer like everybody in the country to
have to add frosting on the cake and give Federal tax subsidies to
those oil companies over and above that. That's not right.
And what this bill does, and I know you are going to talk about this,
is it redirects that type of incentive, those tax incentives, to change
consumer behavior, to incentivize our entrepreneurs and our scientists
to come up with the kinds of products that will move us toward energy
independence, because it is all about this next generation. And when I
speak to kids in school, I know we charge them up and say this is your
calling. This is something that we as adults and our children have to
really work together to make sure that we do this together.
So I'm very happy to be here in support of what you are doing
tonight. And I look forward, when you are done with that, talking about
a specific kind of energy alternative that is very exciting that I have
been watching in my community. But I appreciate your bringing this up
tonight.
Mr. INSLEE. Yes. And I want to dovetail the second step. We've got
five steps we're going to talk about tonight. The second step is on the
taxes to really level the playing field for new technologies.
I don't think our constituents are very happy about paying $3-plus
for gasoline. They are less happy on top of that to then throw in some
serious change, about $21 billion, with a ``b,'' of the money they send
to Uncle Sam on April 15 that is now shelled out to the largest oil
companies that are making more profits than any corporation in the
history of this solar system. And there is nothing wrong with profits,
but there is something wrong with taxing Americans to add to those
profits to, frankly, a very mature industry. This is not like this is a
new industry that we are helping to get going. They've been around
since 1880 or 1890 from the fields of Pennsylvania. This is a very
mature, very profitable industry.
So what we have done in this bill is reel back in the misbegotten
largesse that has been shelled out to the oil and gas industry to the
tune of $21 billion. And what we are using that for is to help
Americans adopt new clean energy technology. And it's going to be taken
away from about five major oil companies, and it is going to be given
to 300 million Americans that can use tax breaks when they buy a fuel-
efficient car like this plug-in hybrid car or when they weatherize
their house and put in more insulation or when they want to buy energy-
efficient heating or cooling.
This is like taking from the few, if you will, who never deserved it
and giving to the many who need this help now to adopt their old
infrastructure, houses, cars, businesses, to the new clean energy. And
it is going to do something for our business community too, and I want
to talk about that. And this is Florida-specific. Mr. Klein represents
Florida. I want to talk about a technology that is a kind of technology
that we should be assisting.
This is a picture of technology called solar thermal technology. This
is designed by the Ausra Company, A-u-s-r-a. The Ausra Company has
developed a way to concentrate the Sun's radiant energy on a pipe. You
can't see this very well, but this is a pipe of water that is
essentially heated up by the reflected Sun rays. And they have
discovered a way to make these mirrors very inexpensively and then heat
this water and develop steam and drive a steam turbine and generate
electricity. This company just signed a contract for 300 megawatts for
a utility in Florida, enough for somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000
homes that they are going to produce electricity for with zero carbon
dioxide, zero greenhouse gas emissions in Florida, 177 megawatts in
California. And they believe that, within about a decade, once you make
enough mirrors so you bring down the cost per
[[Page 33741]]
unit of mirror, they will be able to compete with coal-based
electricity.
Now, what makes sense, and what we have done, with a few Republicans'
help, and it's not many but a few, we have reeled back in that $21
billion from the oil and gas companies and we have redirected some of
that assistance to a company like the Ausra Company so they can develop
this new technology. Now, that is a proactive action, and I am very
happy to report that second small step.
Now, the gentleman wanted to talk about a specific technology. I
would like to yield to him to talk about that.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I would like to thank the gentleman for the
recognition about solar. Being from Florida, we call ourselves the
Sunshine State. It seems like one of the most appropriate places to be
one of the founding areas of solar, and yet many other States,
including the State of Washington, which has a fairly active solar
program, have been developing this further. But I am very excited about
this project that you have mentioned in Florida or anywhere in the
United States. Of course, we all know about wind power. We have large
utilities in the country. We have one in our area, Florida Power and
Light, FPL, that is one of the largest wind generators in the country,
in Texas and other places, California. There is no one solution here.
The good news is there is a competitive economy out there. There are
competitive scientists that are coming up with different ideas. I am
going to mention another very interesting one.
Part of what this bill does, as you correctly mentioned, is it
provides grants and seed money and challenge grants to new industries
and entrepreneurs that are developing new ideas. The Gulf Stream, we
have all heard about the Gulf Stream, it is a current that runs along
the eastern United States from the southern part all the way up to the
eastern coast of the United States and Nova Scotia. It's a fast-moving
current. Billions of gallons per minute pass off the coast of Florida,
for example. We have a Centers of Excellence at Florida Atlantic
University that has been developing, and there is a program out in
Oregon that is doing something similar, where with turbines in the Gulf
Stream itself, they can generate enough electricity, they believe, over
time, to power one-third of the power needs of the whole State of
Florida.
Now, we have 18 million people that live in the State of Florida.
Think about that opportunity. And there are other places along the
eastern seaboard of the United States that if this technology can be
captured and the electricity can be generated, again, as you point out,
no greenhouse gas emissions. This is totally 100 percent clean,
renewable. They are working through all the environmental issues right
now. They believe there will not be any as they continue to develop
this.
{time} 2215
It is still at midstage testing, but the opportunity is there.
And again, what's exciting now is we're capturing this excitement.
The American people understand this is a necessity that we have to do
these kinds of things. This is one particular program I'm interested in
because I've already seen the potential that it may accomplish.
But along with solar, along with some of the other things that we're
going to talk about, there are great opportunities for the United
States to become energy independent in a relatively short period of
time, no different than Brazil, no different than other countries
around the world that have found their own natural resources that can
be used, Iceland and other places, that can be used to generate the
power needs for growth, for success, for a clean environment. And
again, it's just very exciting.
I'm glad to be here to support this bill and encourage not only the
Senate, but the President, too, when this bill gets to him, because I'm
confident that Congress is going to pass a bill that's going to include
most of these items that we're talking about today. When it does pass,
we are going to really get the American people behind this. So, Mr.
President, I hope that as we get this to you, that you join us in
really taking this mission that we have to the American people and our
next generation.
Mr. INSLEE. Well, I hope that that occurs.
And I'm really excited about power off our coastline as well. We have
a little coastline off the Pacific coast which actually has the
potential to generate power from waves. Mr. Klein talked about power
from currents, where you can have turbines that turn, like a windmill
or rotary moving mechanisms, but we also have huge power from waves
that simply go up and down that are generated by the wind. And off our
coast right now, we have some buoys going into the water, and as they
bob up and down, they compress water, and that generates compression
that turns the turbine that generates electricity. And this is a
technology that is in its infancy, but there is enormous power in our
wave power. In a 10x10 mile stretch off the Pacific coast, there is
enough electricity for all the electrical needs of California, for
instance. So, here's another technology.
I want to compare this technology to wind power. I've got a picture
here of the largest wind farm in the western hemisphere, it's in
southeastern Washington, in my State. These are, I think, almost three-
quarters to one megawatt. That's enough for 1,000 homes, each one of
these turbines. They are somewhere between 250 and 300 feet high. And
what that power represents now is absolutely clean power, which today
is the least expensive power that we can buy in the Pacific Northwest.
If you want to get the cheapest power you can buy right now, this is
the cheapest power essentially that you can buy, cheaper compared to
even coal fire, or as cheap as a coal fire plant. That's why there is
huge demand for these turbines. Actually, the pricing has gone up
because there is so much demand for them, people want to buy them.
The reason I mention wind in conjunction with wave power and tidal
power is a lot of people think that wave power and tidal power is sort
of where the wind industry was about 20 to 25 years ago, in its
infancy. When this started, people laughed at it. They thought it was
like a big tinker toy with a bunch of folks living in a teepee that
were dreaming up. And for a long time it was ahead of its time. Now it
is commercially viable, it is supporting thousands of jobs. The
Speaker's State of Pennsylvania has a company called Gamesa that is
manufacturing these turbines. In Iowa, the Clipper Turbine Company is
manufacturing. We want to make these and put them out to the world.
That's why the third step, we've talked about the first two, the auto
efficiency standards, the tax fairness provisions, and now the third
step we've taken is what we call the renewable electricity standard,
which requires 15 percent of our electricity to come from a combination
of renewable energy, clean energy sources, wind, solar, wave, enhanced
geothermal, and efficiency. And we believe if we simply create those
demands for these technologies, if you demand it, they will come. And
these technologies will take off once we have these demands.
So, this is an important part of the package. Some of our colleagues
across the Chamber and in the Senate are balking at this. If we don't
get this through now, we will next time. We will make some adjustments
to it and get it through, because once people find out about these
technologies, they're ready to rock and roll.
I yield to Mr. Klein.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. If I can just add something to the gentleman's
thoughts about that.
Part of what we're doing here is creating market. That is the
exciting part. Obviously entrepreneurs are going to invest and make the
capital investments if they know that they can sell the product. As you
said with the windmills, the turbines, a market has been created. It
has now justified itself to the point where the price is actually going
up because the demand is there, which is great. That's great
[[Page 33742]]
news. And some of these technologies that are being developed are at
different stages. But the whole notion of creating an obligation to
have 15 percent of the electricity we generate, instead of from fossil
fuels, coming from these renewable energy sources will, again, move in
a way which are your public utilities will come together and find ways
to enhance and encourage companies to come forward and provide these
products.
We are behind the curve in Europe. Europe is way ahead of us on this.
Most European countries already generate a much larger percentage of
their energy from renewable energy sources. And they have recognized
and they've taken it upon themselves to do this, by law, voluntarily,
or otherwise.
The whole notion of the environmental impacts of global warming and
things like that, these are not limited to anybody's border. They're
not limited to the United States' borders. They're not limited to any
State. They're not limited to China. It's a worldwide issue. But
Europe, in fact, has shown some good leadership here. And I think that
the United States, and I know that Americans, as I said before, are
very innovative people who respect their environment, that we can all
work together. And this notion in this bill of making the 15 percent
obligation is good because it not only makes the statement, but it
creates the market which will in turn create the jobs and the new
economy that will sustain and build these types of products, which is
very exciting.
Mr. INSLEE. And what we have found, the genius of this, like you
said, once the demand is created for these renewable energy prices,
there is a very, very tried and tested rule that kicks in, which is,
they become cheaper over time. And people say, well, gee, some of these
things cost more than coal right now or oil and gas. Well, that's true
right now, but look at what the experience has been over the last two
decades. These are graphs from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
of the renewable energy cost trends over the last 25, 27 years, and
there is remarkable consistency.
Wind energy started out in 1980 about 30 cents, 32 cents a kilowatt
hour. It came down dramatically, until now it's down to in the range of
6 to 8 cents in this graph, that actually might be a little optimistic,
in the year 2000. Look at this enormous reduction over the last 20
years because of improvements in technology, and the fact that once you
have scales of economy, you manufacture more of these, they cost less.
Same thing with solar thermal technology, that type of technology I
showed earlier with the mirrors, heating up the water, started out at
60 cents a kilowatt hour in 1990, gone down to about 8 cents a kilowatt
hour now in the year 2000. Again, these are, frankly, a little
optimistic. These charts are a little less than the numbers I've heard
quoted, but you get the general trend that it's incredibly down.
Photovoltaic solar energy, that's the kind most of us are familiar
with, which you have a silicone panel, and it just takes the sun's
energy and spins off an electron and creates an electrical current,
started at 100 cents a kilowatt hour, now it's down to 22, 24 cents a
kilowatt hour.
And what we find in these charts, in almost all these technologies
there is almost this kind of law, I don't know if it's got a name yet,
when you increase by a factor of 10 the number of units of these
renewable sources, the price comes down 20 cents. Now, what does that
tell us? We know two things for sure; the cost of fossil fuels is going
up, and it isn't coming down. China is coming on like gang busters.
They're demanding. They want to start buying the oil for their cars,
too. And as their economy grows, that demand is going up. And we know
we're not producing, we're not keeping up with the pace of demand for
the increase in our oil production, so fossil fuel is going up over
time.
We know these renewable sources are coming down over time, including
geothermal, which is coming down dramatically again, from 1 dollar in
1980 down to about 26, 28 cents now. So, we know these are coming down.
These lines are going to cross. And if we're going to hitch our
economic star to some technology, let's hitch our star to the
technologies that are getting cheaper, not the ones that are getting
more expensive over time. And that's what this bill has done.
I yield to Mr. Klein.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. And to further your point, the supply is
indefinite. It's infinite. It's perpetual. It's forever. Oil is not.
And it's not a question of whether there is going to be enough oil on
the ground for the next generation; it's the question of the people
that are supplying the oil are not reliable sources, they're not
necessarily friends of the United States. We're at their whim. We've
seen the statistic, when President Bush was sworn into office in 2000,
oil was at $28 a barrel. It is now $90 to $100 a barrel, depending on
what day is going on here. OPEC, we have no control over that. This is
a cartel of people that are not acting in our best interests at best,
and at worst, in some cases, some of these organizations, these
countries are financing people who are out to harm the United States.
So, we are totally off in the wrong direction in terms of oil, and that
has obviously been a mainstay.
Now, oil will continue to be part of our source, and that's fine. But
in terms of our future, as you correctly said, where do we want to put
our efforts, our resources, our energy? It should be in these renewable
resources because they are coming to the point where there is going to
be a crossover, and the sooner we have total control over our energy
destiny, the better off we're going to be from a national security
point, from an economic growth point, and everything else.
Mr. INSLEE. I would now like to turn to the fourth small step that
we've taken, and the fourth step that we've taken is to embrace what we
call the first fuel of clean energy. And the first fuel of clean energy
is not wasting it. What we have found, and I've done a lot of research
in this field, almost always the cheapest energy and the most effective
energy you can get is the energy you don't waste. The efficient use of
energy is the first place we've got to look.
Our bill in many ways demanded more efficiency for Americans. It
demands that our lighting industry produce lighting that is 40 to 60
percent more energy efficient. It demands that our air conditioning
units become much more efficient, that our buildings become much more
efficient. There is a provision in there that we want to create model
building codes, that when we build our buildings they won't waste as
much energy as they do.
Many people believe that probably 30 to 40 percent of the road we
have to travel we will get there simply by not wasting energy. And I
want to go to exhibits A and B on that, show you a picture of a couple
of folks in Redmond, Washington, Mike and Meg Town. They're standing in
their doorway here. Mike is a science teacher at Redmond High School.
It's a rainy environment out northeast of Seattle. And a few years ago
when he was teaching his kids about clean energy, one of his kids said,
Hey, Mr. Town, if you think this is so hot, why don't you build a house
like this? And he said, I think I'll do just that.
So he basically set out to build a zero electrical net usage home by
using efficiency, conservation, and a little bit of photovoltaic, and
he did it. And here is a picture of his home. It didn't cost much of
anything more than a normal home of this site. I think you'll agree
it's a nice-looking place. It's in a rainy environment, but he managed
to make it zero net electrical usage by doing some commonsense things.
He used a little additional insulation. He used energy-efficient
windows. He designed a home that uses a little bit of what's called
passive solar heating, so the solar rays, when we get them in Seattle,
which is twice a year, I think, on August 12th and 13th, heats the
inside of the home. And he did some photovoltaic array. He put on
himself these darker panels up here on the roof that he actually put
on.
And now Mike says one of the great joys is, first off, he uses about
half as much energy as a normal home. And when he does use it, he's
producing it
[[Page 33743]]
largely with his PV system. And when he's generating more than he uses,
his meter runs backwards. And he says there is nothing more fun than
going out and watching your meter run backwards as you're feeding
electricity back into the grid.
So, Meg and Mike Town are sort of walking examples of what our bill
is going to do, which is to help Americans weatherize their homes, make
sure their businesses are using energy-efficient appliances, and when
we do that, we're going to use this first fuel. That's kind of a
commonsense thing to do.
So, I want to move to the fifth step now. And the fifth step that we
took is we adopted what's called a renewable fuel standard. In a
renewable fuel standard, we guaranteed that we will have 32 billion
gallons of biofuels that will be homegrown in the United States in the
next 20 years. And the reason we said that is we think it makes more
sense to get our energy from middle western farmers rather than Middle
Eastern sheiks. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to take our
subsidized agricultural products, export them, take the money from the
international buyers, and then just ship it to Saudi Arabia. It's just
kind of a shell game with money. Let's cut out the middle man and grow
our own.
For those who doubt we can do that, I want to refer them to a little
company in Grays Harbor, Washington, and I like to tell a little story
about this company.
{time} 2230
This is a picture of the Imperium Biofuels biodiesel plant in Grays
Harbor, Washington. It is on the coast of Washington State. Imperium
Biofuels is the largest biodiesel plant in the world, and it is in
Washington State. It produces 100 million gallons of biodiesel,
principally using canola oil, some additional oils that they are using,
soybean and a couple of others. This company started from a guy in
Seattle, Washington, who was a pilot, who got tired of flying
airplanes, he got bored of flying airplanes and decided he would start
an energy company. He started brewing up biodiesel in his garage. And
the part of this story I like is he went to the Rainier Brewing Company
and he got two old brewing vats from the Rainier Brewing Company, and
he started brewing up biodiesel. What a great can-do story. He went out
and raised some capital and now built the largest biodiesel plant in
the world, and plans on building 10 or 20 more of these.
Now, with the capacity of biodiesel and with advanced forms of
ethanol, and I am talking about advanced forms of ethanol, we have the
capacity to provide 25 to 30 percent of all our transportation fuels
from homegrown United States crops without jeopardizing our food chain,
without jeopardizing the production of our domestic food supplies. And
the reason for this is, and if you talk to John Plaza he will tell you
about this, we have the capability of using whole new types of
biofuels. We know we use corn ethanol now. But we only use the seed of
the corn. We only use the kernel. We are now going to have cellulosic
ethanol which uses the whole plant, all of the carbohydrates, from the
stalk, the stem, what they call the corn stover, from wheat chaff that
is now left on the ground. There is a company called Iogen in Idaho
that is planning to bale it up and make that into cellulosic ethanol.
When we do this, we will be able to produce a significant part of our
transportation fuel.
So this is our fifth step. It is common sense. It is home grown. And
for those who have heard a lot of controversy about corn ethanol, I
have been talking to the scientists on this. You will be blown away by
what is coming. There are crops now in development, one called
miscanthus by a company called Mendel Biotechnology in Hayward,
California. It is a crop they have developed that is four to five times
more productive than corn per acre of ethanol. Now when farmers can
start selling four to five times more ethanol per acre than they are
today, we will decrease the pressure on our land. This crop uses less
fertilizer and less water than corn today. So we look at corn ethanol
as sort of the DC-3 of biofuels. It is a start. We are going to move
forward to the Boeing 787, which is cellulosic ethanol.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I am going to add another form of ethanol out
there that I think people around the world are familiar with in Brazil,
which is a very large country, it is a fully industrialized country.
They decided a generation ago to move towards energy independence for
the same reasons we are having these discussions here today in this
country. And they have oil. They have lots of other things, but they
use sugar-based ethanol, a different type of ethanol based on a sugar
product, and it is cellulosic based.
I have heard and some of the research that has been done, well, it is
not as efficient, and there are food-chain issues and everything else.
