Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 for July 31, 2008

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[Issue]
[Pages 17419-17779]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 17419]]

VOLUME 154--PART 13

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, July 31, 2008

The House met at 10 a.m.
Rev. William H. Hild, Jr., First Baptist Church, Sarasota, Florida,
offered the following prayer:
Our Father and our God, we beseech You this morning to grant unto
this House abundant wisdom upon which debate and decision will be made.
We pray for each and every esteemed Member, their spouses, their
families, and the dedicated staffs who undergird them. May the great
challenges that confront our land, debated in this Chamber, become
opportunities for even greater blessing as, together, we seek Your will
for this, our beloved Nation.
May we be reminded today that Your Word teaches: ``Blessed is the
Nation whose God is the Lord.'' We thank You for Your incredible
goodness, remembering all Your many blessings both individually and as
a Nation. We earnestly pray for a deeper desire to make You the
foundation and center of our life as we offer this humble prayer in the
name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. GIFFORDS led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed with amendments in which the concurrence of
the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 5938. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents,
and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 2617. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
codify increases in the rates of compensation for veterans
with service-connected disabilities and the rates of
dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of
certain disabled veterans that were effective as of December
1, 2007, to provide for an increase in the rates of such
compensation effective December 1, 2008, and for other
purposes.

____________________

WELCOMING REV. WILLIAM H. HILD, JR.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Buchanan) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honor today to
recognize and welcome my family's pastor, also my wife, Sandy, and my
two children. He's been our pastor for the last 8 years. William Hild,
since 1997, has served and led as the pastor of First Baptist Church of
Sarasota, Florida. Accompanying him here today is his wife, Beverly, of
28 years; William Hild III, who also attends Georgetown Law School; and
his sister, Kathy.
Since becoming pastor of First Baptist Church of Sarasota in 1997,
Bill has helped to spread the church's ministry throughout our
community, the State of Florida, the United States, and even across the
world.
Under Pastor Hild's leadership, the church has organized over 20 Holy
Land trips to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. These trips provide our members
with a greater understanding of the Bible and a deeper appreciation of
the work of God.
Here at home, Pastor Hild was a leader in the recovery efforts
following Hurricane Katrina. Under his leadership, First Baptist Church
of Sarasota donated cash and pledges in excess of $140,000 to help the
victims of Katrina. The church also conducted multiple trips to the
gulf coast region, delivering food and personal hygiene kits to those
affected by the hurricane.
I want to thank my pastor, Pastor Bill Hild, for more importantly,
his close friendship and guidance to me, and also providing today's
prayer. Also, I would like to thank his wife, Beverly, and son, Will,
for being with us today and his family and his many friends from back
home watching here today on this very special day.
Thank you, Pastor Hild.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to 10 further requests for
1- minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

____________________

EXTEND RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CREDITS

(Ms. GIFFORDS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the urgent issue
of extending the renewable energy tax credits. These tax credits are
due to expire this year. As we all know, their extension is critical to
the young renewable energy industry in our Nation.

[[Page 17420]]

The House has passed extensions four separate times, and I applaud my
colleagues for doing so. But our job is not done. I urge our colleagues
in the Senate to work with us to pass a responsible extender bill
quickly.
Solar power and other renewables are poised to be one of the biggest
opportunities of the 21st century. Yet unlike our foreign competitors,
we still haven't made a firm national commitment to this industry.
America can do better. We have always looked to the future, imagined
a better world, and then partnered with the private sector to build it:
railroads, the highways, the Internet as well. Government support was
critical to every one of these technologies in its earliest stages.
Renewable energy is no different.
I refuse to believe that we cannot get this legislation passed. I
call on the leadership to pass it immediately. There's no time to
waste.