As far as I am concerned, and I know that many Members of Congress and
most Americans believe, where there's a will there is a way. If there
are any technological limitations to anything we have talked about
tonight, they can be overcome. I think this entire conversation needs
to be about how can we move forward in all these areas. If there is a
limitation, let's figure out how to overcome that.
Again, sugar-based ethanol in Brazil, their ethanol that is a big
part of their production. The cost is slightly different from here,
but, again, let's figure it out. It could be a question of production;
it could be a question of greater efficiency of production of sugar
cane, where in Florida we have a very large production of sugar cane,
and obviously most of it is used for production of food. In other parts
of the country, sugar beet and other things are used to produce sugar.
But the point of all this, and I think the part that is so
interesting, is that various types of alternative or renewable energy
sources are already in production as you have in Washington in
different stages. And we are allowing every one of these to compete.
That is the greatest thing about our economy. It is a system where the
great ideas, the great science will move forward and whatever is most
efficient over time, it could be any combination of ways that we are
going to achieve energy independence in this next generation, we will
do it. So when I hear people, the naysayers, the people who say, oh, we
can't do this, there is this problem, there is that problem, we can do
it. We are going to do it. We will do it. It is going to require
everybody to partner together, consumers to drive this, industry to
drive it, education and scientists to drive it, government partnering
with the private sector to drive it. It is going to happen.
Again, I am so proud to be part of a Congress that recognizes this
and is moving this notion forward, and I'm proud the American people
are finally coming together and saying, hey, this is something that is
all about who we are, how we define ourselves, we being the great
leaders in the world; and science and other things are going to use our
scientists and our technology to achieve these great goals. It is
exciting to see a plant like that with all the silos and all the great
things going on there. They are already the largest in the world. That
is pretty exciting.
Mr. INSLEE. What is neat about this is a lot of these things are
happening in areas that have previously been quite depressed. This is
an area that has really been hurt when the timber industry has had some
tough times. And now we have got this, and there are two other very
green industries that have developed in Grays Harbor, Washington.
You look around the Midwest where the ethanol plants have gone up,
these communities have really revitalized. A lot of them have been
using co-ops. This is not all money from Wall Street. These are co-ops
where people have banded together and built their own industry. It is a
very unifying experience when these communities do this.
We see this happening in the inner city where we are developing green
collar jobs, where we are improving the efficiency of older buildings.
When you have a green collar job to rebuild a building to make it
energy efficient, that job doesn't get shipped to China. It is right
here. It is a local green collar job. That is why we are excited about
that.
[[Page 33744]]
We talked about the five steps we took last Thursday: number one,
auto efficiency, which we are calling for; number two, commonsense tax
fairness to move some of these things away from oil and gas to these
new businesses and consumers to help them; number three, the renewable
energy standards so we can have clean energy electricity; number four,
the efficiency standards that Mike and Meg Town used to such effect to
allow your home to be efficient; and, number five, the renewable fuels
standard where we are calling for advanced fuels.
And by the way, our renewable fuels standard requires these advanced
biofuels. It requires about two-thirds of this to be from these
advanced forms, not just corn ethanol, but advanced forms of ethanol in
the future. So those are five significant steps.
Just to note how significant they are, there has been an independent
group that evaluates energy policy that has evaluated a very similar
plan to this and concluded that when this plan is implemented, it will
save more carbon dioxide from going into the atmosphere, the principal
global warming gas, than all of our cars and trucks are putting into
the atmosphere today. This is a big, big deal. We know we have to
reduce our carbon dioxide by probably 80 percent by the year 2050 to
prevent carbon dioxide from going over twice preindustrial levels. This
is about maybe 35 or more percent of the way we need to go. So it is a
very significant first five steps on that path.
For those who are interested in this subject, I want to congratulate
Vice President Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I read his
acceptance speech, which anyone who is interested in the subject I
would recommend it to them. It is available on some Web site somewhere.
It is a brilliant statement of the planetary emergency we now have, and
I would encourage people to take a look at it because it will give you
a sense of urgency that we have.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I am going to give you a plug because not only
did Al Gore obviously earn the Nobel Prize for what he did, but Mr.
Inslee you have also taken upon yourself not only to work in this
Congress, but you also have independently written about this subject
and you have brought forward a publication called ``Apollo's Fire.'' I
don't know if you talked about it in the very beginning. I am going to
give you a little plug because I have had a chance to take a look at
it. It is an inspirational book that talks about what we have talked
about tonight and where the country is going.
I will read one quote which I thought was very self-descriptive, and
this is a quote out of your book. It says: ``A new Apollo Project for
energy is really a mission to rebuild our economy. Smart energy policy
is, in fact, good economic policy. The two are inextricably
intertwined. Done right, solving our crisis of climate change and oil
dependence can create tremendous opportunity for America and the world,
not only by avoiding the severe economic harm of climate disruption,
but also by driving new investment into local and metropolitan
economies, increasing social justice and reducing economic disparity by
creating new career ladders and skilled domestic jobs across the
economic spectrum.''
And I think in that quote you have captured a lot of what America is
interested in: the environmental issues, the impact on our whole
society and the job opportunities that go on. It doesn't touch the
national security issues because I think people clearly already know it
is a bad deal for us to depend on other countries. But the internal
things that operate inside the United States, our economy, our daily
lives, our jobs, the fact you are spending $60 for a tank of gas on
something that is creating problems in the economy, in the environment,
and instead we can go in a totally different direction. The book you
have entitled ``Apollo's Fire'' I think lays it out very nicely. And I
just wanted to mention that because I commend you and I recommend the
Members of this body to take a look at that because I think it lays it
out very clearly in a very simple fashion so that Americans can take
that charge and move forward with it.
Mr. INSLEE. Well, this is why this is something that can unify us,
because it is an economic growth plan, it is something that can unify
us, red State, blue State, urban, rural, all of us can get behind
economic development. And we have seen instances of that tonight when
we have talked about that. I think the bill that we have promoted ought
to be able to promote that economic development in rural and urban
areas, red and blue States. I really think it is a unifying message.
We mentioned these five steps, but there is a giant leap for mankind
that will be on our plate when we return in January, that is, we have
to find a way to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that is going into
the atmosphere. And the ultimate way to do that is what we call a cap-
and-trade system, which we hope to embrace and pass in this House next
year.
A cap-and-trade system does two things. First, it caps the amount of
total carbon that goes into the atmosphere, the total amount of
pollution, the total amounts of carbon dioxide and methane that
contribute to global climate change. And we have done this in a variety
of pollutants, particularly sulfur dioxide, which we have a cap on.
Previous Congresses have put a cap on sulfur dioxide. But we have a
giant loophole in that there is no cap today for carbon dioxide and
some of these other global warming gases.
So next year, we will be working on a plan to cap the total amount of
these global warming gases that go into the atmosphere and give the
Americans the confidence and the security to know that their grandkids
aren't going to be exposed to runaway climate change associated with
global warming. And then we are going to insist that polluting
industries that put that pollution in the air have to pay for that.
They can't do it for free any more.
Essentially, they have been using the atmosphere like a private
garbage dump, like they back their truck full of junk and dump it into
your county park. We don't let them do that, dump their junk in our
county park, and we are not going to let them dump their CO2
in the atmosphere any more with zero cost.
So there will be a charge associated with that and that will be
tradable amongst industries to make it efficient. So when we adopt this
cap-and-trade system, we will truly have the ultimate incentive for the
geniuses of America to create these technologies, and we will be
looking for people's input on this. We hope to have a bipartisan bill
to do this, because there is no Republican or Democrat, or shouldn't be
in this debate. We want to have something that all our kids can have a
future on and we hope to do that. So, Mr. Klein, I wonder if you have
any final comments.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue
forward and allowing us to discuss this in the Congress. I certainly am
going to recommend to our colleagues here in the Congress, the House
and the Senate, while we go home and have a chance to have some working
days at home during the holidays, to speak to our business
entrepreneurs in our local communities, speak to our universities,
speak to the scientists, speak to consumers.
I think, number one, that people are excited about these ideas; but
as you are suggesting, this is just the first step. Whatever law we
pass ultimately you can pass all the laws you want and it is up to
Americans to say, this is our priority. This is something we are going
to embrace. And this is something we are going to follow through. The
private sector ultimately is going to drive this. We encourage our
businesses. We encourage our academics to work together and come up
with new ideas, express those ideas to the extent that government can
partner, if there are things we can do to eliminate regulation or
change policy to make things easier to move it in a direction where
businesses and homeowners can do things to create more environmentally
friendly pieces of property improvements, things like that and
industry. It is good for all of us.
So I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Members of
[[Page 33745]]
Congress and moving our country forward on this very important topic.
{time} 2245
Mr. INSLEE. Well, we have a ways to go, but we have made five maybe
not- so-small steps for a few people here in Congress and in America.
We have one giant leap for mankind to come. But we have got a great
start, and this is going to help Americans, both their environment,
their security and their economy, and that is three bold steps.
Thanks for your participation, Mr. Klein.
____________________
THE GROWING AND DISTURBING TREND OF FOOD AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
RECALLS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor tonight and
discuss a growing problem that we seem to be seeing, a disturbing trend
in food and consumer product safety recalls.
Mr. Speaker, the danger is very real. It has been widely documented,
discussed in the media, in committee hearings, and around the water
cooler at work. We have just come through a summer of recall after
recall after recall after recall.
What is the upshot of this, Mr. Speaker? The upshot is that parents
are afraid. Parents are afraid that their children are playing with
lead-tainted toys. Parents are afraid that magnets in toys or charms
may cause internal damage if a child accidentally swallows them.
Families are afraid that the food they feed their pets may actually
have little bits of plastic in it and poison their beloved pet. People
are afraid that their toothpaste may contain antifreeze and poison
them. People are afraid that the fish they serve to their families may
have dangerous levels of antibiotics contained within them.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about specific concerns, but
generally people are afraid. They are afraid about the source of these
products and dangers, and rightfully so.
Mr. Speaker, people are afraid about defective products being
imported into our country, and it seems like almost all of those
imports come from a single source, a single country, the People's
Republic of China.
Consumers' health and well-being are being endangered on two fronts;
in the food we eat and the goods we use. I want to use some time
tonight to talk about both fronts and what we in Congress are doing,
what we have done, and what we should be doing to protect American
families from harmful products.
Let's first consider the issue of consumer product safety recalls. It
seems like the Nation has also turned its attention to this issue.
Every time you turn on the TV, every time you open up a newspaper, you
learn about yet another consumer product safety recall. While people
are concerned generally about the issue of recalls, many people, many
people, myself included, are concerned with the source of the recall.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I stress, it appears that the majority of recalled
products originate in and from the People's Republic of China.
Now, I have signed up for e-mail notification for recalled products
through the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, and I
seem to get almost daily e-mails announcing the latest recalls. And,
yes, most of the recalled products were manufactured in China.
As a parent, as a physician, one recall that was announced last month
was extremely disturbing. I am referring to the infamous recall that
literally had a child's product, the Spin Master Aqua Dots, laced with
the chemicals that are contained in the drug Rohypnol, the infamous
date rape drug.
Mr. Speaker, it is an innocent enough looking product, an innocent
enough looking toy, a little bit interesting. I bet if my daughters
were still little, they would have loved this. However, while it may
look innocent, this product is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing.
In the recall notification, and I encourage everyone to sign up for
the recall notification at CPSC.Gov, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission listed the injuries that these beads caused, these beads
that were available just a few weeks ago on the shelf of any store that
any of us could go to in our communities back home.
``The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received two reports
over the last several days of children swallowing Aqua Dots. A 20-
month-old child swallowed several dozen beads. He became dizzy and
vomited several times before slipping into a comatose state for a
period of time.''
Well, that is a pretty serious situation. A 20-months-old child? It
doesn't say how long the comatose state lasted, but I submit to you any
length of time that a 20-month-old child spends in a comatose state is
alarming, frightening, disturbing and upsetting to the parents. And to
think it was caused by a toy that they bought to amuse their child,
well, it is almost unthinkable, unthinkable as a parent, that that
could happen.
A second child also ingested some dots, vomited and slipped into a
comatose state and was hospitalized for 5 days.
Mr. Speaker, according to a report on ABC News, quoting here,
``Scientists say a chemical coating on the beads, when ingested,
metabolizes into the so-called date rape drug gamma hydroxy butyrate.
When eaten, the compound, made from common and easily available
ingredients, can induce unconsciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma and
death.''
While it is not yet clear how the chemical wound up in the child's
product, it is clear, it is very clear, where this product was
manufactured. It was manufactured in the People's Republic of China.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are here working away trying to finish up our
business, because Christmas is right around the corner, and with the
Christmas season upon us, I cannot help but think there has to be a
huge market in this country for something that not only doesn't say
``made in the People's Republic of China,'' but says ``made in
America,'' ``made in America'' on the toy, on the goods that we buy.
Wouldn't that be something?
I encourage retailers to stock as many ``made in America'' products
as they can. Since the majority of products that are being recalled
this year were made in China, this year, this year my family and I have
made the personal decision to try not to buy anything with the ``made
in China'' label. Given all of the circumstances, it seems like the
right thing to do for my family. And I am certain that other American
families have come to a very similar conclusion. You can't turn on the
television at night without hearing Lou Dobbs talk about this, and I
bet his family is one of those families as well.
Mr. Speaker, let's look at just a few of the products that have been
recalled, shall we? The concern about these imported products is real
and it has been substantiated with real data. The United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is tasked with the job of
trying to safeguard our society from unreasonable risk of injury and
death associated with consumer products, informed me in that in fiscal
year 2007 there were a record-breaking 472 consumer product safety
recalls. Of the 472 recalls, more than 60 percent, over half, were
manufactured in the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Speaker, more than 60 percent of all recalled products this past
year were made in China.
Furthermore, of the 472 total consumer product recalls, 61 of those
recalls affected our most innocent and vulnerable members of society,
our children. Sixty-one consumer product recalls were toys. And how
many of those products were manufactured in the People's Republic of
China, you might ask? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad you did. That figure
is even more staggering. In the United States, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission estimated that over 90 percent of the toy recalls
originated in the country of China. It is clearly now becoming a
[[Page 33746]]
common business practice for Chinese toys.
So here is the question: Does the label ``made in China'' translate
into ``this product may be hazardous to your health or to your child's
health?'' Here they are, just a few of the products. This poster was
actually made a little bit earlier, it was close to Halloween and you
see some Halloween type motifs here, but products that any child would
delight in owning. But these are products that have been found to be
unsafe and recalls have been issued by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
Well, let's look at a little bit more recent picture. How about
today? Is that recent enough? December 11, 2007. From today's Wall
Street Journal, ``China stands for quality'' was the title of the
piece, and it had this cute little teddy bear cartoon associated with
the article.
In the article, China's Vice Premier says some interesting things,
and I would like to share some of those interesting things with you
tonight, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I will even offer an opinion or two
about those claims.
First she says, ``The Chinese government takes product quality and
food safety seriously.'' I say prove it.
She also states, quoting again, ``China has come a long way in
strengthening product quality and food safety control supervision.'' I
would tell you, I would submit that that country has not gone nearly
far enough in this regard.
Here is the kicker, Mr. Speaker. She ends the piece by saying, and I
am going to paraphrase here for brevity, China will live up to its
responsibilities, but we would appreciate understanding, support and
help from our trade partners. That is the end of the paraphrase.
Well, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, with all due respect, we are
past the point of understanding. Mr. Speaker, there are lives on the
line. These are the lives of our friends, our neighbors, our children,
our neighbors' children. It is time, it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we
act, that we act in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I previously was a physician in my former life before
coming to Congress 5 years ago, just a simple country doctor. But you
have got to keep asking yourself over and over again, what can we do to
protect ourselves and our families? For the safety of our families, we
have to get to the bottom of what is the cause behind all of these
recalls.
Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. I sit on four subcommittees that have conducted intense
investigations on the issues of food and product safety matters. One
subcommittee on which I serve, the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over consumer product
safety issues, has systematically investigated this issue this past
fall.
We passed individual bills recently that have dealt with specific
issues of consumer product safety concerns, including a bill that I
amended in order to increase the safety of ornamental pools in our
parks and public spaces in our cities.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will be marking up bipartisan
legislation later this week that will strengthen the consumer product
safety system in this country. Mr. Speaker, the bill is H.R. 4040, for
those keeping score at home, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization
Act, and almost 80 other Members of this body have cosponsored the
legislation, and I am an original cosponsor of the legislation as well.
It is an important piece of legislation, and it has, as promised,
promised by our chairman of the subcommittee, it has come through the
regular process. All Members have a chance to comment and, if they
wish, to submit amendments, to try to make amendments to try to perfect
this important bill. This, quite honestly, is the way we should
formulate legislation. Not just in the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, but in the whole House as well. I want to thank the
leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee for being
committed to the legislative process, because I think it has worked and
served to make this a better bill as it has come through the process.
The version in the House is truly a bipartisan effort. I commend the
chairman of the full committee, Chairman Dingell, and Ranking Member
Barton, for their participation and leadership in getting the process
to this point.
I would also like to commend the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission Acting Commissioner Chairwoman Nancy Nord for her
honest assistance in trying to get a good bill through the committee.
We asked for technical assistance and we asked for constructive
criticism, and it was provided to us.
Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization
Act, the House was able to craft a comprehensive, commonsense bill that
boosts the funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It
boasts their personnel. It bans lead in children's products. It
requires third party testing. It increases the penalties for those that
break the law.
H.R. 4040, again which has almost 80 bipartisan cosponsors, also has
the support from consumer groups, industry, and in fact from the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. The full committee, the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, has realized finally that in order to protect
our children, we have to work together.
{time} 2300
We were able to put politics aside and do it in a very pragmatic,
cooperative way. The House, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
consumer groups, and the industry all worked together to get this done.
A lot has been reported about a bill in the Senate, but in reality it
is because our House committee worked in such a cooperative manner with
all of the stakeholders that we are now just perched on the very
threshold, literally the eve, of passing H.R. 4040 through our
committee. The Senate hasn't been able to do this, so the legislation
may languish a bit longer, but I hope they take the lead from this
inspired and bipartisan piece of legislation.
Now, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the dais in the committee
had to compromise on several things, but I don't believe we ever
compromised the safety of our children. I am an original cosponsor of
the bill; I don't think it is a perfect bill. I have proposed
amendments in the subcommittee process, and I am going to propose
amendments when we mark the bill up later this week. For instance, I
firmly believe that we have to improve the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission's ability to notify consumers and retailers
about dangerous products more quickly and in a much broader scope.
During a hearing earlier this year with the chief executive officer
of a large toy company in this country, I started wondering about some
of the nonprofits in my district, people that do good work. They
collect items for resale; they sell a large amount of resale items and
collect money for other good works that they do. But I wondered, how do
they find out about recalls? If the product is recalled, do they know
it? Will they be able to remove it from their shelves so it doesn't
then pass into the hands of some other unsuspecting consumer or child?
And if they don't know about them, what can we do? What can we do in
the United States Congress to make sure that they are indeed aware?
Well, after discussing this issue, I must tell you, I have got an
outstanding nonprofit corporation in my district back in Denton County,
back in north Texas, Christian Community Action. After talking about it
with them, I became very concerned that there may be a large group of
people and associations that are not receiving the information about
product recalls in a timely manner. As we all know, products are
recalled because they have been found to have some element of danger to
the consumer, and they need to be immediately discarded or handled in
some other way.
Nonprofits like the Salvation Army, Goodwill, and my own community
[[Page 33747]]
Christian Community Action, and even smaller nonprofits that serve an
even more specialized segment of the community, they provide many
valuable resources. Often, these nonprofits run second-hand retail
shops to additionally help some of the neediest members of society,
certainly members of society that you really don't want a recalled
product ending up in their hands. However, as I said before, I have
been informed by some of the nonprofits in my district that, through no
fault of their own, they are unaware of the recalls. And, therefore,
the fear is that they may inadvertently sell a recalled product to a
family or to an individual or to a child.
This gap had to be closed, and I was able to offer an amendment that
subsequently was accepted and the amendment will help us close the gap.
This happened in the subcommittee markup on the Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection Subcommittee. That amendment makes it unequivocally
clear that the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission must
reach out and educate second-hand retailers, like Christian Community
Action back home in my district, and must provide additional
educational materials about the recalls. This new provision will help
make our second-hand retail shops safer, and that makes our communities
safer. It makes our children safer.
Now, I am pleased that the amendment was accepted, and I have also
been working on other ideas. I want to talk about them just a little
bit more in a moment. But I have also introduced legislation dealing
with food imports, which basically will give the Food and Drug
Administration a big red button to push to be able to stop a dangerous
food or drug from entering the country. We see the little teddy bear
coming down a conveyor belt there. Well, if we know that the teddy bear
has got rohypnol in his running shoes or polonium in his paws or
formaldehyde in his fur, we want to be able to stop this product from
coming into the country. And this is something that I have become very
concerned about.
I want to give similar authority to the Food and Drug Administration
to give them a big red button to push to stop dangerous foods from
entering the country. At a hearing that we had at the beginning of
November, I asked Chairwoman Nord if she had the authority, that same
authority for the Consumer Safety Commission that I was trying to give
to the FDA, and she said no.
Therefore, over the past several weeks I have been working on trying
to incorporate these same ideas into H.R. 4040, which, again, deals
with consumer product safety. So this Thursday, when we do our markup
in full committee on H.R. 4040, I will be offering two additional
amendments at the full committee markup.
Right now, the current law lists five ways that an imported product
can be refused admission into the United States. Now, I was somewhat
chagrined to learn that the list did not include products that had been
recalled. That seems just common sense. Do we ever need that stop
button. We need to stop dangerous products from other countries from
entering into our shores and certainly from entering into our stream of
commerce. It seems to be common sense that products that have been
found to be dangerous should be stopped at the border and denied
entrance into this country; but, unfortunately, that is not always the
case.
And think about that for a minute, Mr. Speaker. You have got a
product that has been recalled because it has lead in some part of the
product, but we don't stop it from coming into this country. What
happens to all that stuff? It accumulates in a warehouse somewhere,
presumably. Presumably it is not diverted into the stream of commerce
at some point along the line. But even just aggregating a lead
contaminated product in a warehouse somewhere means at some point
someone has got to do something with it. They can't just keep paying
rent on a warehouse for a product that is not moving and not going
anywhere and not making them any money. This product is going to have
to be destroyed.
Well, you can't bury it in a landfill because then you contaminate
the groundwater. You can't burn it because then it goes in the air; we
all breathe it. We know that is not a good thing for a lead-
contaminated product. We need to stop that stuff from even coming into
our country.
So I will be offering an amendment that would immediately add
recalled products to the list of reasons as to why a product should be
refused admission. I know it sounds simplistic and that is something
that should already be done, but apparently that is not the case.
Unfortunately, while the leadership of the committee agrees that the
stop button approach has much merit, to avoid possible violations of
trade laws, and for the life of me I don't know why we would be
concerned about that; it seems like someone is violating the trade laws
on the other end. But the committee thinks, in order to avoid
violations of trade laws, that we need to hold an additional hearing on
this very subject on this idea before enactment.
I am going to offer the amendment when we mark up the bill on
Thursday. Because of this concern, it likely will not be accepted. And
I would like to get the understanding from the committee that we have
got to go forward with this idea and enact legislation that will give
the Federal Government a true measure, a true way to stop dangerous
products from other countries, from coming into our country and hurting
our families and our children.
Now, while this amendment may not be successful this run, I have been
able to gather support from the committee on another and equally
important amendment. As I mentioned before, right now, current law in
the United States of America, there are five ways that a product can be
refused admission into the United States. As I began my study of this
section of the law, my first question was: If the Federal Government
already has a law in place to stop harmful imported products from
entering the United States of America, then why, why, why are we seeing
recall after recall after recall, a record-breaking number of recalled
products being manufactured and imported into this country?
The second question was: What types of inefficiencies are there in
the laws that need to be remedied?
Well, after looking at a list of the five ways we could refuse
admission of an imported product, two of the five ways immediately
caught my attention. The law reads that a product can be refused
admission if the product ``is or has been determined to be an
imminently hazardous consumer product in a proceeding.''
Now, what does that mean? Well, the law defines an imminently
hazardous consumer product as a consumer product which presents
imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe
personal injury.
I think it fits the bill. So the Federal Government already has a way
to stop products from entering into America if they pose a risk of
death, serious illness, or serious injury.
When I originally learned of this, I thought that this section of the
law could and should keep Americans safe. But when I asked the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission how many times the law had
actually been used, the answer was five times. Five times. Mr. Speaker,
do you want to hazard a guess when the last time this law was used? Let
me give you a hint: Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.
The year 1998 was the last time the law was used.
Realizing that this section posed an incredibly high bar in order for
it to be used, especially since a proceeding had to be held prior to
enforcement, I turned to the next way that a product could be denied
admission. The law also reads that ``a product can be refused
admission,'' and again quoting here, ``if it has a product defect which
constitutes a substantial product hazard.''
Again, what do they mean by that? The law defines a substantial
product hazard as a product defect which, because of the pattern of the
defect, the
[[Page 33748]]
number of defective products distributed in commerce, and the severity
of the risk or otherwise creates a substantial risk of injury to the
public.
It seems to be a little bit lower bar, to me, so I thought surely,
surely this section could be used to keep Americans safe. Well, I was
wrong again. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission did
not have the exact number of times that this section had been used to
deny admission of imported products, but the information I got back was
that it was ``rarely used.'' Rarely used. Rarely used. Rarely used to
protect Americans from dangerous products.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, if we see inefficiencies
in the law, we have a duty to make changes, to make changes in the law
to make it work, make it more efficient.
I don't pretend to have all of the answers to make this law more
perfect, but I know that we must do something to increase the
effectiveness of these provisions. Americans are relying on us.
Americans are relying on their Members of Congress, on the United
States Congress to do just that. Therefore, I will be offering an
amendment to our bill when we mark it up on Thursday to H.R. 4040 that
will require the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission to
study the effectiveness of these five ways to refuse admission of an
imported product, especially the first two ways that I just went over:
the Commission must report back to Congress on a specific strategy,
including any new legislation needed to implement such a plan which
will be used to increase the effectiveness of their ability to stop
unsafe products from entering into the United States.
I have been informed that I have the support of the leadership of the
committee on a bipartisan basis to allow this, what I consider a very
vital amendment, very basic but vital amendment to go forward. We
desperately need a way to stop defective products at our borders. The
American public should know that these products will not come into this
country. I want the American people to know that I for one am not going
to stop working on this until we have the problem solved.
Let's move on from our friend the teddy bear. And just as a matter of
public service, while we continue to work on legislation regarding
consumer product safety, Mr. Speaker, I realize that I can't speak
directly to people who might be watching on C-SPAN, whether they be
Members of Congress or just ordinary Americans; but if I could speak to
them in their living rooms, what I would want to say is I would
encourage them to sign up for product recall alerts. It is easy, it is
free, and it can save a life. If you have access, again, Mr. Speaker,
if I were able to speak directly to people watching this on C-SPAN or
Members watching in their office, I would say that if you have access
to the Internet or if you have access to e-mail, all you need to do to
receive these alerts is go to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's
home page, which is www.cpsc.gov, and sign up for free recall and
safety news. Again, the Web address, www.cpsc.gov, and you can sign up
for the product alerts. I have done that. You get about an alert a day.
It is a little disconcerting at first, but it is important information.
And the Consumer Product Safety Commission also has a neighborhood
safety network which is for organizations, for civic-minded individuals
to help disseminate information about recalls, provide posters to
members of society who may not be aware that the recall has happened
and that the recall may affect products that they have in their home.
Mr. Speaker, we all know education can save lives. Unfortunately,
though, certain groups of Americans, some of them elderly, some of them
living in urban settings, some living in very rural settings, and I
have got both in my district, some low-income families, minority
groups, often don't hear about the safety messages from the government,
and so we need additional ways of outreach.
{time} 2315
Please, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, we ask our fellow Members of
Congress to help make communities safer by getting the word out about
product recalls.
I am a member of the Neighborhood Safety Network and we disseminate
information about recalls via my Web site, www.house.gov/burgess.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about consumer product safety
recalls. Let's talk about food safety. You think it is the same thing,
but it is an entirely different process. We have had so much discussion
about this that I feel people probably are asking is Congress doing
anything, has Congress paid any attention to the safety of the food we
eat?
The answer is, yes, we have paid a lot of attention. We haven't got a
lot of press about it, but I am again a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and we are pursuing an active investigation and
then subsequent legislation to confront the problem. As a member of the
Oversight Investigation Subcommittee, we have taken an active role in
investigating the safety of our Nation's food supply.
In August, our subcommittee sent a bipartisan group of investigators
to China to see firsthand some of the causes of the problem. In the
committee's staff report, the investigators came to the following
conclusion from their trip and investigation thus far. Quoting directly
from the staff report:
Number one, it would appear that the Chinese food safety supply chain
does not meet international safety standards. It is, in fact,
responsible for very serious domestic Chinese food poisoning outbreaks.
It is happening in their own backyard.
Number two, findings of the bipartisan field investigators, the
Chinese government appears to be determined to avoid embarrassing food
safety outbreaks in export markets due to the damaging and potentially
lasting effect this would have upon their ``Made in China'' branding.
Well, that is pretty powerful. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I can digress
for a moment, you almost wish if American importers and manufacturers
had that same concern about what damage they may do to their individual
brands by continuing to import, albeit inexpensive products, but
products that aren't safe.
Americans want to feel safe. If it cost an extra $1 for a Barbie
doll, I bet they are willing to fork that out.
Finding number three, the lack of meaningful regulation of farming
and food processing in China and the advanced development of the
document counterfeiting industry and the willingness of some
entrepreneurs in both China and the United States to smuggle foodstuffs
that do not meet quality standards necessitates a much more vigorous
program of inspection and laboratory testing in China and the United
States ports of entry than the Food and Drug Administration has been
willing or able to provide to date.
Mr. Speaker, these are important conclusions and we simply cannot sit
by and watch the problem worsen. We have to transform the Food and Drug
Administration into an agency that can fully cope with the importation
problems of the 21st century.
The Energy and Commerce Committee is doing our part. In addition to
the staff trip to China, we have had five hearings to discuss the topic
``Can the Food and Drug Administration Commission Assure the Safety of
the Nation's Food Supply?''
What have we learned so far? At a hearing on July 17, 2007, on this
very topic, former FDA Associate Commissioner William Hubbard testified
that in 1999 the FDA drafted a legislative proposal which would have
given the Food and Drug Administration authority to require foreign
countries to take more responsibility for the foods that they send to
the United States. The agency's proposal would have allowed the Food
and Drug Administration to embargo a given food from a given country if
there were repeated instances of that food being found contaminated
when it arrived in the United States.
Countries that send safe food would have no reason to be concerned
because they would be unaffected. But countries that demonstrated a
pattern of disregard of United States safety
[[Page 33749]]
standards would have to increase their oversight of food exported from
their country. They would have to do it. Unfortunately, Congress did
not accept this recommendation in 1999, and the situation with imported
foods has gone from bad to worse to truly awful.
Now, Congress had a chance to examine the problem and consider
recommendations on how to solve the problem, and that was back in 1999.
The world was a different place, and it was perhaps difficult to
anticipate the acceleration of foreign products that are coming into
our country that occurred over the last decade or decade and a few
years more.
Was the safety of food products from foreign countries not a priority
for Congress back in 1999? And the answer to that question is not as
much as it should have been. Why we have allowed this problem to
persist when they know how much harm these unsafe products have
potential to cause, I can't answer. We may never know the answer to
that question. But as I stand here tonight, I will absolutely,
absolutely assure you this is a priority of mine and I intend to do
something about it.
Now, October 11 of this year, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations had the third of a five-part series of
hearings on the Food and Drug Administration's ability to ensure the
safety and security of our Nation's food supply. According to testimony
given by Mr. David Nelson, the senior investigator for the Energy and
Commerce Committee, currently the Food and Drug Administration does not
go over and see if the food products that are produced in China are
done under the same standards as here in the United States of America.
These are the products that are produced in China and sent over here
for our consumption. These are the products that Americans will be
consuming, and they are not being produced under American standards.
When we had that hearing, Ranking Member Whitfield on the
subcommittee asked Mr. Nelson if you were speaking to a group and a
member of the audience asked how safe it is to consume products
produced in China, he answered, You would be taking your chances on any
imported food.
Mr. Speaker, that is a chance we simply can't afford to take. America
has to have the authority to prohibit these foods from coming into our
country if they are not safe. We have to have the ability to determine
if they are produced according to our standards. We have to be able to
stop foods that we would, according to Mr. Nelson, be taking our
chances on.
Now, Chairman Dingell asked Mr. Nelson whether or not the Food and
Drug Administration can protect the United States' citizens from unsafe
imports with the resources the Food and Drug Administration currently
has. Mr. Nelson's answer was, That would be an emphatic no. Just not
just no, but an emphatic, underlined, bolded no.
When I got a chance to ask a question, I asked Mr. Nelson what did
they do about food to eat while in China. He sort of laughed and sort
of didn't laugh and said, Well, we ate what everyone else ate. And I
asked how he was feeling, and he said, Just fine. But actually, some of
the members of our committee staff did become ill when they were
traveling in China.
Now, I was very interested in the protocol that they follow in China
after discovering a contaminated supply of food, and the hearing we
were having that day really concentrated on poultry and poultry
products.
During my questioning of Mr. James Rice, the vice president and
country manager of Tyson Foods in China, I asked what I thought was a
fairly simple question. I said, When you find a problem, do you
communicate that to, say, the United States authorities so they can be
on the lookout for similar products in other facilities?
This was a little bit disturbing, Mr. Speaker. He said, No, we don't.
He explained to me, because Tyson was using local Chinese suppliers
and the products are mostly for the Chinese market, they didn't feel
that was necessary. So, in essence, there is no dialogue whatsoever.
Mr. Rice told me if persistent problems from one supplier were
identified, no one would alert others as to the presence of this
problematic supplier. There is no system in place, no early warning
system, no system of surveillance, not even any honor among thieves, it
appears, to let people know about a bad supplier in their midst.
Mr. Speaker, that is a serious, serious problem. And it is so
important, so important that I introduced legislation that relates to
this 1999 proposal, H.R. 3967, the so-called Imported Food Safety
Improvement Act of 2007, because I firmly believe the Food and Drug
Administration needs the ability and the explicit authority to
immediately stop dangerous foods and products from coming into this
country.
And it is a pretty simple concept. Goods are coming into this
country. If goods are coming into this country on a long conveyer belt
and you find a bad apple on the belt, the Food and Drug Administration
needs to be able to push a big red button that says ``stop'' and
immediately stop that contaminated product from continuing on
downstream into our stream of commerce.
My legislation would give the Food and Drug Administration that big
red button to push. The idea is simple. If enacted, the Food and Drug
Administration would have the authority to embargo a specific food from
a specific country if there were repeated instances that that type of
food or product had been contaminated. It seems so simple. We have got
to be able to stop countries from sending harmful food products into
the United States.
My bill, H.R. 3967, will allow us to finally take control of the food
being sent to America. And this is important as well, Mr. Speaker. It
sends a strong message to countries that in the past have played fast
and loose with our regulations, that in the past have not seen a
problem with continuing to send contaminated products into our country.
Well, we are going to tell them it is a new day and it is a different
set of rules. You solve the problem on your end or we will end the
problem over here. After summer of recall upon recall upon recall, it
is time to take matters into our own hands, and I will no longer
tolerate hearing a different news story every day of the week about a
new and dangerous product coming into the United States of America from
the People's Republic of China. China is sending these products to
America and then they are being recalled. We can do a little better
than that.
The Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, of which I am also a
member, had a legislative hearing on September 26 regarding Chairman
Dingell's bill, H.R. 3610, the Food and Drug Import Safety Act of 2007.
Having reviewed this legislation, I think the chairman's intentions are
good, and obviously I look forward to working with the chairman on this
issue. I cannot support every single provision in the bill, but I do
support the spirit of the proposed law.
I believe we need to look toward how other Federal agencies have
dealt with this issue and whether it would be appropriate to give the
Food and Drug Administration similar authority or authorities.
According to the Government Accountability Office, 15 Federal
agencies collectively administer 30 laws related to food safety. Do you
think we are suffering a little bit from too much division of labor?
The Food and Drug Administration, which is part of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, which is part of the United States Department of
Agriculture, together comprise the majority of both the total funding
and the total staffing for the government's food, safety and regulatory
system.
However, food safety laws and regulations vary greatly from one
agency to the other and not all foods are treated equally. For
instance, the United States Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction
over meat, poultry and eggs, and has established equivalency
determination standards for those specified foods.
[[Page 33750]]
On October 11 at the third Oversight and Investigation hearing on the
FDA's ability to assure the safety and security of our Nation's food
supply, the Under Secretary for Food Safety at the United States
Department of Agriculture, Dr. Richard Raymond, gave the following
testimony and provided a definition for equivalency: ``Equivalency is
the foundation of our system of imports. It recognizes that an
exporting country can provide an appropriate level of food safety even
if those measures are different from those applied here at home.
{time} 2330
``The Food Safety and Inspection Service has always required an
assessment of foreign inspection systems before those nations can
export into the United States of America. This prior review was
mandated by our laws, which originally required that a foreign system
be equal to our system before that foreign product can be admitted.''
He further went on to state: ``An exporting country has the burden of
proving that its system is equivalent to our own if that country wishes
to export to the United States.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand in applying a system of equivalency
to the Food and Drug Administration, which, in fairness, has an 80
percent jurisdiction over all food imported, as compared to 20 percent
for the United States Department of Agriculture, I recognize that that
system of equivalency for the Food and Drug Administration is going to
be difficult. It's going to be onerous. Currently, only 33 countries
are eligible to ship meat or poultry into the United States because of
those very high standards established by that equivalency protocol. If
the exact standard that the United States Department of Agriculture
employs was used by the Food and Drug Administration, it would
drastically change. Some people would even say it would cripple the
food import system if there were not enough resources to support it.