____________________

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPO

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning as the co-chair of the
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House of
Representatives, representing well over half of the full House, to
praise today's 11th annual Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Expo
being held all day long in the Cannon Caucus Room.
Republicans and Democrats will join in support of these most
important investments in renewable energy: wind, solar, biomass,
geothermal. We have an abundance of these opportunities. We need to
grow this from 6 percent of our electricity utilization to much, much
higher.
We believe that Members should lead, encouraging weatherization of
your homes, new appliances in your homes, ways to conserve.
Conservation is not for wimps. It's for warriors. Not every American
will wear the uniform of our Armed Forces, but every American can help
our country reduce the demand and lower the cost for energy.
It's a critical issue. Our all-of-the-above strategy includes a
tremendous focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy
conservation.
We encourage all Members to come to Cannon Caucus at any time today
and join us in this most important bipartisan effort.

____________________

STOPPING THE FURTHER THEFT OF IRAQ'S OIL RESOURCES

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, just prior to the invasion of Iraq on
March 17, 2003, the price of a barrel of oil was $30.01, and the price
of a gallon of gas was $1.77, the average.
On July 29, 2008, the price of a barrel of oil was $122.21, and the
average gallon of gas, $3.96.
The invasion of Iraq was about oil, but it didn't result in more oil
or cheaper gas. It resulted in war profiteering by oil companies who
benefited by keeping Iraq oil off the market. Remember the secret
meetings between the administration and the oil company executives
before the war?
Well, today, I'm going to introduce a bill which prevents U.S.-based
oil companies from development of and investment in the petroleum
resources of Iraq. This will discourage U.S. oil companies from
profiting from the war and will stop the further theft of Iraq's oil
resources by the very interests who have profited from the war for oil,
the U.S. oil companies.

____________________

PROMOTING NEW AMERICAN ENERGY ACT

(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, as part of our action plan for energy,
Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are asking
that we push forward with an all-of-the-above energy plan to utilize
every source of American energy to release us from our dependence on
foreign oil.
That's why today I'm introducing, Mr. Speaker, the Promoting New
American Energy Act which accelerates tax depreciation to 3 years for
investments in newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies, including
wind, solar, and geothermal, as well as others.
According to the nonprofit American Council for Capital Formation,
American energy investments have less favorable tax depreciation rules
in the United States compared to many other countries. This does not
put America in a good position for alternatives.
My bill will bring America's tax depreciation schedule in line with
those of our major trading partners overseas, which will put America on
a better foot globally, and that means more jobs in the United States.
This will take us one step closer, Mr. Speaker, to increasing
domestic energy production and making it more efficient.
As a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I
ask my colleagues to promote newer, cleaner, more efficient energy
solutions.

____________________

COMMENDING SANTA ANA POLICE DETECTIVE CHUCK SALLE

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on May 18, 2007, a
young mother was executed in cold blood by her former live-in
boyfriend. The woman's 11-year-old daughter was in the house and heard
her mother begging for her life, then a pause, then a gunshot, and then
silence.
Santa Ana Police Detective Chuck Salle, badge number 2005, was on
assignment to the United States Marshall's Fugitive Task Force and was
tasked with tracking down and arresting that suspect.
Task force members located the suspect in a crowded restaurant and
arranged a meeting away from the public area. Detective Salle
approached the suspect, identified himself as a police officer, and the
suspect pointed his gun directly at Salle's head and fired. The bullet
missed, officers returned fire, and the suspect fell to the ground
fatally wounded.
Today, the Treasury Department will recognize Officer Salle with the
highest valor award that they honor ATF agents with.
Today, I publicly commend and thank Detective Salle, the United
States Marshall's Fugitive Task Force, and law enforcement officers all
across this great Nation for their efforts in protecting and serving
our communities, day or night, rain or shine, every minute of the day.

____________________

{time} 1015
LET'S VOTE ON AMERICAN ENERGY ACT

(Ms. FALLIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, in just 2 weeks, children from all across
America and in my district will be starting back to school. All over
America, school officials are struggling with the rising costs of fuel.
They have to run their buses twice a day for the next 9 months. And in
some States, they're already talking about cutting back on bus routes.
They're already talking about forcing some children to have to walk to
school, and even going to four-day-a-week school classes. That's just
not inconvenient for our families and our children, but it's flat-out
dangerous for our children, especially our young ones.
Day after day, we wait for this House and the Democratic leadership
to allow us a vote on expanded energy resources, whether it is
drilling, whether it is alternative resources--wind, solar, nuclear,
refinery capacity, and day after day they say no.