Again, remember, the United States Department of Agriculture which
has a system of equivalency, oversees 20 percent of the imports. The
Food and Drug Administration, which does not have a system in place for
inspecting sites in other countries, has jurisdiction over 80 percent
of the food imports. You can begin to see some of the discrepancy there
and the magnitude of the problem that faces us.
Mr. Speaker, the former Speaker of our House, Speaker Newt Gingrich,
is famous for quoting in his second principle of transformation: ``Real
change requires real change.'' This is just such a situation. This
system needs to be drastically changed.
Consider this, Mr. Speaker: in 2005, nearly 15 percent of the overall
United States food consumption was imported. Between 1996 and 2006, the
amount of United States imports of agriculture and sea food products
from all countries increased 42 percent. Furthermore, in the last
decade the volume of Food and Drug Administration-regulated imports has
tripled.
Chinese imports to the United States of America have increased more
rapidly than the global average. And between the years 1996 to 2006,
the volume of imports of Chinese agriculture and sea food products
increased by 346 percent. China is now the third largest exporter of
agricultural and sea food products to the United States of America,
only surpassed by our neighbors to the north and south.
So perhaps our food import safety system should change. It needs to
change drastically. The Food and Drug Administration was created at a
time where we were still domestically growing and producing the
majority of our own foods. And we've got some real issues here at home
to deal with regarding our food regulatory system. But at least we have
a regulatory system with which to deal with the problem. This is not
the case for all countries from which we receive food.
It seems that it would be common sense that we would only import food
from a country if they can prove that their system is just as good as
ours. And yet only the United States Department of Agriculture can
require this, which, once again, controls only 20 percent of the
imported food. The Food and Drug Administration, which cannot control
that issue of equivalency, is responsible for 80 percent of the food
imports. It seems to be very arbitrary that the system that the United
States Department of Agriculture can employ is so much tougher than the
system employed by the Food and Drug Administration. Yet, at the end of
the day, where does all that food end up? It's on your table, and it
looks the same whether it's regulated by the United States Department
of Agriculture or regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Americans don't discriminate from which agency had the regulatory
control over the food that was imported from other countries. And it's
kind of curious that in Congress we make that distinction. Congress is
responsible for these dual standards and Congress must have a candid
discussion on whether or not we need to make these systems more
comparable, if we need to establish the same system of safety for the
Food and Drug Administration that we already have in place for the
United States Department of Agriculture.
It is my goal to encourage this frank discussion at the committee
level and here on the floor of the House, Members on both sides of the
aisle. And we've both got to continue to have input on this important
issue. As we all know, the system works best and we have the most
effective legislative product if bills are allowed to go through the
regular process. And I implore leadership to allow this important piece
of legislation to go through that regular legislative process.
We've seen two instances this year on our Committee on Energy and
Commerce with H.R. 4040, the bill that we're going to mark up on
Thursday, being the second one. The first was when we reauthorized the
prescription drug user fee and the medical device user fee for the Food
and Drug Administration. That bill came through regular process. And I
didn't like everything in the bill at the end of the process, but you
know what? It was a good bill. And it passed the House and it passed
the Senate and the President signed it into law at the end of
September.
And for the first time we've got a robust, data-gathering capability
within the Food and Drug Administration which the country has needed
and has lacked for 40 years. We did this. This Congress did this,
accomplished this by working together in a bipartisan fashion through
regular order. We've got the same opportunity here on the Consumer
Products Safety bill that's before the full committee on Thursday.
And the other side of the equation is, look what we've done with
reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. Here's a bill
that every one of us, when we stood in this Congress and we raised our
right hand and we swore the oath and were sworn into Congress, every
single one of us, man and woman, knew that the State Children's Health
Insurance Program had an expiration date of September 30 of 2007. And
what did we do? We languished; we didn't have hearings. We didn't have
a markup in subcommittee. We crammed some great big obnoxious bill
through the full committee, came to the House floor without even being
discharged by our committee. The bill was so bad that the Senate
wouldn't even touch it. Now that's a bad bill.
And then we got this process from the Senate; and instead of taking
the Senate bill back to our committee and working on it and trying to
improve it, we treated it as if it was a conference report, but
everyone in Congress knew it wasn't a conference report. But it was
brought to the floor like a conference report so you couldn't amend it,
you couldn't change it, you couldn't try to make it better and it was
rammed down our throats; and it was passed and the President vetoed it;
and we sustained the veto, and then we're going to go through the same
gyration again here this week.
And that's not necessary. We have a way of doing things right. We
have a way of producing for the American people, if we'll just do it
and put the politics aside for a little while.
[[Page 33751]]
Well, let's not allow the issue of protecting our families from
harmful and dangerous goods coming from other countries also become the
debate of Republican versus Democrat. That is something that I am
certain holds residence in the minds of all of us working together to
find the most efficient and the most effective method of solving this
crisis now, making it a priority for everyone and getting the problem
solved now and then moving on to other things.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that last month the
President's working group on import safety presented their proposal to
both the President and to Congress. While I wish that the working group
had been able to present their proposal somewhat earlier than they did,
I do believe that they have presented many sound policies and that we
should incorporate this while formulating our legislation. I, myself,
am still reviewing the group's findings.
It is pretty voluminous, but I was pleased to read that they would
also like to see a legislative proposal that would give the Food and
Drug Administration additional authority for preventive controls for
high-risk foods. If you'd like to read their proposal, it is available
on the Internet at www.importsafety.gov. Import safety is all one word,
all lower case.
Now, I know many people watching this are asking themselves, you
know, is there a down side to all of this that we should consider. The
answer is, yes. We've always got to be cautious about jumping over the
line and encroaching the, increasing the ever expanding grasp of the
Federal Government.
There's no doubt that the Federal Government has an important duty to
the safety and welfare of all Americans, but the last thing you want is
for the Federal Government to control absolutely every aspect of every
little item that you buy.
There is a balancing test and I, for one, am going to continue to be
cognizant of that fact. But there is also a very clear and present
public safety danger that has to be dealt with. We must be vigilant in
our plight in restoring safety and trust back to the foods we eat and
the products that we use. I believe that H.R. 3967, the Food Import
Safety Improvement Act, will further this goal, as will amendments that
I'm going to make in H.R. 4040 later this week.
Compromising the safety of foods that we put on our tables is not an
option. Compromising the consumer products that we buy for our families
is not an option. Compromising the security of Americans will not be an
option. Compromising cannot be an option that we turn to because we
lack the power. H.R. 3967 and my amendments to H.R. 4040 will restore
some of that power to Americans.
Mr. Speaker, again I started off this talk with the notion that when
people are out shopping this Christmas season and they pick up
something and they look at the underside of it and it says ``made in
China,'' maybe that translates into ``use at your own risk.'' I do
encourage consumers to beware, be aware of where the products are made,
be careful about the products that you bring into your home.
Mr. Speaker, we can no longer sit back and allow these harmful
products to reach our homes. All Americans, myself included, have a
choice to take a stance individually and to not buy products if we
don't think they're safe. And if you see ``made in China,'' remember,
that's a warning label. But we can go a little further than that.
Stricter rules are necessary. Funding, increased funding, increased
personnel are necessary. And now it's up to Congress. It's up to
Congress to create and enact those rules.
Mr. Speaker, you've been very indulgent, and I'm going to yield back
the balance of my time.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Members are reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Matheson (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today and December 12
on account of attending a family funeral service.
Mr. Lucas (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
inclement weather.
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for
today on account of personal reasons due to family matters.
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on
account of travel delays.
____________________
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:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Sutton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Larson of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Pelosi, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Jones of North
Carolina) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, December 17 and 18.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today and December 12, 13, 14,
17, and 18.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, December 17 and 18.
Mr. Hastings of Washington, for 5 minutes, December 12.
Mr. Franks of Arizona, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
Ms. Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly
enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were
thereupon signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 710. An act to amend the National Organ Transplant Act
to provide that criminal penalties do not apply to human
organ paired donation, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3315. An act to provide that the great hall of the
Capitol Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall.
H.R. 3688. An act to implement the United States-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement.
H.R. 4118. An act to exclude from gross income payments
from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to the victims of the
tragic event at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 42 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 12,
2007, at 10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4414. A letter from the Acting Director, Program
Development and Regulatory Analysis Rural Development
Utilities Programs, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Servicing of Water Programs
Loans and Grants (RIN: 0572-AB59) received October 25, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
4415. A letter from the Administrator, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Dried Prunes Produced in California; Increased Assessment
Rate [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0103; FV07-993-1 FR] received
November 27, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
4416. A letter from the Chairman and CEO, Farm Credit
Administration, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule -- Disclosure to Shareholders;
Annual Report to Shareholders (RIN: 3052-AC37) received
December 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
[[Page 33752]]
4417. A letter from the Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense, transmitting
the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) for the quarter
ending September 30, 2007, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2432; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
4418. A letter from the Principal Deputy Under Secretary
for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's report on the cost
effectiveness of the Defense Commissary Agency and specified
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities purchasing commercial
insurance, as directed by Section 663 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
4419. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting a report concerning plutonium storage at the
Savannah River Site, located near Aiken, South Carolina,
pursuant to Public Law 107-314, section 3183; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
4420. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-7997]
received November 26, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4421. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received October
25, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
4422. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No.
FEMA-B-7738] received October 25, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4423. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No.
FEMA-B-7745] received November 26, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4424. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule -- Federal Credit Union Bylaws -- received November 26,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
4425. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule --
REVISIONS TO RULES 144 AND 145 [Release No. 33-8869; File No.
S7-11-07] (RIN: 3235-AH13) received December 7, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
4426. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule --
EXEMPTION OF COMPENSATORY EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS FROM
REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934 [Release No. 34-56887; International Series
Release No. 1305; File No. S7-14-07] (RIN: 3235-AJ91)
received December 4, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
4427. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's ``Major''
final rule -- Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Furnaces and Boilers [Docket Number: EE-RM/STD-01-350] (RIN:
1904-AA78) received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4428. A letter from the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's report on the
project to monitor the location of radioactive sources of
concern, the National Source Tracking System (NSTS); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4429. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting a six-month report prepared by the Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security on the national
emergency declared by Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001, and continued on August 14, 2002, August 7, 2003, and
August 6, 2004 and August 15, 2007 to deal with the threat to
the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the
United States caused by the lapse of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4430. 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 Research, Development, Test, and
Evlauation of Overhead Non-Imaging Infrared Data Exploitation
Tools and Techniques Memorandum of Understanding Among
Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States,
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
4431. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, Transmittal No. 08-28 concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Saudi Arabia for defense articles and services;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4432. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, Transmittal No. 08-29 concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Saudi Arabia for defense articles and services;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4433. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, Transmittal No. 08-23, concerning the
Department of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Kuwait for defense articles and services; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4434. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, Transmittal No. 08-25 concerning the
Department of the Navy's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to United Arab Emirates for defense articles and
services; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4435. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, Transmittal No. 08-17, concerning the
Department of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to United Arab Emirates for defense articles and
services; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4436. 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 Canada (Transmittal No. DDTC
102-07); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4437. 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 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Transmittal No. DDTC
091-07); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4438. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the 2007 annual
report on the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship
Program, pursuant to Public Law 106-309, section 304; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4439. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting an alternative plan for locality pay
increase payable to civilian Federal employees covered by the
General Schedule (GS) and certain other pay systems in
January 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5305(a)(3); (H. Doc. No.
110-78); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
and ordered to be printed.
4440. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-182,
``Appointment of the Chief Medical Examiner Temporary Act of
2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4441. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-184, ``Real
Property Tax Benefits Revision Temporary Act of 2007,''
pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
4442. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-185,
``Closing Temporary Act of 2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4443. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-186,
``Washington Convention Center Authority Advisory Committee
Continuity Temporary Amendment Act of 2007,'' pursuant to
D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
4444. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-190,
``Neighborhood Investment Clarification Temporary Amendment
Act of 2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4445. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-189, ``Fire
Hydrant Inspection, Repair, Maintenance, and Fire
Preparedness Temporary Amendment Act of 2007,'' pursuant to
D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
4446. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-188, ``East
of the River Hospital Revitalization Tax Exemption Temporary
Act of 2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
[[Page 33753]]
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4447. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-187, ``Access
to Youth Employment Programs Temporary Amendment Act of
2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4448. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-181,
``Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act of
2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4449. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-180,
``District of Columbia Consumer Protection Fund Act of
2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4450. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 17-179,
``Doubled Fines in Construction or Work Zones Amendment Act
of 2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4451. A letter from the Chairman, Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, transmitting the Board's Performance
and Accountability Report for FY 2007, as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act and the Accountability
of Tax Dollars Act of 2002; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4452. A letter from the Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's first of
three annual reports on the category rating system, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 3319(d); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4453. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting a report pursuant to
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
4454. A letter from the Audit Liason Group, Department of
Justice, transmitting the Semiannual Management Report to
Congress for April 1, 2007 through November 30, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act), section 5(b); to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4455. A letter from the Chairman, Farm Credit System
Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's
consolidated report addressing the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act and the Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1978, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act), section 5(b); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4456. A letter from the Administrator, General Services
Administration, transmitting a semiannual report on Office of
Inspector General auditing activity, together with a report
providing management's perspective on the implementation
status of audit recommendations for the period April 1, 2007
through September 30, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp.
Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4457. A letter from the Special Counsel, Office of Special
Counsel, transmitting the Office's FY 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4458. A letter from the President and CEO, Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's annual
report in compliance with the Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4459. A letter from the Interim Director, Pension Benefits
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's Annual
Management Report for Fiscal Year 2007, as required under OMB
Circular No. A-11, Section 230-3, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4460. A letter from the Chairman, Postal Regulatory
Commission, transmitting the Commission's Semiannual Report
for the period of Late June 2007 through September 30, 2007,
pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4461. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's ``Major'' final rule -- Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Five Endangered and Two Threatened Mussels in
Four Northeast Gulf of Mexico Drainages (RIN: 1018-AU87)
received November 2, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4462. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Groundfish, Crab, Salmon, and Scallop Fisheries of the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska,
Essential Fish Habitat Rule Correction [Docket No.
0612242862-7534-03; I.D. 013006I] (RIN: 0648-AU93) received
November 26, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
4463. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States;
Monkfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 4 [Docket No.
0612243159-7456-03; I.D. 020507A] (RIN: 0648-AU34) received
October 9, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
4464. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator For
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Extension
of Effective Date of Gulf Red Snapper Management Measures
[Docket No. 0612243157-7522-05; I.D. 112006B] (RIN: 0648-
AT87) received October 9, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4465. A letter from the Program Manager, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees
as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000; Amendments (RIN: 0920-AA13) received December 4, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
4466. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Department of Defense, transmitting the St.
Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan, Comprehensive
Management Plan; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4467. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's report on the technical evaluation of the three
different approaches specified in Pub. L. 110-28, Sec. 4303;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4468. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone;
Hawaii Superferry Arrival/Departure, Nawiliwili Harbor,
Kauai, Hawaii [Docket No. USCG-2007-29153] (RIN: 1625-AA87)
received December 6, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4469. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Sacramento River, Rio Vista, CA
[Docket No. CGD11-07-014] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4470. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Upper Mississippi River, Clinton, IA
[CGD08-07-026] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4471. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Belle
Chasse, Louisiana. [CGD08-07-024] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4472. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW),
at Scotts Hill, NC [CGD05-07-095] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4473. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Lake Champlain, North Hero and Grand
Isle, VT [CGD01-07-135] received December 10, 2007, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
4474. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operating Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Morgan
City to Port Allen Alternate Route, Lower Grand River, Bayou
Sorrel, Louisiana [CGD08-07-035] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4475. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Kennebec River, Bath and Woolwich, ME
[CGD01-07-152] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
[[Page 33754]]
4476. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Rigolets Pass, Mile 6.2, between
Orleans and St. Tammany Parishes, LA. [CGD08-07-031] (RIN:
1625-AA09) received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4477. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Taunton River, Fall River and
Somerset, MA [CGD01-07-148] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4478. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA.
[CGD08-07-037] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4479. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA. [CGD08-
07-034] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4480. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW),
mile 49.8 near Houma, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. [CGD08-07-
039] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4481. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, NY [CGD01-07-
130] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received December 10, 2007, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4482. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Milhomme Bayou, Stephensville, LA.
[Docket No. CGD08-07-022] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4483. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Sabine River (Old Channel) behind
Orange Harbor Island, Orange, TX [CGD08-07-040] (RIN: 1625-
AA09) received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4484. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operating Regulations; Sabine Lake, near Sabine Pass, Port
Arthur, Texas [CGD08-07-043] received December 10, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4485. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Mile
1134, Key Largo, FL [Docket No. CGD07-07-252] (RIN: 1625-
AA09) received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4486. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ [CGD01-
07-158] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4487. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Ouachita River, Louisiana [CGD08-07-
020] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received December 10, 2007, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4488. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Liberty Bayou, Slidell, LA. [CGD08-07-
032] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4489. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Raccoon Creek, at Bridgeport, NJ
[CGD05-07-109] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4490. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New
Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, FL [Docket No. CGD07-07-251]
received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4491. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Tar River, Washington, NC [CGD05-07-
107] received December 10, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4492. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Revision of Class E Airspace; Kotzebue, AK [Docket No. FAA-
2007-28146; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-07] received December
5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4493. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Fire Penetration Resistance of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation
Installed on Transport Category Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-
2006-24277; Amendment No. 121-330] (RIN: 2120-AI75) received
October 19, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4494. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -
20, -30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), -82 (MD-82), -83, (MD-83), and -87 (MD-87) Airplanes;
and Model MD-88 Airplanes [Docket No. 2003-NM-198-AD;
Amendment 39-15176; AD 2007-17-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4495. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30
Airplanes [Docket No. 2003-NM-194-AD; Amendment 39-15177; AD
2007-17-19] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received December 5, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4496. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28379; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
077-AD; Amendment 39-15182; AD 2007-18-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4497. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-
2007-28158; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-018-AD; Amendment
39-15168; AD 2007-17-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received December
5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4498. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28282; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-068-AD; Amendment 39-15169; AD 2007-17-11] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4499. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2006-24270; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-200-AD;
Amendment 39-15170; AD 2007-17-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4500. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -200B, -200C,
and -200F Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28257;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-034-AD; Amendment 39-15171; AD
2007-17-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received December 5, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4501. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model
750XL Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28436 Directorate
Identifier 2007-CE-055-AD; Amendment 39-15178; AD 2007-17-20]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4502. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A321 Airplanes
[[Page 33755]]
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28358; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
019-AD; Amendment 39-15172; AD 2007-17-14] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4503. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28300; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
292-AD; Amendment 39-15173; AD 2007-17-15] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4504. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lady Lake, FL [Docket No.
FAA-2007-28549; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-15] received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4505. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Live Oak, FL [Docket No.
FAA-2007-28102; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-8] received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4506. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Winfield, FL [Docket No.
FAA-2007-28554; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-13] received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4507. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, FL [Docket
No. FAA-2007-28548; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-14] received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4508. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Forest Hill, MD [Docket
No. FAA-2006-24320; Airspace Docket No. 06-AEA-13] received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4509. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Removal of Class D and E Airspace; Utica, NY Amendment of
Class D and E Airspace; Rome, NY Establishment of Class E
Airspace; Rome, NY [Docket No. FAA-2007-28559; Airspace
Docket No. 07-AEA-03] received December 5, 2007, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4510. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection for Aircraft
Electrical and Electronic Systems [Docket No. FAA-2006-23657;
Amendment Nos. 23-57, 25-122, 27-42, and 29-49] (RIN: 2120-
AI06) received October 19, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4511. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Revision of Class E Airspace; Fort Yukon, AK [Docket No. FAA-
2007-28145; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-06] received December
5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4512. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Removal of Class E Airspace; Columbus, GA [Docket No. FAA-
2007-28669; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-18] received December
5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4513. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Everett, WA [Docket No.
FAA-2007-27374; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-2] received
December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4514. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Centreville, AL;
Correction [Docket No. FAA-2007-28022; Airspace Docket No.
07-ASO-7] received December 5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4515. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Revision of Class E Airspace; Hoquiam, WA [Docket No. FAA-
2006-25788; Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-9] received December
5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4516. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airspace Designations; Incorporation By Reference [Docket No.
29334; Amendment No. 71-39] received December 5, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4517. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Revision of Class E Airspace; Hailey, ID [Docket No. FAA-
2007-27911; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8] received December
5, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4518. A letter from the Director of Regulations Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Reasonable Charges for Medical Care or Services
(RIN: 2900-AM35) received December 3, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
4519. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Tier 1 -- Domestic Production Deduction (DPD)
[LMSB-Control Number: LMSB-04-0707-049] received December 4,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
4520. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Industry Overview Series Trucking Industry
[LMSB Control Number: LMSB-04-1107-075] received December 4,
2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
4521. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's report on potential
furloughs within the Department of the Army, the Marine
Corps, and the Combatant Commands, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
1597(e); (H. Doc. No. 110--79); jointly to the Committees on
Armed Services and Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.
____________________
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. THOMPSON of Mississippi: Committee on Homeland
Security. H.R. 1413. A bill to direct the Assistant Secretary
of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration)
to address vulnerabilities in aviation security by carrying
out a pilot program to screen airport workers with access to
secure and sterile areas of airports; with amendments (Rept.
110-482). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 123. A
bill to authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin
Restoration Fund; with an amendment (Rept. 110-483). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3739. A
bill to amend the Arizona Water Settlements Act to modify the
requirements for the statement of findings (Rept. 110-484).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. DINGELL: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2601. A
bill to extend the authority of the Federal Trade Commission
to collect fees to administer and enforce the provisions
relating to the ``Do-not-call'' registry of the Telemarketing
Sales Rule; with an amendment (Rept. 110-485). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. DINGELL: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3541. A
bill to amend the ``Do-not-call'' Implementation Act to
eliminate the automatic removal of telephone numbers
registered on the Federal ``do-not-call'' registry; with an
amendment (Rept. 110-486). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 859. Resolution providing for consideration of the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2082) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes (Rept. 110-487). Referred to
the House Calendar.
Ms. CASTOR: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 860.
Resolution providing for consideration of the conference
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes (Rept. 110-488). Referred to the House
Calendar.
Mr. CARDOZA: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 861.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide
individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum
tax, and for other purposes (Rept. 110-489). Referred to the
House Calendar.
Mr. ARCURI: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 862.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4299) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the
Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes (Rept.
110-490). Referred to the House Calendar.
[[Page 33756]]
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. Mica, Mr. Costello,
Mr. Petri, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Hayes,
Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Cummings):
H.R. 4343. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
modify age standards for pilots engaged in commercial
aviation operations; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. considered and passed.
By Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Ehlers,
Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Lucas, and
Mr. Price of Georgia):
H.R. 4344. A bill to amend section 435(o) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 regarding the definition of economic
hardship; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 4345. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Bayowet FT-248; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 4346. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Thionyl chloride; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 4347. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Baypure DS; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 4348. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Bayowet C4; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 4349. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Disflamoll TOF; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 4350. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Disflamoll DPK; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H.R. 4351. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the
alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TOWNS:
H.R. 4352. A bill to provide $30,000,000 in funding to the
Department of Education to provide assistance to public
school districts for the prevention of drug resistant
infections; to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. CUBIN (for herself and Mr. Rehberg):
H.R. 4353. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 to make certain technical
corrections; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. DENT:
H.R. 4354. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Ancamine 2432 Curing Agent; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Kuhl of
New York):
H.R. 4355. A bill to impose a moratorium on certain
Medicaid payment restrictions; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H.R. 4356. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4,4-
Diaminostilbene-2,2-Disulphonic; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H.R. 4357. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, polymer with N,N'-
bis(2-aminoethyl)-1,2-ethanediamine, cyclized, methosulfate;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H.R. 4358. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Formaldehyde, reaction products with 1,4-benzenediol
and m-phenylenediamine, sulfurized; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H.R. 4359. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Reduced Vat Blue 43; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H.R. 4360. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Sulfur Black 1; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H.R. 4361. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Cyanuric chloride; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BAIRD:
H.R. 4362. A bill to clarify the temporary suspension of
duty on 9, 10-Anthracenedione; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BAIRD:
H.R. 4363. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 9, 10-Anthracenedione, 2 pentyl-; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BAIRD:
H.R. 4364. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on certain magnesium peroxide; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BAKER:
H.R. 4365. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
DEMBB; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BAKER:
H.R. 4366. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Mesotrione; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr.
Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr.
Spratt):
H.R. 4367. A bill to name the Department of Veterans
Affairs outpatient clinic in Aiken, South Carolina, as the
``Matthew V. Dillon Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient
Clinic''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself and Mr. Boucher):
H.R. 4368. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide special disposition rules for unused benefits
in flexible spending arrangements of individuals called to
active duty; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4369. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on diphenyl sulfide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4370. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 4,4-Dimethoxy-2-butanone; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4371. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 3-Amino-5-mercapto-1,2,4-triazole; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4372. A bill to extend and modify the temporary
suspension of duty on ADTP; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4373. A bill to extend and modify the temporary
suspension of duty on Cyhalofop; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4374. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2-Phenylphenol sodium salt; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4375. A bill to extend and modify the temporary
suspension of duty on 2-Cyanopyridine; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4376. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Styrene, ar-ethyl-, polymer with divinylbenzene and styrene
beads with low ash; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4377. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Benfluralin; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4378. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on DMDS; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4379. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4380. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on DCBTF; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4381. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on mixtures of fungicide; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4382. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on MCPA ester; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4383. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on MCPA acid; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4384. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Halofenozide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4385. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on isoxaben; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4386. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Fenbuconazole; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4387. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Ethalfluralin; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4388. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Tebufenozide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4389. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Quintec; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4390. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Quinoline; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4391. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Propiconazole; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4392. A bill to extend and modify the temporary
suspension of duty on Myclobutanil; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4393. A bill to extend and modify the temporary
suspension of duty on
[[Page 33757]]
Methoxyfenozide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4394. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on mixed isomers of 1,3-dichloropropene; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4395. A bill to extend and modify the temporary
suspension of duty on Trifluralin; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4396. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9Cl); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4397. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on -Bromo- -nitrostyrene; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4398. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States to clarify and extend the temporary duty
reduction on cellulose nitrate; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4399. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on mixtures of insecticide; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4400. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4401. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2-Propenoic acid, polymer; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4402. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4403. A bill to extend the temporary duty suspension
on methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose products; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4404. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 1,2-Benzenedicarboxaldehyde; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4405. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2-Phenylphenol; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4406. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 3, 4-Dichlorobenzonitrile; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4407. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on DEPCT; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4408. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2,6-Dichloroaniline; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4409. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Dimethyl Malonate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 4410. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Tebuthiuron; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CAMP of Michigan:
H.R. 4411. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on shield
asy-steering gear; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CAMP of Michigan:
H.R. 4412. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
hydraulic control units; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4413. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4414. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4415. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4416. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4417. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4418. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4419. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4420. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-
Diamino-3-[4-(2- sulfoxyethylsulfonyl)-phenylazo]-5-[4-(2
sulfoxyethyl sulfonyl)-2-sulfophenylazo]-benzenesulfonic acid
potassium sodium salt; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4421. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 1-
(3H)-Isobenzofuranone, 3,3-bis(2-methyl-1-octyl-1H-indol-3-
yl)-; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4422. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 2-
methyl-4,6-bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4423. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 2-
Methyl-1-[4-(methylthio)phenyl]-2-(4-morpholinyl)-1-
propanone; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4424. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 2,2 -
(2,5-Thiophenediyl)bis(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl) benzoxazole); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4425. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4426. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4427. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4428. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4429. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Reactive Black 5; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4430. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a
certain chemical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4431. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a
certain chemical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4432. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a
certain chemical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4433. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament tow; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4434. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament tow; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4435. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament tow; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4436. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4437. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4438. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed,
or otherwise processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4439. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament tow; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COBLE:
H.R. 4440. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
synthetic staple fibers not carded, combed, or otherwise
processed for spinning; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOLDEN:
H.R. 4441. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MDA50;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOLDEN:
H.R. 4442. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Nourybond 276 Modifier; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOLDEN:
H.R. 4443. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 11-
Aminoundecanoic Acid; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky:
H.R. 4444. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Polycaprolactone Acrylate; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
[[Page 33758]]
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky:
H.R. 4445. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Polycaprolactone Diol #1; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky:
H.R. 4446. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Polycaprolactone Triol; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky:
H.R. 4447. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Polycaprolactone Diol #2; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. OLVER:
H.R. 4448. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
capacitor grade homopolymer polypropylene resin in primary
form; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PAYNE (for himself and Mr. Souder):
H.R. 4449. A bill to aid and support pediatric involvement
in reading and education; to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
By Ms. SOLIS (for herself and Mrs. Bono):
H.R. 4450. A bill to improve and enhance research and
programs on cancer survivorship, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 4451. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
establish a competitive grant program for research on
preventing, treating, and finding the cure for Methicillin
Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 4452. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to restore State authority to waive the 35-mile
rule for designating critical access hospitals under the
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. Whitfield, Ms. Berkley,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Porter, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Gordon):
H.R. 4453. A bill to establish a grant to increase
enforcement of laws to prohibit underage drinking through
social sources, to improve reporting of Federal underage
drinking data, to establish grants to increase parental
involvement in school-based efforts to reduce underage
drinking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. YARMUTH:
H.R. 4454. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 3050 Hunsinger Lane in
Louisville, Kentucky, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Fallen
Military Heroes of Louisville Memorial Post Office
Building'', in honor of the servicemen and women from
Louisville, Kentucky, who died in service during Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself and Mr. Saxton):
H.R. 4455. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to provide international wildlife management and
conservation programs through the Wildlife Without Borders
Program in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. BOREN (for himself, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr.
Shuler, Mr. Baca, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Rothman, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Wamp, Ms.
Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Hare, Mrs. Myrick,
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. English of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Honda, Mrs. Capps, and Ms. Solis):
H.J. Res. 68. A joint resolution to acknowledge a long
history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies
by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and
offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the
United States; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. BALDWIN:
H. Res. 855. A resolution providing for the concurrence by
the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 797, with
amendments; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Shimkus, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Shays, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr.
Poe, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Hill, Mr.
Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Mica, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Gilchrest,
Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Braley of Iowa,
Mr. Sessions, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Moran of Kansas,
Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Graves, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Sali, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Pickering, Mr.
Boehner, Mr. Keller, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Tancredo, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Turner, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Sullivan,
Mr. Porter, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr.
Whitfield, Mr. Latham, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Boucher, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Dreier, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Weller, Mr. Upton, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Petri, Mr. Camp of Michigan,
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bartlett
of Maryland, and Mr. Pitts):
H. Res. 856. A resolution expresses heartfelt sympathy for
the victims and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska,
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Ms. SHEA-PORTER:
H. Res. 857. A resolution calling on the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia to take immediate actions to drop all charges against
the Saudi rape victim known as the ``Qatif Girl''; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mrs. McCarthy of New York,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and Ms. Sutton):
H. Res. 858. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of the National Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Week; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BURGESS:
H. Res. 863. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the Medicare physician payment system
must be immediately reformed in a long-term manner in order
to stabilize Medicare payment to doctors, return equity to
the program, and ensure that Medicare patients have access to
a doctor of their choice; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. CASTOR (for herself, Ms. DeLauro, and Mrs.
Lowey):
H. Res. 864. A resolution condemning Saudi Arabia for
sentencing a gang-rape victim to 200 lashes and 6 months in
prison and calling for King Abdullah to overturn the verdict;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. CLARKE (for herself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Rangel, Ms.
Waters, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Hare, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Doggett, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Sires, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Al
Green of Texas, Mr. Rush, Mr. Fattah, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Arcuri, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Ms. Lee, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Watson, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Klein of Florida):
H. Res. 865. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the March 2007 report of the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development makes an important
contribution to the understanding of the high levels of crime
and violence in the Caribbean, and that the United States
should work with Caribbean countries to address crime and
violence in the region; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. COBLE:
H. Res. 866. A resolution honoring the brave men and women
of the United States Coast Guard whose tireless work,
dedication, and commitment to protecting the United States
have led to the Coast Guard seizing over 350,000 pounds of
cocaine at sea during 2007, far surpassing all of our
previous records; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas (for himself, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Al Green of Texas,
Mr. Lampson, Mr. Poe, and Mr. McCaul of Texas):
H. Res. 867. A resolution commending the Houston Dynamo
soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. WOOLSEY:
H. Res. 868. A resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary
of the declaration of Muir Woods National Monument by
President Theodore Roosevelt; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
221. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House
Resolution No. 109 urging the United States Secretary of
State to increase efforts to urge the People's Republic of
China to halt its violation of the human rights of its
citizens, specifically the
[[Page 33759]]
persecution of and forced harvesting of organs from
practitioners of Falun Gong; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
222. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Ohio, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 5
urging the Congress of the United States to recognize the
significance of the eastern states, including Ohio, in the
preparation for, and return of, the Lewis and Clark
Expedition by enacting legislation extending the Lewis and
Clark National Historic Trail east to its origin at
Monticello; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. TERRY introduced a bill (H.R. 4456) for the relief of
Luis A. Gonzalez and Virginia Aguilla Gonzalez; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 21: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 39: Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 158: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 160: Mr. Baker and Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 241: Mr. Souder and Mr. Hensarling.
H.R. 261: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 471: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 549: Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 583: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 621: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 676: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 677: Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 770: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 854: Mrs. Napolitano and Mr. Sires.
H.R. 940: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 971: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 997: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 1043: Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 1055: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 1078: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 1108: Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
McNerney, and Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1131: Mr. Holt and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 1198: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1279: Mrs. Davis of California and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1283: Mr. Dent.
H.R. 1299: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 1394: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1461: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1497: Mr. Rothman and Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1527: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 1537: Mr. Reynolds.
H.R. 1576: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Space, Mr.
Marshall, and Mr. Upton.
H.R. 1609: Mr. Duncan and Mr. Carter.
H.R. 1665: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Wilson of New
Mexico, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1671: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. DeGette, and Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 1742: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 1776: Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1809: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1831: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 1866: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 1881: Mr. Hall of New York.
H.R. 1981: Mr. Sullivan.
H.R. 1983: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 1992: Mrs. McCarthy of New York and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2046: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 2049: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 2070: Mr. Ross, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Cohen, and Mr.
Jefferson.
H.R. 2074: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 2103: Mr. McDermott and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2158: Mr. Kline of Minnesota and Mr. Thornberry.
H.R. 2164: Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 2169: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 2266: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2327: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 2436: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 2464: Mr. Markey, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Boucher, and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2478: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 2548: Mr. Allen and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 2578: Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 2585: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 2606: Mr. Filner, Mr. Meeks of New York, and Mr.
Rahall.
H.R. 2702: Ms. Matsui and Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
H.R. 2762: Mr. Berry, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. King of New
York, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Lee,
and Mr. Sires.
H.R. 2802: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Kagen, and Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 2807: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 2821: Mr. Sali.
H.R. 2866: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 2885: Mr. Castle.
H.R. 2923: Mr. Murtha.
H.R. 2954: Mr. Linder.
H.R. 2990: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 2994: Ms. DeGette and Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 3010: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Murtha,
Mr. Conyers, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, and Mr. Poe.
H.R. 3026: Mr. Sestak and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3085: Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 3109: Mr. Camp of Michigan.
H.R. 3119: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 3289: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 3329: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Mr.
Gutierrez.
H.R. 3339: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 3368: Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Costello, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Price of North Carolina, and
Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 3412: Mr. Jordan.
H.R. 3419: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Blumenauer, and
Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 3425: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 3448: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 3457: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 3533: Mr. Payne, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Bean, and Mr.
Boucher.
H.R. 3543: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3610: Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 3616: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 3634: Mrs. Boyda of Kansas.
H.R. 3636: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 3637: Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 3654: Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Porter, Mr.
Hunter, and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 3660: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Boren, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Allen, and Mrs. Drake.
H.R. 3663: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lipinski, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 3679: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3733: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 3737: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 3750: Mr. Ross.
H.R. 3762: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 3783: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 3793: Mr. King of New York, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr.
Pearce.
H.R. 3829: Mr. Clay and Mr. Farr.
H.R. 3876: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 3892: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 3908: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 3934: Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, and
Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 3968: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 3980: Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 3981: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Serrano, Mrs. Christensen, and
Mr. Levin.
H.R. 3995: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 4011: Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 4040: Mr. Honda, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Fortenberry, Ms.
Richardson, Mr. Hare, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Courtney, and Mr.
Sarbanes.
H.R. 4055: Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 4083: Mrs. Capps and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 4088: Mrs. Cubin, Mrs. Emerson, and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 4091: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kagen, and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4105: Mr. Latham, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Cardoza, Mr.
Oberstar, Mr. Murtha, and Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 4107: Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 4129: Ms. DeLauro and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 4133: Mr. Paul, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Gohmert,
and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 4152: Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Shays, Mr. Cohen, and
Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 4157: Mr. Linder, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Terry.
H.R. 4173: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 4185: Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Honda, Mr. Lantos,
Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 4203; Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Marshall, Mr. Linder, and Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 4204: Mr. Serrano, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4220: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 4226: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 4230: Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
DeFazio, Mr. Towns, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Woolsey, and Ms.
DeGette.
H.R. 4247: Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi.
H.R. 4248: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 4280: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 4287: Mr. Stark and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4296: Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Herger, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 4312: Mr. Jindal.
H.J. Res. 54: Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Herger, Mr. Wexler, and Mr.
Wolf.
H. Con. Res. 2: Mr. Fattah, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Rangel.
H. Con. Res. 4: Mr. Hall of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 154: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Lantos.
H. Con. Res. 198: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota and Mr. Clay.
H. Con. Res. 223: Mr. Abercrombie.
H. Con. Res. 239: Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H. Con. Res. 240: Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Sali, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr.
Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Payne, Mr. Snyder, Mr.
Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, and Mr. McCotter.
H. Con. Res. 253: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California and
Mrs. Napolitano.
[[Page 33760]]
H. Con. Res. 257: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Fortuno, and
Mr. Poe.
H. Con. Res. 261: Mr. Hayes, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr.
Courtney.