[[Page 17421]]

In just a few weeks, our children, who have been riding buses safely,
are now going to have to alter the way they get to school.
Mr. Speaker, time is up. It's time for us to vote on the American
Energy Act. Let's vote on it today. Let's vote on it before we go on
our August break. Let's give the American people relief on gas prices.

____________________

GAS PRICES

(Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, gas prices in New York are still
at the outrageous price of $4.19, well above what working families in
the Hudson Valley can bear. They are looking to us in the government
for answers, and Congress needs to respond.
The fact is that the Democratic majority has advanced a wide variety
of proposals to provide relief. We have pushed tax credits for fuel-
efficient vehicles and renewables, we've called for Big Oil to drill on
its land that it has already leased and gotten permits for, and
advocated a release from the SPR. Each time President Bush and his
allies have opposed these measures and are holding real energy
solutions hostage to their insistence on old, ineffective drilling
proposals.
The Republican minority treats our energy crisis like a multiple
choice question. The problem is that they keep answering ``none of the
above.'' On this side of the aisle, we will keep pushing solutions to
responsibly enhance American energy supplies and usher in an innovative
and independent energy future.
I hope that after the break our friends on the other side of the
aisle will come back to Congress ready to cooperate instead of standing
in the way.

____________________

AMERICA NEEDS COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY REFORM

(Mr. LATTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the ninth largest
manufacturing district of the United States Congress. Earlier this
week, I had the pleasure of visiting two manufacturing facilities in my
district.
During the visits, the management of each facility told me that the
number one issue facing them is the rising cost of energy and petroleum
products.
Natural gas is a much-needed resource in the manufacturing industry
to fuel production, in addition to the thousands of petroleum-based
products that are used to fabricate various goods.
Without comprehensive energy reform, the price of oil and natural gas
will continue to rise here in the United States, forcing costs to rise,
and leaving us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the
world. Foreign manufacturers located in countries such as India and
China are allowing for exploration and recovery of their domestic
natural resources that keep their energy prices low.
The bottom line is that energy equals manufacturing which equals
jobs. And without comprehensive energy reform, our Nation will continue
to lose business to these countries and our economy will continue to
suffer. The time to act is now.

____________________

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation with a Constitution and a Bill
of Rights, with human rights; and that's what makes our country so
great.
These rights were violated for hundreds of families in immigration
raids throughout the country, including Postville, Iowa. What we fail
to see at times are the long-lasting and devastating impact raids leave
behind.
In Postville, hundreds of children have been ripped from their
families, elderly left to fend for themselves, single parents forced to
wear ankle bracelets are prohibited from working to feed their
children. And the schools now resemble ghost towns with the absence of
so many children.
We cannot continue to look the other way and ignore what is happening
in this country.
The human dignity of these families have been stepped on. We are a
country with moral principles and core family values. There is no
blanket solution for the immigration crisis. We need to look beyond
this ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric that is dividing our Nation and work
towards comprehensive immigration reform.

____________________

213 VOTE TO GET OUT OF DODGE

(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it was 213 to get out of town and it was 212 to
stay here and do our job, which is to pass an energy bill for
Americans. So the 213 that won this vote, at the end of the day
tomorrow they're getting out of town. But you see, back home where I
live, people can't even leave town because they don't have enough money
to pay for gasoline for their vehicles.
It's a shame on Congress that we are going in recess when we have to
deal and have not dealt with the issue of high energy prices.
So let's bring a vote up today on whether we should drill offshore or
not. Let Congress decide--no politics, up or down vote--whether we
should drill offshore and get America back to work by lowering gasoline
prices. That's what we need to do rather than get out of Dodge--or
should I say Washington, DC.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

VETERANS TRAVEL PROGRAM REFORM ACT

(Mr. WALZ of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a new
bill, the Veterans Travel Program Reform Act of 2008. I'm proud to be
joined by my colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) in introducing
this legislation.
Many of our veterans incur significant costs traveling to and from VA
facilities to receive their health care treatment. This is especially
true because of skyrocketing gas prices, and it's a big problem in
rural areas like southern Minnesota.
While some veterans are reimbursed for their travel, the rate they
receive is way below what Members of this body receive when we travel
in our cars. That is simply wrong. What's more, current law requires
the VA Secretary to raise the deductible that veterans have to pay when
the mileage reimbursement goes up.
Many of our veterans travel--and travel long distances--and end up
paying for it out of their own pocket. This bill would fix these
problems by making it more generous and fair in the reimbursement. It
would set the mileage rate at the same rate that other Members of
Congress and other Federal employees receive. It would eliminate the
deductible, and it would eliminate the restrictions on eligibility so
more of our veterans would be able to receive that.
Mr. Speaker, our veterans served us, now it's time we serve them. I
urge my colleagues to join me.

____________________

CONGRESS SHOULD DO ITS JOB AND VOTE ON ENERGY

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Yesterday, by one vote, the House voted to adjourn as soon
as today for the August recess. This means Congress is about to take a
5-week vacation without even taking a vote on bipartisan measures that
would lessen our dependence on foreign oil by allowing more domestic
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Mr. Speaker, the American people won't get a vacation from high
gasoline prices, so Congress shouldn't take a vacation until we vote to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

[[Page 17422]]

If the Speaker won't keep the House in session to allow this vote, I
urge President Bush to call an immediate energy special session of
Congress. Under article II, section 3 of the Constitution, the
President has the power, quote, on extraordinary occasions to convene
the Congress. If $4 a gallon of gas isn't an extraordinary occasion
that demands action by the Congress, I don't know what is.
The Congress should stay in session and do its job and give the
bipartisan pro-drilling majority a vote. And, Mr. President, if this
Congress tries to leave town without voting on more drilling, use your
constitutional authority, bring them back and make them work.

____________________

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPO

(Mr. CARNAHAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Congressman Mark Udall and
Congressman Zach Wamp and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Caucus for sponsoring the expo today in the Cannon Caucus Room. I urge
all Members and staff to attend.
I believe Members from both sides of the aisle can agree that
renewable energy and energy efficiency will be a big part of our effort
to wean ourselves from a dangerous reliance on foreign oil.
This new and developing sector of the economy will generate thousands
of new jobs, high-paying green collar jobs, that will remain in America
and won't be outsourced.
The union of renewable energy and energy efficiency with the built
environment will not only generate new jobs and new technology, but it
will help to immediately address global climate change. According to
recent studies, the quickest and easiest way to positively affect
global climate change is to design and build--or retrofit--high-
performance green buildings. These buildings are energy efficient,
healthy, safe, and secure.
Developing buildings that use renewable energy and seeking energy
efficiency is a win for the economy, for the environment, and for the
people who work in them.

____________________

MEDIA FAIRNESS INITIATIVE: MEDIA DONATIONS FAVOR DEMOCRATS

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the story of the 2008 election is
being told by a partisan media. If you have any doubt, just follow the
money.
An analysis by Investor's Business Daily shows that journalists
contributed 15 times more money to Democrats than Republicans during
this election cycle. While 235 journalists donated to Democrats, just
20 gave to Republicans, a margin of more than 10-1. And journalists who
gave to Senator Obama outnumbered those who contributed to Senator
McCain by a 20-1 margin. No wonder nearly seven in 10 Americans say the
media wants Senator Obama to win the election, according to a recent
poll.
Mr. Speaker, we need to promote fairness and objectivity in
journalism. Only then we will restore Americans' faith in the media.