H. Con. Res. 264: Mr. Hinojosa and Ms. Bordallo.
H. Con. Res. 265: Mr. Rothman, Mr. Honda, and Mr. Nadler.
H. Con. Res. 267: Mr. Hunter, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Capuano,
Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Gohmert, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Manzullo,
Mr. Lynch, Mr. Royce, and Mr. Tierney.
H. Res. 49: Mrs. Christensen and Mrs. Boyda of Kansas.
H. Res. 111: Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico.
H. Res. 457: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H. Res. 537: Mr. Hastings of Florida and Mr. Conaway.
H. Res. 578: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Boren, Mr.
Conaway, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs.
Musgrave, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Kuhl
of New York.
H. Res. 620: Mr. Ryan of Ohio and Mr. Honda.
H. Res. 671: Mr. Sestak.
H. Res. 679: Mr. Olver.
H. Res. 681: Mr. Boren.
H. Res. 695: Mr. Wu, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Gordon.
H. Res. 700: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Shuster, Mr.
Reichert, Mr. Keller, Mr. Bachus, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Berry, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr.
McCaul of Texas, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Matheson,
and Mr. Young of Alaska.
H. Res. 730: Mrs. Myrick.
H. Res. 748: Mr. Buyer, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Heller,
Mr. Coble, and Mr. Alexander.
H. Res. 757: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H. Res. 795: Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 815: Mr. Sherman, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Goodlatte.
H. Res. 816: Mr. Crowley.
H. Res. 821: Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 835: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 838: Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Wilson of Ohio,
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Wolf, Mr. King of New York, Mr. King of
Iowa, and Mr. Donnelly.
H. Res. 841: Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 847: Mr. Forbes and Mr. Burgess.
H. Res. 853: Mr. Honda.
____________________
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:
Offered by Mr. Barney Frank
H.R. 4299, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Reauthorization 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.
Offered by Mr. Charles Rangel
H.R. 4351, the AMT Relief 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.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 1201: Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 4193: Mr. Cuellar.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:
197. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Blacks in
Government, relative to a resolution in support of a National
Holiday Observance of Juneteenth; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
198. Also, a petition of the Califonia State Lands
Commission, relative to a resolution supporting S. 1870 and
H.R. 2421 affirming federal protection for waters of the
United States, including wetlands, tributaries, headwaters
and streams, through the Clean Water Act; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
199. Also, a petition of the California Veterans Board,
relative to a resolution in support of mandatory funding for
healthcare services for veterans; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
200. Also, a petition of the Board of Commissioners of Cook
County, Illinois, relative to a resolution supporting the H-
1B and L-1B Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007;
jointly to the Committees on Education and Labor and the
Judiciary.
201. Also, a petition of the Iberville Parish Council,
Louisiana, relative to Resolution No. 569-07 supporting H.R.
1229, the Non-Market Economy Trade Remedy Act of 2007;
jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Rules.
[[Page 33761]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOB MARTIN
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, today I rise to salute
Job Martin. Job, more widely know as Jobie, was recently recognized as
Mississippi's Outstanding Older Worker. At the age of 88, Jobie won the
honor for his substitute teaching in Jackson Public Schools. The award
was given by Experience Works of Mississippi which is part of a
national employment and training organization that selects working men
and women above 65 from every State who have made continuous
contributions to their community and workplace.
Madam Speaker, not only has Jobie been a hard worker, but he is also
a pioneer. Jobie was a well-known disc jockey, eventually becoming
known as ``the Loud Mouth of the South.'' Jobie's radio fame paved the
way for him to make Mississippi television history. Jobie Martin was
Mississippi's first African-American commercial television show host.
The Jobie Martin Show hosted many famous guest including Muhammad Ali,
B.B. King, Bill Cosby, Joe Louis, and James Earl Jones.
Madam Speaker, Jobie's success was not just limited to mass
communication; he was an entrepreneur as well. Jobie operated Jobie's
Chicken Restaurant--``where the flavor's locked in and the grease is
locked out.'' Located in the historic Lynch Street area, it became a
landmark for decades. Later, Martin would open Valerie's, a restaurant
named after one of his two children. Martin also became a member of the
board of trustees for Hinds Community College.
Jobie Martin has worn many hats in his life--disc jockey, television
show host, entrepreneur, and educator. Today, Madam Speaker, I take my
hat off to him for his many contributions and continuous service to the
State of Mississippi.
____________________
HONORING AMANDA MARINOFF AND JANELLE SCHLOSSBERG
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Amanda Marinoff and
Janelle Schlossberger. These young women from Plainview-Old Bethpage
John F. Kennedy High School in my district won the top team prize in
the prestigious Siemens national math, science and technology
competition. They will split a $100,000 scholarship. The contest
attracts some of the Nation's most talented high school students. More
than 1,600 projects were submitted this year.
Marinoff and Schlossberger are enrolled in Plainview-Old Bethpage
John F. Kennedy High School's advanced research science program. With
the guidance of their teacher Mary Lou O'Donnell, they conducted
research designed to find new methods of treating tuberculosis. They
created a molecule that helps block the reproduction of the bacteria of
drug-resistant tuberculosis. Marinoff and Schlossberger came up with
the idea after Marinoff's semester working at a cancer research lab at
Stony Brook University.
I want to applaud the accomplishments of these young women. I offer
my congratulations on their success and commend them on their
dedication to the study of the medicine.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, due to medical reasons I missed a series
of suspension votes, the vote on the Motion to Close Portions of the
FY08 Defense Authorization Conference Report, H.R. 1585 and the vote to
Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1585.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 1127,
``aye'' on rollcall No. 1128, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 1129, ``aye'' on
rollcall No. 1130, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 1131, ``aye'' on rollcall
No. 1132, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 1133.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JIM SAXTON
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, it was with a deep sense of loss
that I learned that my dear friend and committee colleague Jim Saxton
will retire at the end of the 110th Congress. Jim has served the Third
Congressional District of New Jersey with the highest distinction for
the past 23 years.
Jim and I have not always been on the same side on a number of
environmental issues; however, there is no question that he always
articulates his views with passion and conviction. When I became
chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee on January 3, 1995, I
was honored to appoint Jim Saxton as the first chairman of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He served
as chairman of that subcommittee during the 104th, 105th, and 106th
Congresses.
He was a superb subcommittee chairman and sponsored a number of
important conservation measures that became law during the Clinton
administration. This included the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of
1997. This landmark law, which has been extended several time, created
the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund to assist this highly endangered
species whose population had been decimated to less than 40,000
elephants living in the wild. As a result of his law, in the past
decade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved 183 grant proposals
to assist Asian elephants. There is no question that these projects
halted this species' slide toward extinction.
A second bill was the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and
Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. This measure, Public Law
105-242, statutorily created the framework for volunteer activities
within the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the past 10 years, this
Act allowed the number of volunteers to dramatically increase to nearly
40,000 Americans who contributed more than 1.5 million hours of service
last year. The value of the volunteer work has been estimated in excess
of $26 million and it represents 20 percent of all staff work done in
the National Wildlife Refuge System. At a time when the Fish and
Wildlife Service is suffering an operations funding crisis within the
refuge system, it is difficult to imagine how this system would
function without the valuable contributions of volunteers.
A third measure was the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act of 1998.
The fundamental goal of P.L. 105-312 was to eliminate the U.S. market
for illegally obtained rhino and tiger products, and therefore, the
incentives to kill these magnificent animals. Under this law, if a
label on a product says that it contains rhinoceros and tiger parts,
then we accept the manufacturer's claim and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is responsible for stopping its sale, confiscating any
products, and persecuting the illegal importers.
A fourth measure sponsored by Chairman Jim Saxton was the Arctic
Tundra Habitat Conservation Act of 1999. This legislation allowed the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake various conservation and
management steps to reduce the exploding population of mid-continent
light geese. These geese were systematically destroying the fragile
arctic tundra in the Hudson Bay Region which is essential to the
survival of millions of migratory birds. By all accounts, the
implementation of this measure has been responsible for saving
thousands of acres of vital wetland habitat.
A fifth proposal which was signed into law was the Marine Mammal
Rescue Assistance Act of 2000. This legislation, P.L. 106-555,
established a small grant program to fund the rescue and rehabilitation
of marine mammals, it encouraged scientific work associated with live
and dead marine mammals and it provided a small amount of financial
assistance to
[[Page 33762]]
marine mammal rescue centers. Federal agencies frequently ask marine
mammal rescue centers to provide around-the-clock monitoring and
veterinarian care to injured animals without giving them any financial
assistance. This measure established a humanitarian partnership between
Federal and non-federal entities.
A sixth proposal was Jim Saxton's sponsorship of the Coral Reef
Conservation and Partnership Act of 2000. Coral reefs are among the
world's most productive ecosystems and they are often referred to as
the ``rainforests'' of the oceans. These reefs are critical to the
survival of thousands of fish species. Sadly, about 40 percent of all
coral reefs are either degraded beyond recovery or in critical
condition. This legislation was designed as a lifeline for our coral
reef ecosystems by providing a limited amount of Federal funding to
finance coral reef grants to assist in their protection and recovery.
Finally, I am proud that Jim Saxton joined with me as an original co-
sponsor of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
On October 9, 2007, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of this act
which is Public Law 105-57. This landmark law established for the first
time an ``organic'' statute for our 96 million acre national wildlife
refuge system. It defined the term ``wildlife-dependent recreation'' to
include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental
education. It also established a ``conservation mission'' for the
system and required the completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
for each refuge unit. The act gave wildlife dependent recreation
priority consideration in refuge planning, management and funding.
Finally, it required the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the
likelihood of ongoing historic uses on private lands prior to their
inclusion within the system. Jim Saxton authored this important
provision.
This is far from an exhaustive list of Jim Saxton's legislative
accomplishments in the resources arena. It is representative only of
the 6-year period that he served as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. Nevertheless, it clearly
demonstrates his dedication and commitment to wildlife conservation
which he exemplified throughout his congressional career. His
constituents living in Cherry Hill, Mount Holly, and Toms River, New
Jersey, will miss Jim Saxton and his lifelong advocacy of Theodore
Roosevelt's vision and principles. I look forward to working with Jim
through the 110th Congress. I wish him calm sailing seas in the days
beyond Congress. ``May the wind always be on your back and the sun
shine upon your face!''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE WEST BOLIVAR EAGLES
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, today I rise to
congratulate the West Bolivar Eagles for completing a perfect season
and Winning the Class 2A State championship. This is West Bolivar's
fourth State title, but their first since 1906--before any of this
year's seniors were born. West Bolivar was ranked No. 1 the entire
season by the Clarion-Leggert 2A football poll.
Madam Speaker, West Bolivar High School has a rich football history.
Along with four State championships, they have 17 division
championships and 5 appearances in State championship games. Over the
last 3 seasons the Eagles are 37-4 and have three consecutive Region 3-
2A championships.
Madam Speaker, not only have the Eagles enjoyed success this year,
but they have done so dominantly. On the season, the Eagles have
outscored their opponents 582-184. In the playoffs, the Eagles have
outscored their opponents 177-101. The Eagles have scored 40 or more
points 9 times, helping them amass more points that any team in
Mississippi 2A football.
Madam Speaker, West Bolivar's recent success has come with the
leadership of Coach Henry Johnson. Coach Johnson is a former West
Bolivar player who played wide receiver and defensive back on the
Eagles' last State finalist team under legendary Rosedale coach Leland
Young.
Madam Speaker, one of the traditions that Coach Johnson restored at
his alma mater was running up and down a steep Mississippi River levee.
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the student-athletes,
student body, faculty, staff, administration, and the community of West
Bolivar for winning the 2007 Mississippi Class 2A State Championship.
____________________
HONORING THE KETEWAMOKE CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE
DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ketewamoke
Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American
Revolution. The National Society of the Daughters of the American
Revolution was organized on August 9, 1890 in Washington, DC. Seventeen
years later, on December 2, 1907, in the Town of Huntington, Long
Island, the Ketewamoke Chapter, NSDAR was organized with 19 charter
members. The name Ketewamoke is the Native American name for the region
around Huntington known as ``the place having the best beach or
shore.'' The Chapter was incorporated in 1913. Today they have 88
members.
The threefold purpose of the Society as a whole is the same now as it
was when the Society was organized in 1890 and chartered by an Act of
Congress in 1895: ``To perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and
women who achieved American independence; to
promote, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the
general diffusion of knowledge; to cherish, maintain and extend the
institutions of American freedom, to foster true patriotism and love of
country.'' The Ketewamoke Chapter continues to include these three
objectives (historical, educational and patriotic) in its monthly
programs.
One of the first accomplishments of the Ketewamoke Chapter was to
restore the Village Green and mark the spot with a bronze tablet on a
boulder, in 1915. inscribed, ``Huntington Village Green.'' This ``Town
Spot'' was the location of Huntington's earliest form of government
where, beginning from its settlement in 1653, a small group of men
continued to meet and vote over the years.
Also in 1915, the Ketewamoke Chapter outfitted the original Women's
Ward in Huntington Hospital with 8 beds. A bronze plaque marking this
event still hangs in the old Huntington Hospital building. During World
War II, when the National Society bought $210,000,000 worth of war
bonds, more than $100,000 of these bonds were purchased by members of
the Ketewamoke Chapter. Since then, the Chapter has placed mill stones
from local mills at the ``Town Spot'' and on the grounds of the Chapter
House, thus preserving local history. It has cleaned up and marked the
graves of many of the local American Revolutionary soldiers. They
continue to honor these patriots by placing flags on their grave sites
every Memorial Day and by the Annual Wreath Laying Ceremony at
Huntington's Old Burial Ground.
Currently, the Chapter works to promote patriotism through community
projects. They encourage local students to appreciate American history
through our annual American History Essay Contest for grades 5 through
8. They encourage students to be good citizens by awarding annual Good
Citizenship medals to students of 15 local schools. These students must
fulfill the qualities of honor, service, leadership and patriotism.
They support other local community services through our individual
volunteer efforts in hospitals, literacy programs, and veteran and
senior citizen projects. They give financial support to many National
and State DAR projects such as the two DAR schools in the Appalachian
region and the education of Native American youths through scholarships
and the support of the Bacone College and the Chemawa Indian School. We
present ROTC medals to qualifying cadets in local secondary schools.
They are uniquely fortunate to be one of only a few Chapters in New
York State which owns an historic Chapter House with a fine collection
of period artifacts. It is their privilege and responsibility to
preserve and to maintain this Chapter House which dates back to 1837.
We take great pride in being members of the Ketewamoke Chapter,
NSDAR, which is the oldest established DAR Chapter on Long Island. We
take pride in honoring the memory of our patriot ancestors and in
honoring all American patriots, past and present.
[[Page 33763]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, due to medical reasons I missed a series
of suspension votes and the vote on the Motion to Instruct Conferees on
H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 1123,
``aye'' on rollcall No. 1124, ``no'' on rollcall No. 1125, and ``aye''
on rollcall No. 1126.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE WILDLIFE WITHOUT BORDERS AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007:
DECEMBER 11, 2007
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today
the Wildlife Without Borders Authorization Act.
The Wildlife Without Borders Program was created administratively by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1983. The mission of this program
is to develop wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain
global species diversity.
While the Congress has already created Multinational Species
Conservation Funds to assist highly imperiled African and Asian
elephants, Rhinoceros and Tigers, Great Apes and Marine Turtles, this
program has provided a funding lifeline to a number of additional
endangered species that are not currently eligible for funding, are not
considered a megafauna or a flagship species and frankly lack the
public attention necessary to generate private financial assistance.
The first conservation grants issued under this program were awarded
to the Wildlife Without Borders Program for Latin America and the
Caribbean Initiative. Since that time, additional grants have been
allocated for projects in Mexico, India, China and the Russian
Federation. In fact, in the past two decades, the International Affairs
Office within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved 583
conservation projects at a cost of $13 million in taxpayer money. These
funds have been matched by $43.7 million in private non-federal money
which is a remarkable 3 to 1 matching ratio.
Among the conservation projects that have been approved are funds for
the Winged Ambassadors Program to stop the killing of Swainsons' hawks,
a project to restore and conserve the forest habitat for monarch
butterflies, jaguar conservation in the Yucatan region, the restoration
of the California condor in Baja California, Mexico and the purchase of
essential equipment for law enforcement personnel to protect imperiled
Far Eastern leopards, Amur tigers and snow leopards.
A fundamental goal of this program has been to build conservation
capacity and establish ecosystem management regimes by allocating a
small amount of U.S. taxpayer money. It is no exaggeration to state
that these are the only funds available to assist these highly
endangered international species and without this investment these
species may become extinct in the wild. In addition, this program has
complemented the activities of the Multinational Species Conservation
Funds.
By establishing a Congressional authorization for the Wildlife
Without Borders Program we will send a positive message to the
international community that the United States is committed to its
international wildlife treaty obligations and we recognize the long-
term importance of this program by enacting it into law.
I urge my colleagues to support this important conservation
legislation and want to thank my distinguished colleague from New
Jersey, Congressman Jim Saxton for joining with me in this effort.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. DENNIS FRATE
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize
the life and legacy of Dr. Dennis Frate, a medical anthropologist known
for his studies of rural health in the Mississippi Delta.
Dr. Frate was a former pharmacy professor at the University of
Mississippi. He worked in the School of Pharmacy from 1980 until 2000.
He retired June 30, 2007 as a professor of preventative medicine at the
University of Mississippi Medical Center, which is in my Congressional
District.
As we are all well aware, rural areas of this country are vastly
underserved. Dr. Frate took this problem head-on through the Rural
Health Research Program. Dr. Frate served as the coordinator of the
Rural Health Research Program and principal investigator of a National
Institutes of Health study to develop community-based programs to
control high blood pressure in rural populations.
Many of our colleagues here in Congress have espoused the notion of
expanding healthcare coverage. Dr. Frate lived it.
It is through community efforts as demonstrated by Dr. Frate that we
may be able to achieve a reality of accessible and affordable
healthcare for all.
During his 20-plus years of service, Dr. Frate touched the lives of
many, proving that even the simplest ideas can make a big difference.
I take great pride in commending the work of Dr. Dennis Frate on a
job well done for more than 20 years.
____________________
IN HONOR OF DAN DeGRASSI
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my cousin Dan
deGrassi on his retirement. Dan has worked for Santa Cruz County in
environmental preservation for most of his adult life.
A third generation Berkley graduate, Dan deGrassi completed his
education to enter his adult years in a world in turmoil over war, race
relations and social mores. With deep feelings about the changes he
observed in the societal fabric around him, he became a conscientious
objector to the Vietnam War and as such, Dan sought alternative
service. It was then that he started his environmental work in 1971 at
the Ecology Center in Berkley, California.
Realizing a connection to environmental preservation, Dan moved down
to Santa Cruz in 1973 and began work at the local recycling center. The
following year, Dan returned to school, this time to study in
environmental studies, a passion that would follow him throughout his
life. In 1974 Dan married Laurel and the two welcomed their daughter
Jessica 2 years later.
Starting 2 weeks after his daughter's birth, Dan began his work at
the Santa Cruz County Advanced Planning Department, where he worked to
preserve prime agricultural areas. Two years later, he and Laurel
welcomed their second child, a boy, Aaron to the family. Later on Dan
moved on to curbside recycling and helped pioneer the Materials
Recovery Facility, which specializes in organization of recyclable
materials.
Madam Speaker, it is my honor to consider Dan both family and friend.
His work in ensuring the preservation of the environment and his
dedication to Santa Cruz County is inspiring and I would like to
congratulate him on his retirement and thank him for his service.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO C.T. COZART
______
HON. ZACH WAMP
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. C.T. Cozart from
my hometown of Chattanooga, TN, as he steps down as Chairman of the
Board of Carson Newman College. Thank you for allowing me to take a
moment to recognize his tremendous contributions and to thank him for
his service to our state and nation. Mr. Cozart has been an outstanding
leader in our civic and faith communities.
C.T. graduated from the University of Tennessee and began a 30-year
career with Chevron. In 1996, he retired as the vice president of
marketing for Chevron Lubricants and moved back to his home state of
Tennessee. His career caused frequent moves, so he and his wife became
active in over ten churches throughout the country. The church was his
most important connection with each new town and its people. C.T. is a
deacon, has taught Sunday school, and served as head of the pastor
search committee at two churches, most recently at Red Bank Baptist
Church.
In 2000, C.T. was asked to serve on the Board of Trustees of Carson
Newman College, one of the nation's premiere Baptist colleges, located
in Jefferson City, Tennessee. Upon becoming chairman in 2006, he led
the board with integrity and dignity through some
[[Page 33764]]
of the most challenging times in the school's history. Throughout his
tenure, his leadership has united Carson Newman and provided a clear
and distinct path for the future of this Christian institution. Without
exception, his tenure demonstrates the Christ-like manner in which C.T.
Cozart has led his life.
C.T. is a charter member of the SimCenter; National Center for
Computational Engineering at the University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga. As one of only two members of this board with a non-
engineering background, he brings a unique business prospective to the
education community.
C.T. has been married to his wife Molly, for 46 years and is the
proud father of two married adult children, Kathy and Scott Cushing,
and Scott and Elaine Cozart. He is blessed with two grandchildren
Camden and Mackenzie. C.T. is a wonderful example of integrity and
leadership, and I am proud to recognize him today.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to record
my vote on rollcall No. 1141. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE MARYLAND LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
______
HON. JOHN P. SARBANES
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate those
honored by the Maryland Legal Services Corporation for their
outstanding contributions to the provision of legal services and access
to justice to the poor.
While every American has a constitutional right to counsel when
facing criminal prosecution, when faced with a civil action--including
eviction, debt collection and bankruptcy--financial means too often
determine access to our courts. The Maryland Legal Services Corporation
has fought against this barrier to equal justice, raising funds and
distributing grants to nonprofit organizations that provide civil legal
assistance to low-income Marylanders.
Established by the Maryland General Assembly in 1982, MLSC has been
at the forefront of the civil legal services movement for 25 years,
awarding grants totaling over $81 million to help provide services in
more than 1.2 million legal matters for Maryland's families.
In 2007, MLSC honored the following five individuals and one
organization for their extraordinary efforts to expand access to
justice for the poor--
The Robert M. Bell Medal for Access to Justice was presented to Hon.
J. Joseph Curran, Jr., former Attorney General for Maryland and now
counsel to the Maryland Injured Workers Fund, for his extraordinary
commitment to furthering access to justice for the poor throughout his
distinguished career. MLSC created this award in 2004 and presented it
to Chief Judge Bell, after which the award was named in his honor to be
given only when warranted.
The Arthur W. Machen, Jr., Award was presented to Connie Kratovil
Lavelle, who has been a legal services attorney, private practitioner
and now deputy director of the Department of Family Administration of
the Administrative Office of the Courts, for her extraordinary public
service by providing legal representation to the poor and improving the
delivery of legal services in Maryland.
The Benjamin L. Cardin Distinguished Service Award was presented to
Lauren Young, director of litigation of the Maryland Disability Law
Center, for her outstanding work as a public interest lawyer providing
civil legal services to the poor and the developmentally disabled.
The William L. Marbury Outstanding Advocate Award was presented to
Maureen Larenas, manager of the Tacoma Park Silver Spring, TESS,
Community Service Center, for her outstanding advocacy in Maryland on
behalf of low-income persons.
The Herbert S. Garten Public Citizen Award was given to The Daily
Record, which has provided Maryland's business and legal news since
1888, for demonstrating an extraordinary commitment to increase access
to justice for the poor in Maryland.
MLSC also presented an Award of Special Recognition to John H.
Michener, former director of Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service and
director of the Department of Human Resources Legal Services and
Judicare Programs.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me today in honoring the
recipients of the 2007 Maryland Legal Services Corporation Awards for
their exceptional dedication and exemplary commitment to public
service, equal justice and the welfare of the most vulnerable
Marylanders.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO DR. SALOMON HERNANDEZ FLORES
______
HON. GWEN MOORE
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
compassionate educator, a civil rights activist, an ordained Baptist
minister and veteran from the Fourth Congressional District, Dr.
Salomon Hernandez Flores. Dr. Flores passed away on Wednesday, December
5, 2007, in Milwaukee at age 79.
Dr. Flores was dedicated to his students, and his illustrious career
as an educator began over 50 years ago, as a high school teacher of
English and Spanish in Kansas and Missouri. Dr. Flores retired at age
72 as Professor Emeritus from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
after 24 years of service in the School of Education. He had also
taught and trained teachers at universities including Avila College,
Northeastern State University, Ohio State University, University of
Maryland and Chicago State University. At the national level, he was an
early practitioner, advocate and scholar on bilingual education and
served over the years as a consultant on bilingual education and multi-
cultural education to numerous agencies and educational institutions.
During the 60s and 70s, Dr. Flores was active in the civil rights and
Chicano rights movements as an educational activist and proposal
writer. He worked directly with the Teacher Training Corp. of Texas,
and the Midwest Desegregation Center. In recognition for his
contributions as a Chicano activist, he was granted an audience with
President Echeverria of Mexico. As an ordained American Baptist
minister, he served as pastor at two churches, one each in Kansas and
Missouri, with bilingual ministries. He participated in two missionary
tours, one to Cuba and the other to Mexico, while attending Ottawa
University.
Dr. Flores was born on October 14, 1928, in Kansas City, Kansas to
immigrant Mexican parents. He attended Rosedale High School in Kansas
City, where he held championship titles in the mile run. He continued
his track career in college. Dr. Flores received his B.A. in English at
Ottawa University in 1953, his M.A. in Spanish at the University of
Kansas in 1963, and his Ph.D. in foreign language instruction at the
Ohio State University in 1969. He honorably served his country during
the Korean conflict.
Dr. Flores leaves behind a wonderful legacy of not only three
children, Maria, David and Jose and beloved sister and brother, Damaris
F. Mendez (nee Flores) and Faron; but also, the many colleagues,
students and friends with whom he shared his knowledge, kindness and
generosity over the years. The ``Salomon Flores Scholarship Fund'' has
been established in his name to assist students in the completion of
their educations.
Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Dr.
Salomon Hernandez Flores and his many positive contributions to the
Fourth Congressional District.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. CAMERON MARTINDALE
______
HON. TERRY EVERETT
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
contributions of Dr. Cameron Martindale who is retiring from Troy
University on December 13. Her record of accomplishments for the
university, the students and our community at large is impressive.
On April 13, 2000, Dr. Martindale was named third president of Troy
University Montgomery and in May 2001, she was also named vice
chancellor for advancement for the Troy University System. Prior to
these appointments, she served the university for more than 14 years in
a number of positions including interim president, vice president for
institutional advancement, and project officer for Troy's Rosa Parks
Museum. In August 2003,
[[Page 33765]]
Dr. Martindale was appointed senior vice chancellor for advancement and
external relations for Troy University.
At Troy, Dr. Martindale stabilized the institution's finances and,
during a period of proration of State funds, was able to carry over a
balance of $2 million. She totally renovated classrooms to include
state-of-the-art equipment and built a new bilevel parking deck for
university students and visitors.
Her contributions extended, however, to more than balancing budgets
and improving campus facilities. She authored the case statement for
Alabama higher education for the 2000 legislative session, she led
Troy's development of a new institutional strategic plan, and activated
two compressed master's programs--master of science in management and
master of science in public administration, and began a civil rights
concentration and technical writing program.
Dr. Martindale also oversaw completion and dedication of the landmark
Rosa Parks Library and Museum in downtown Montgomery, which has hosted
more than 70,000 visitors since December 1, 2000, and was named Alabama
Event of the Year in 2001 by the Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel.
An extremely active member of the Montgomery and Alabama educational,
business and civic communities. Dr. Martindale has been a tremendous
asset to the advancement of Troy University. I join her colleagues and
many friends in wishing Dr. Martindale and her family all the best in
the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. ASHLEY A. FOARD
______
HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ashley A.
Foard, a dedicated and faithful public servant who devoted his life to
Idaho and his country. Mr. Foard passed away last week at the age of
97.
Ashley A. Foard was committed to serving the people of the United
States. After earning his law degree from the University of Chicago,
Mr. Foard began his 37-year-long career with the Federal Government.
During his years of exemplary civil service, he served as a law clerk
for the Public Works Administration, the National Housing Agency, and
the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Mr. Foard later served as Acting
General Counsel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
where his efforts helped shape the country's housing and urban
development policies.
The extraordinary service that Mr. Foard showed was very apparent to
his superiors and peers alike, earning him many awards, such as the
Superior Accomplishment Award and the Distinguished Service Award from
the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Included in his long list of
accomplishments is the role he played in the planning and drafting of
President Kennedy's Executive Order 11063, which ended racial
discrimination in Federal housing programs and led directly to the
elimination of legal segregation in housing throughout the United
States. Mr. Foard also assisted the Agency for International
Development in the planning and development of national housing
programs for numerous foreign countries.
In 1969, Mr. Foard was once again recognized for his service with the
Rockefeller Public Service Award from Princeton University's Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. At his retirement,
Mr. Foard was honored by Members of Congress and members of the
President's cabinet. Mr. Foard's service did not end after retirement--
he was an active member in the Kiwanis Club and the National Active and
Retired Federal Employees, and he produced two books and a number of
shorter pieces about his life.
Mr. Foard was described by those around him as ``unassuming and
modest to a fault'' and ``quietly devoting himself to the common
good.'' He lived a life that mattered to his family, his community, and
his country, and I am gratified to honor him today.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MS. C. PAMELA HOLLIDAY
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fellow native
Washingtonian with whom, my staff and I have had the distinct pleasure
of working since 1992: Ms. C. Pamela Holliday, Regional Director of the
Washington Passport Agency.
Ms. Holliday, ``Pam,'' began her career with the State Department on
February 1, 1971 as a GS-3 Passport Processing Clerk. From 1971 until
her selection as Regional Director of the Washington Passport Agency in
1992, Pam served as a passport examiner, automated records manager,
Consular Officer in Overseas Citizens Services, Fraud Prevention
Programs, and at the US Embassy in Belize. The State Department sent
her in many different official capacities to Belgium, the Dominican
Republic, Egypt, France, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
However, Pam's hallmarks are not the titles and positions she has
held, but the efficiency, collegiality, and dedication she brought to
her work. As the delegations from Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia
know, our constituents expect us to sort out the thorniest of passport
problems before their flights leave the next morning. When the going
gets especially tough, the tough call Pam.
Madam Speaker, I ask this house to join with me and Pam's friends,
associates, and co-workers, who on December 13th will recognize her
thirty-five years of extraordinary service to the travelling public as
she prepares to retire in January.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. BRIAN BAIRD
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, on December 11, 2007, I was visiting with
displaced residents and touring flood damaged areas in my district. As
a result, I was unable to be present for votes. I take my voting
responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted
the following: rollcall vote 1134--H. Res. 846 (Will the House Now
Consider the Resolution): ``yea''; rollcall vote 1135--H.R. 3505 (On
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass): ``yea''; rollcall vote 1136--H.
Res. 846 (On Agreeing to the Previous Question): ``yea''; rollcall vote
1137--H. Res. 846 (On Agreeing to the Resolution): ``yea''; rollcall
vote 1138--H.R. 4253 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass):
``yea''; rollcall vote 1139--Quorum (Call of the House): ``present'';
rollcall vote 140--H.R. 6 (On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments with
Amendments): ``yea''; and rollcall vote 1141--H.R. 2085 (On Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Pass): ``yea.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
______
HON. JOHN E. PETERSON
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
the dedicated service of Dr. Keith Collins who has served with
distinction as the Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture for almost 14 years. At the end of this year Keith will
retire, and he will be missed, not only by his colleagues at USDA, but
by all of us who came to respect and rely on his non-partisan,
thoughtful and detailed analysis of economic issues in agriculture.
Keith began his career as an economist with USDA in 1977, and his
tenure there has spanned four presidencies of both political parties.
He has served under nine Secretaries of Agriculture.
In 1994, Keith was named Chief Economist at USDA, and in that
capacity he has been responsible for economic forecasts and projections
and has advised the Secretary of Agriculture on the economic
implications of alternative programs, regulations and legislative
proposals. His advice has not been limited to the Secretary either--he
has become a valued advisor to Members of Congress and others involved
in agriculture policy.
On highly charged political issues, Keith is known for his honesty,
competency, and influence. Even when facing tough questions from
Members of Congress, nothing seems to rattle Keith's calm, rational
demeanor.
Keith has also earned the respect of his peers in the field of
agricultural economics. Keith is a Fellow of the American Agricultural
Economics Association, which is the highest honor the agricultural
economics profession can bestow.
[[Page 33766]]
One economist who worked with Keith over the years measured the
potential success for newly appointed Secretaries of Agriculture using
what he called the ``Keith Collins intelligence test.'' If the new
Secretaries reappointed Keith as Chief Economist, they passed.
Keith's colleagues at USDA have also recognized his outstanding
contributions. He received the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious
Executive in 1990 and 1996 and the Presidential Rank Award for
Distinguished Executive in 1992, the highest award a Federal executive
can receive.
Madam Speaker, Keith's retirement is a real loss for American
agriculture. Through his service at USDA, he has influenced agriculture
policy in many positive and lasting ways. His work truly has touched
the lives of many Americans, especially our Nation's farmers and
ranchers.
On behalf of the House Agriculture Committee, I extend to Keith our
deepest appreciation for his service to American agriculture and wish
him great happiness in retirement.
____________________
RECOGNIZING JAYCE H. BERRY FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Jayce H.
Berry, 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 13, and in earning the most prestigious
award of Eagle Scout.
Jayce has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Jayce 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 Jayce H.
Berry for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to other congressional business, I
unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor on Tuesday,
December 4, 2007. Had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted
``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 1123 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos.
1124, 1125, and 1126.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on December 6, I was unavoidably detained
and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 1141. Had I been
present I would have voted: rollcall No. 1141--``yea.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JIM GRISSO
______
HON. BART STUPAK
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a news
professional in my district who has served the people of northern
Michigan with distinction. The Publisher of the Gaylord Herald Times,
Jim Grisso, will retire at the end of this year after a 47-year career
in the newspaper industry, 39 of them at the helm of the Gaylord Herald
Times.
As the publisher of the Gaylord Herald Times (the Times), Mr. Grisso
has made the newspaper a leader in the industry, garnering nearly 500
awards at the state and national levels since 1968. In 2007, the Herald
Times was named the national Newspaper of the Year in its circulation
class by the Suburban Newspapers of America, a testament to Mr.
Grisso's vision and leadership of the paper.
Under Mr. Grisso's leadership, the Herald Times has been a steadfast
advocate of the public's right to know, on occasion resulting in
challenges, even lawsuits, against public bodies that violated the Open
Meetings Law or failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr. Grisso has always insisted that the newspaper represent the people
of Otsego County and reflect the values of the residents of Gaylord:
hard work, honesty, tenacity and telling it like it is.
Mr. Grisso's leadership in northern Michigan extends beyond the
Times. Mr. Grisso has held several leadership positions with
professional associations: Past President, Michigan Press Association;
Past President, Michigan Newspapers Industry and Michigan State
Chairman, National Newspaper Association.
Over the years, Mr. Grisso has also been a leader in the Gaylord
community and used his position at the Times to promote community
service within Gaylord. In 1980, Mr. Grisso established the
Buergermeister Award, which the Herald Times annually presents to
recognize an individual who epitomizes service and dedication to the
community. The Buergermeister Award is considered the most prestigious
award in Otsego County and, thanks to Mr. Grisso's leadership, it has
been used to recognize and encourage community service throughout the
county.
Mr. Grisso's commitment to community does not end there. He has
donated enormous space in the Gaylord Herald Times in the form of
community announcements and in-kind advertising for charitable and
nonprofit organizations. While the Gaylord Herald Times has certainly
put plenty on his plate, he has donated generously of his personal time
through work on many boards and organizations. He co-founded and was
the first vice-president of Otsego County Big Brothers organization. He
served as President of the Gaylord Rotary Club and the Gaylord High
School Athletic Boosters Club. He served on the Boards of the Otsego
Memorial Hospital Foundation, the Gaylord/Otsego County Chamber of
Commerce, Gaylord Little League, and Alpenfest. He continues to serve
today as Otsego County Economic Alliance Executive Committee and is
currently Vice President of the University of Michigan Alumni Club of
Gaylord.
Over the years, Mr. Grisso has been recognized with numerous awards
for his participation in community and civic groups. The Gaylord/Otsego
County Chamber of Commerce honored Mr. Grisso with the ``You Made It
Happen Award'' and the Otsego County United Way recognized his service
with the ``Thanks To You, It Worked For All of Us.'' He has been named
Otsego County Fair Association Citizen of the Year. Mr. Grisso has
received the Founder's Award of Appreciation, presented by Alpenfest
Committee as a founder and leader in building Gaylord as the Alpine
Village. The Otsego County Emergency Medical Service honored him and
five other Gaylord Rotarians for raising $15,000 to purchase
defibrillators as a result of a 150-mile walk from Gaylord to
Manistique in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Madam Speaker, I have a special relationship with Mr. Grisso. His
paper has covered my work since I began serving Michigan's 1st
Congressional District in 1992. As might be expected, I have not agreed
with every word his paper has written or his angle on every story.
However, without a doubt he has endeavored to ensure that the Gaylord
Herald Times covers the issues important to the people of northern
Michigan and informs and serves them with excellent local journalism.
As the Publisher of the Times, he has ensured the Times covers the
challenges facing Gaylord and Otsego County. As a leader in his
community, he has helped develop solutions to those same challenges.
Today, as he prepares to enter a well deserved retirement I offer
him, his wife Sue, his four daughters, four step sons and eight
grandchildren all the best for the future. I would ask, Madam Speaker,
that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join me in
thanking Jim Grisso for his service to the Gaylord community,
commending him for his many years of exceptional work as a journalist
and newspaperman and congratulating him on his many achievements.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, on December 4, 2007, I missed
the following rollcall votes due to illness: rollcall vote No. 1123,
H.R. 3998, passage of America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study
Act;
[[Page 33767]]
rollcall vote No. 11124, passage of H.R. 3887, the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act; rollcall vote 1125,
the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2082, the Intelligence
Authorization Act; and rollcall vote No. 1126, passage of the Charlie
W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act.