____________________

CONSUMER SAFETY

(Mr. KLEIN of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed two
pieces of legislation critical to consumer safety, both in my district
in south Florida and of course throughout the United States.
The first bill, the Product Safety Modernization Act, bans dangerous
chemicals in the manufacture of children's toys to keep them safe. The
second bill, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,
grants the FDA necessary authority to restrict tobacco marketing and
sales to children.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities as parents
that we have is to keep our children safe. I'm proud that we passed
these bills by a bipartisan majority to demonstrate that we will not
allow our children to be exposed to toxic chemicals by unscrupulous toy
manufacturers or cigarette company marketers.
The rash of product recalls in the last year prove that we must be
vigilant when it comes to consumer safety. Thanks to this week's
legislation, parents in south Florida and across the Nation can rest a
little easier.

____________________

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to call today your attention to
something yesterday. We had a vote 213-212 to adjourn this House
without passing a comprehensive energy bill, without being able to vote
on drilling. So what I've done, Mr. Speaker, I've got a number here.
Call (202) 224-3121. Ask for Speaker Pelosi if you want to make sure
that we do something before we leave this Chamber today or tomorrow to
vote on drilling; or call and ask for your Member of Congress and find
out if they were the swing vote that made us leave this city without
voting for you.
But I'll tell you what, not only are they leaving Washington, DC,
they're going to get on jets on your dime. They're going to fly to
Africa and Europe and all over this world on your dime while you don't
have money at your house to go on a family vacation, or even go to the
store sometimes, they're going to be flying around here.
Call this number. Mr. Speaker, I hope they will put it on the
Internet. I hope we will let Speaker Pelosi, the Democratic leadership,
know we're tired of this. We need to know where you stand. We need to
drill for U.S. oil.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). Members are reminded they must
address their remarks to the Chair.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE ENERGY RENEWABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY CAUCUS

(Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, in contrast, I would like to just
stand up and, again, like so many others, not rail on somebody, but to
thank the bipartisan Energy Renewable and Energy Efficiency Caucus.
Our country is facing deep, deep energy problems, and I think the
good people of Kansas certainly understand that the way that we're
going to address that is coming and looking at the bipartisan
commonsense solutions.
I want to just congratulate--this is a bipartisan group--the
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. And I would like to
specifically thank Representative Mark Udall and Representative Zach
Wamp, a Republican, for coming together and making this such an
important issue. It's over in the Cannon Caucus Room. And I certainly
ask each of us to get over there and to support this bipartisan effort.
You know, I think people in Kansas are sick and tired of everybody
railing on somebody else. It's time that we work together.

____________________

{time} 1030
THE EFFECTS OF HIGH GASOLINE PRICES

(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, today in Texas the temperature is going to
be about 103 to 105 degrees. It's going to be hot, and it's been hot
for the last 2 weeks.

[[Page 17423]]

Last night I had the pleasure of visiting with some of my
constituents back home, several hundred of them. And at this time of
the year, Texans generally try to get their old folks and their kids
out of the heat wherever they can. So historically Texans have loaded
up in their pickups with their campers or their tents, and they have
gone to visit our neighbors in New Mexico and Colorado to get a little
bit up in the mountains and get a little bit cooler so we can stay
alive when this heat hits us.
But it's not happening in Texas today because, quite frankly,
ordinary folks can't afford to load up their pickup, put gasoline in
it, and drive the distance it takes to get to the mountains. And
they're concerned about it, and they're worried about it. And they want
to know if they are having to take the heat, why can't this House stand
the heat and stay here until we have resolved this issue of offshore
drilling and drilling in other parts of the country.