If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 1123, 1124,
and 1126, and I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 1125.
____________________
HONORING THE 2007 MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DIVISION II
FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure and privilege
that I offer the following resolution and an accolade of tribute to
Head Coach James Reynolds, Jr., the assistant coaches, and the players
of Martin Luther King, Jr. High School's boys football team on their
stellar season. I am proud to salute this wonderful organization. This
organization was honored during a special ceremony on Friday, November
30, 2007 at Cobo Hall where thousands of Detroiters paid tribute to the
King Crusade.
Whereas, under the skilled guidance of Head Coach James Reynolds, Jr.
and Defensive Coordinator Dale Harvel, Martin Luther King, Jr. High
School's boys football team won the Michigan High School Athletic
Association (MHSAA) Division II title, defeating Midland Dow High
School by the score of 47 to 21 on Friday, November 23, 2007. Detroit
King is the first Detroit Public School League (PSL) team to win a
State title since the MHSAA started the playoff system in 1975.
Whereas, Coach Reynolds found his calling as the head coach of the
King Crusaders football team--a post he has held for 34 years; made
many personal sacrifices for the sake of training his teams; gave
freely of his time and focused on developing athletes, mentoring young
men, and instilling the principles of good sportsmanship; and retired
in June of 2007 but returned to King High School to coach football.
Under Coach Reynolds's leadership, his teams have posted an impressive
record of 250 wins and 106 losses; nine city championships; four
regional championships; and three appearances in the State finals.
Coach Reynolds is the only Detroit Public School coach who has led
football teams to the Michigan State finals.
Whereas, Defensive Coordinator Harvel, a valuable member of the
staff, made personal sacrifices in order to help the players develop
their athletic skill, good character and to abide by the principles of
good sportsmanship. Mr. Harvel exhibited true team spirit by working in
unison with the other coaches for the benefit of the athletes and the
best results on the football field.
Whereas, with a balance of excellent scoring and tough defense,
Detroit King displayed great poise in setting goals for themselves at
the beginning of the season by going out and making their dreams become
reality through hard work and commitment. Many of the talents and
characteristics they exhibited in reaching this goal will help them in
all aspects of their lives.
In special tribute, therefore, this resolution is dedicated to extend
the highest commendation to the Martin Luther King, Jr. High School,
the coaching staff, and the members of the boys football team for their
victorious and first MHSAA Division II Football State Championship. On
behalf of the United States House of Representatives, and the
Congressional Black Caucus, we salute you. May the Congress of the
United States, and the Nation, know of our collective pride in your
accomplishments and achievements.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE FARMINGTON COMPANY ON ITS 27TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOHN B. LARSON
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate the Farmington Company for 27 faithful years of service in
the insurance industry. Based in Farmington, Connecticut, this local
company has proven hard work is more than a virtue.
In 1980, two Connecticut men, Bob Burke and Brad Collins, recognized
that the majority of America--the Nation's lower and middle wage
earners were underserved by the insurance community. Understanding the
opportunity of meeting the insurance needs of the average American, Bob
and Brad moved forward to develop a company founded on the basic
principle of ``people helping people.''
The product of hard work and vision, the Farmington Company has grown
to national and industry-wide recognition. As a fledgling enterprise,
the two-man operation of the Farmington Company targeted the New York
and New England regions. Now, 27 years later, the Farmington Company is
still led by Bob Burke, the company president and Brad Collins, the
executive vice president. The company employs more than 150 staff
members that provide services to thousands of individuals across the
United States. The 27-year record of success for the Farmington Company
can be attributed to the heart of the operation--the company's
dedicated and talented employees. Most notably, it is the hard work and
leadership of people like Sales Vice President Doug Mantz, Senior Vice
President Carol Rosenblatt, the New England branch president Jay
Hershman, regional directors like Ed Calitri and John Lenihan, director
of corporate services Steve Frankel and finance vice president Chris
Thaurau that define the success of the Farmington Company.
In the insurance capital of the world--the State of Connecticut--we
are proud of companies like the Farmington Company that have long
worked to create and expand meaningful insurance opportunities for
those who normally couldn't or wouldn't get insurance. A business built
on basics, the Farmington Company understands the needs of both
employers and employees, and most importantly the needs of the
community. As a company defined with success, I would like to also
recognize how the Farmington Company gives back to the community.
Whether supporting the important work of the Jimmy Fund or
participating in the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer campaign, the
Farmington Company lives up to their motto of ``people helping
people.''
On their 27th anniversary, I urge my colleagues to join me in
honoring the achievements and important contributions of the Farmington
Company. I applaud their work in Connecticut and across the country.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO RALPH HENRY ``SMILEY'' SEYLLER
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great
community leader, Ralph Henry ``Smiley'' Seyller, of Hampshire,
Illinois who passed away November 17, 2007 at the age of 82.
Ralph was a man of many hats who dedicated his life to community
service. Whether as a coach or park district director, much of his life
was spent mentoring and encouraging children and developing programs in
Burlington, St. Charles and Hampshire, Illinois.
His many contributions and honors include:
Ralph Seyller established the Burlington Boys Club and served as
counselor for 17 years. For his efforts, the Village named the baseball
field in his honor and inducted him into their Hall of Fame.
After 25 years of employment at St. Charles High School, Ralph was
honored for his service to the youth of St. Charles High School and his
contributions to the Athletic Department. He was inducted into their
Hall of Fame and given a Lifetime Achievement Award.
In retirement, Ralph organized the Hampshire Park District and served
as Director for 20 years. During his tenure, he established programs
for people of all ages. His major accomplishments included creation of
the Little People Playtime Pre-School program, now in its 25th year and
occupying its own facility. He created the Coon Creek Classic Run/Walk
which eventually included 800 runners. And he organized trips to
Cellular and Wrigley Fields to watch the Chicago White Sox and Cubs
play baseball. In appreciation of those and many other contributions,
the east park was named the Ralph H. Seyller Park.
Ralph served many years as Democratic Precinct Committeeman.
I was privileged to know Ralph Seyller, whose son David Edmonson is
married to my niece Jodi. His life serves as a role model for those who
want to make their own communities the best that they can be in serving
the needs and desires of their residents. My heart goes out to those
who will miss him most, his loving wife and partner, Catherine, and his
children Sarajane, David, Donald and Susan.
[[Page 33768]]
____________________
PROMOTE AND PROTECT OUR STRONG ECONOMY
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, America's third quarter
GDP grew at an impressive 4.9 percent. That means we have had 6
straight years of economic growth coupled with a record 51 straight
months of job growth creating 8.3 million additional jobs. In the
district I represent, the Nation's fourth largest cabinet company, the
Elkay Cabinet Division, has announced a new manufacturing plant in
Barnwell which will create hundreds of jobs. This job success is the
product of the pro-growth tax policies that President Bush signed into
law 4 years ago.
There remains much more that we must do in order to promote strong
economic growth. We need energy legislation that actually helps create
new energy, health care reform that values individual choice over
government mandate, and sensible tax reform. We must enact
legislation--including a repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax--that
doesn't expand the burden of Washington spending on the backs of middle
class Americans and small businesses.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11th.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF KATE WHITACRE
______
HON. BRAD ELLSWORTH
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
outstanding achievements of Cadet Kate Whitacre from Boonville, IN.
Kate recently received the Carl A. Spaatz Award--the highest honor
bestowed upon members of the Civil Air Patrol.
The award is based on a demonstrated excellence in leadership,
character, fitness and aerospace education. And Kate's receipt of this
prestigious award is a testament not only to her abilities in these
areas but also to her commitment to our community.
As a member of the Civil Air Patrol, she is volunteering to risk her
own life to make others safer, and she understands that there is no
higher calling than service to others.
I congratulate Kate Whitacre on her tremendous accomplishment. She is
a leader among many and an inspiration to us all.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE SHIRLEY WADDING
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure
that I stand before you today to recognize the many accomplishments of
the Honorable Shirley Wadding, Mayor of Lake Station, Indiana. I have
known Shirley for many years, and she is one of the most involved
citizens that I have ever known, especially when it comes to her
service to the residents of Lake Station. Shirley has been a public
official in Lake Station for the past twenty years, the last twelve of
which she served as the city's mayor. Though Shirley has been the
cornerstone of her community, she decided not to run for reelection and
will be retiring from her elected office at year's end. For her efforts
and many contributions to the City of Lake Station, Shirley was honored
at a retirement celebration on Saturday, December 1, 2007, at the Lake
Station Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #9323.
Originally from Indiana, Pennsylvania, Shirley came to Northwest
Indiana in 1960. A resident of Lake Station since that time, Shirley's
familiarity with the people of Lake Station and her fondness for the
city emerged from her everyday interactions with them as the owner of a
local sandwich shop. Undoubtedly, it was her connection to the people
that steered her in the direction of public service and led to her
election to the city council in 1987. Following eight years on the
council, Shirley's leadership skills and dedication led to her election
as mayor, serving from 1996 to 2007. During this time, Shirley received
numerous accolades from the community, including: the Liberty Bell
Award from the Indiana State Bar Association in 2002, the Department of
the Army's Certificate of Appreciation in 2005, and the Marine Corps
League Distinguished Service Award in 2007.
As the mayor of Lake Station, Shirley was instrumental in many
improvements and upgrades within the city. Throughout her tenure, Lake
Station has welcomed several new subdivisions and businesses, as well
as many new public facilities, including a community center, a senior
and nutrition center, a food pantry, a public library, and a compost
facility. Thanks to Shirley's leadership and perseverance, the city was
also able to acquire and restore what would become her most rewarding
contribution, the Lake Station Boys and Girls Club. Throughout the
years, Shirley's commitment to public safety and the well-being of the
community was constant. During this time, the city saw improvements and
additions made to the ambulance service, the police department, and the
fire department. These included additional vehicles, equipment,
officers, computer upgrades, and a new 911 emergency system. Public
health services were also improved through the addition of a mosquito
sprayer, new storm sewers, a renovated water tower, and new sidewalks
and walking trails. Beautification of the city has also been one of
Shirley's primary objectives, as is evidenced by Lake Station's
Veterans' Community Park, a covered walking bridge, and numerous
landscaping projects throughout the city.
Having decided to retire from public service, Shirley will now be
able to spend much of her time with those closest to her, her family. A
loving wife, mother, and grandmother, Shirley's commitment to the
people of Lake Station is surpassed only by her dedication to her
family. Shirley and her husband, Harry, have shared many wonderful
years together. They have been blessed with three children: Jody, Toni,
and James. Harry and Shirley are also the proud grandparents of 6
adoring grandchildren: Larissa, Kristin, Jordan, Jenna, Jake, and
Jonas.
Madam Speaker, Shirley Wadding has given her time and efforts
selflessly to the people of Lake Station for the past twenty years and
beyond. At this time, I ask that you and all of my distinguished
colleagues join me in commending her for her service and dedication. I
also ask you to join me in wishing her the best of health and happiness
in the years to come.
____________________
CARDINAL JOHN P. FOLEY DAY IN PHILADELPHIA
______
HON. CHAKA FATTAH
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, December 13, 2007, is a special day in
Philadelphia. The City Council has declared `Cardinal John P. Foley Day
in the City of Philadelphia' to honor a great and humble priest of our
city who has been elevated to Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church.
Both in Philadelphia and on the world stage, Cardinal Foley has
served ably as the communicator of both faith and social policy for the
Catholic Church as it performs vital work in maintaining the health and
welfare safety net for many of our citizens in need, regardless of
religion, race or nationality.
Even as Cardinal Foley has served two Popes at the Vatican for the
past 23 years, he always left his heart in Philadelphia. He has made
frequent return visits to friends, family, fellow priests and all his
admirers in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, where he was born, raised
and ordained.
December 13 highlights Cardinal Foley's first visit home since the
Consistory in Rome on November 24, 2007, at which he and 22 other
priests were elevated to Cardinal. He will be honored in Philadelphia
City Council, where he will open the weekly session with a prayer. Then
he will celebrate the Mass of Thanksgiving at the Cathedral Basilica of
Saints Peter and Paul along Philadelphia's Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
Cardinal Foley's career as a Catholic communicator extends back to
his youth, as a teenager in Sharon Hill. As a student at St. Joseph's
Preparatory School, he wrote and produced plays on the lives of saints
that were broadcast on a radio station that specialized in Catholic
programming. Also at St. Joseph's Prep he developed an abiding lifetime
friendship with Richard A. Doran, an outstanding Philadelphian on whose
counsel and friendship I often relied in the dawn of my career.
Tragically, Dick Doran died less than a year before this week's
celebration, but the ceremonies this week will be graced by his widow
Mary Doran.
As a student at St. Joseph's University the future Cardinal Foley was
a TV regular on a Channel 3 college debate series, often jousting with
Penn's Arlen Specter, now Pennsylvania's senior senator. And in typical
Foley storytelling fashion he recalls that the show
[[Page 33769]]
shared studio space with ``Bertie the Bunyip,'' a legendary local
puppet show of the 1950s.
The late Cardinal John Krol spotted this young priest as a devout man
of great talent and potential. Cardinal Krol arranged for him to attend
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, installed him as
Editor of the Catholic Standard and Times for the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia from 1970 to 1984, then recommended him to Pope John Paul
II for a new post as President of the Pontifical Council for Social
Communications at the Vatican.
Then-Archbishop Foley undertook the task of explaining church
teachings through the worldwide media. He designed and implemented the
Vatican's modern communications policy. He also served as the voice of
the Vatican on such occasions as the global telecast of Midnight Mass
from St. Peter's--a role he intends to continue.
Now, in addition to solemn duties as advisor to Pope Benedict XVI,
Cardinal Foley has taken on the responsibility at the Vatican for
overseeing the Catholic holy places in the Middle East as Pro Grand
Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
Through it all, this man of God has never lost his humility, his
gentle wit and his broad smile as he has risen to this most elite level
of the billion-member worldwide church to which he devotes his life.
Cardinal Foley Day is a day of celebration for all of us.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO JELINDO ANGELO ``J.A.'' TIBERTI
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jelindo
Angelo ``J.A.'' Tiberti, who died on Wednesday May 3, 2006.
J.A. was a pillar of the Las Vegas construction industry, patriarch
of Tiberti construction and a civic leader. J.A. came to Las Vegas from
California in 1941 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build the
runway at what is now Nellis Air Force Base. He formed Waale, Camplan
and Tiberti Construction Co. in 1947 and developed Bonanza Village on
Bonanza Road before venturing out on his own in 1950. Among his many
prominent works in Las Vegas are the Las Vegas Club, Palace Station,
Sunset Station, Club Bingo and the Gold Coast. He built schools,
hospitals, and public buildings. Not only was he a great craftsman, he
was also a benevolent member of society. J.A.'s charitable
contributions include a million dollar donation to help create the UNLV
College of Engineering in 1979, and he provided the funds to build Camp
Potosi for the Boy Scouts Boulder Dam Area Council. He was also
appointed to the Las Vegas City Planning Commission in 1953 and served
six consecutive four-year terms. J.A. received a number of professional
awards as well, such as the Southern Nevada Engineer of the Year award
in 1972, and the state's Most Distinguished Nevadan in 1987.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor the life of Jelindo Angelo
``J.A.'' Tiberti. His professional success and philanthropic nature
should serve as an example to us all. He will surely be missed by the
community.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. LEE STRAWHUN
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great admiration and
pleasure that I stand before you today to recognize the many years of
dedicated service of Mr. Lee Strawhun. Having known Lee for many years,
I can truly say that he is one of the most committed, knowledgeable,
and honorable citizens in Northwest Indiana. Nowhere has his knowledge
and commitment been more evident than in his faithful service to the
mental health profession, and more specifically, to the Southlake
Center for Mental Health. Lee has served as President and Chief
Executive Officer of Southlake Center since its founding in April of
1976. For many years, Lee has been a constant fixture at the Southlake
Center for Mental Health, and for his efforts, he was honored at a
farewell reception on Thursday, December 6, 2007, at the Avalon Manor
in Merrillville, Indiana.
Lee Strawhun has spent his entire life, both professionally and
personally, working at ways to improve not only mental health services,
but society as a whole. From his service to his country as a member of
the United States Army Reserves to his consulting work with various
organizations to his service to the youth of his community as faculty
member at Indiana University-Northwest and guest lecturer at Purdue
University-Calumet, Valparaiso University-School of Law, and DePaul
University-School of Law, Lee has always sought opportunities to
improve the quality of life for all people.
Looking back, it is not surprising that Lee was chosen as the first
staff member at the Southlake Center for Mental Health back in 1976.
Following a very successful six years as the Deputy Director of the
Northwest Indiana Comprehensive Health Planning Council, Lee was
brought on during a time when mental health services were not readily
accepted. Since serving Southlake Center's first clients in 1977, Lee
Strawhun has led the way and has been the catalyst for the improvement
of mental health services in Northwest Indiana and beyond. During Lee's
tenure, the Southlake Center for Mental Health has seen astonishing
growth. To name a few of these outstanding advances, Southlake Center
has expanded to include: drug and alcohol treatment programs, GED and
general medical services programs, supervised group living homes, a
psychology doctoral internship program, an acute partial
hospitalization program, a countywide divorce education program,
residential treatment centers for adolescents and children, independent
group living facilities, and a forensic diversion program.
Without a doubt, Lee Strawhun has been an innovative and respected
leader throughout the years. To attest to this fact, Lee has been the
recipient of numerous awards for his leadership and dedication. To name
a few of his many accolades, Lee was honored with the ``Distinguished
Hoosier Award'' in 1982 by Governor Robert Orr, the ``Adam Benjamin
Advocacy Award'' in 1989 by the Indiana Mental Health Association's
Lake County Chapter, the ``Outstanding Achiever Award'' in 1990 by the
American Cancer Society, and the ``Outstanding Board Member of the Year
Award'' in 2001 by the Indiana Association of Community Corrections
Counties. Then, in 2004, Lee was awarded the prestigious ``Sagamore of
the Wabash'' by Governor Frank O'Bannon.
Though it may be difficult to imagine where he has found the time,
Lee has always been an active member of various professional
organizations, including: the National Council of Community Mental
Heath Centers, American Society for Public Administration, Reserve
Officers Association, American Correctional Association, and the Mental
Health Corporations of America. He has also been a member of various
organizations within Northwest Indiana, including: the Mental Health
Association, Indiana Council of Community Mental Health Centers,
Calumet Region Montessori, Merrillville Rotary Club, Alumni Association
of the Indiana University--School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University-Northwest--Center for Medical Education, Lake County
Community Corrections Advisory Board, Workforce Investment Board,
Merrillville Chamber of Commerce, Merrillville Sanitary District, and
the Merrillville ``Vision 21'' Committee.
Madam Speaker, Lee Strawhun has devoted his life to improving mental
health services and to serving the people of Northwest Indiana. At this
time, I ask that you and all of my distinguished colleagues join me in
commending him for his lifetime of service, perseverance, and
dedication. I also ask that you join me in wishing him the best of
health and happiness in the years to come.