____________________

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPO AND FORUM

(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, what the American people want is for us in a
bipartisan effort to come together and use all the energy tools in our
energy tool box to, in fact, solve America's energy problems. Such an
effort is being sponsored today in part by the House Renewable Energy
and Efficiency Caucus, of which I am a member.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are important tools for
reducing our reliance on imported oil and addressing climate change. In
my home State of California in 2007, 23.5 percent of our electricity
came from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass,
and hydroelectric facilities. We've made a lot of progress. The Fresno-
Yosemite Airport near my district recently installed solar panels that
provide 40 percent of the airport's need for electricity. At my alma
mater, Fresno State, we've built shaded parking using solar panels that
provide over 20 percent of the energy necessary for the university. We
also have dairy farmers and utility companies partnering together to
generate electricity through methane gas.
This is the kind of partnership and cooperation and collaboration we
need. This is an exciting time for renewable energy and energy
efficiency. I encourage all to visit this very important expo and forum
in the Cannon Office Building.

____________________

HONORING MICHAEL DEAN RAMBO

(Mr. MARCHANT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael Dean Rambo
of Colleyville, Texas.
Michael was an outstanding husband, father, and scout master for
Troop 28. Michael was always looking for an opportunity to give back to
the community in which he lived. He loved his family and friends, and
they loved him.
Michael always had a childlike wonder and awe of the world around him
and a thirst for knowledge. His example and enthusiasm made those
around him want to learn more and do more.
Michael was always up for a challenge and always willing to lend a
hand. He was the cubmaster for Pack 254 before taking the lead role for
Troop 28. Michael was the guiding light for Troop 28 for 12 years and
helped them earn Colleyville's first service award.
Among Michael's many accomplishments, he earned his Eagle Scout at
age 13. He earned a select student in science and math degree from
Stephen F. Austin University, and he went on to earn a master's degree
from UT Arlington. His favorite people were his sons, Patrick Rambo and
Aaron Rambo, and his wife, Mary Margaret.
Michael Rambo selflessly served the community. He loved his family
and friends, and he enjoyed life to the fullest. He was a role model of
superior citizenship who had a tremendous impact on our lives.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1338, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1388 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1338) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of
discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1338
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration
of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1388.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1388 provides for
consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled
by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order six
amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report, and the
rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, our great Nation recently celebrated the 160th
anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New
York. This groundbreaking convention was dedicated to the key principle
in the Declaration of Independence that we are all created equal. Women
have had a

[[Page 17424]]

hard time to recognize that because it took more than 70 years for us
to pass legislation giving women the right to vote.
But in the years since Seneca Falls, generations of courageous women
have made great strides towards equality. From securing a woman's right
to vote in 1920 to serving our country in World War II, American women
have come a long way. In this Congress alone, we have much to
celebrate. Speaker Pelosi is the first woman to lead this esteemed
body. And Senator Clinton made ``18 million cracks'' in the Nation's
highest glass ceiling as the first woman to run a formidable
Presidential campaign.
Yet as we celebrate these important milestones and look back on all
we have achieved since 1848, we know full well that our journey toward
gender equality is not complete. Despite the strong leadership of
several generations of women, we are still struggling to achieve
equality in the workplace. Among the most distressing disparities is
the significant gap in pay between American men and women as they work
side by side doing the very same work.
Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago President John F. Kennedy signed into law
the Equal Pay Act to address the unconscionable practice of paying
women less for the same job. That was 45 years ago and we still
struggle. At that time when this bill was signed, women were earning 59
cents for each dollar earned by a man in a comparable job. While the
wage gap has narrowed, today the working women in America still earn
only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In other words, let me
put it this way, 18 cents more has been achieved in the past 45 years.
According to the Department of Labor, which maintains data on over
300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every category.
This is so important, I'm going to say it again. The Department of
Labor says in 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and
every 1 of them. Even in what they call the female-dominated industries
where women comprise 70 percent of that labor force, women earn 20
percent less than their male coworkers.
Experts estimate that the average woman worker will lose anywhere
from $200,000 to $2 million over her lifetime as a result of the wage
gap. Over time women earn significantly less than men, and lower wages
translate into less income that counts in calculating pensions and in
some cases Social Security benefits. Closing the wage gap will have a
long-term impact on the women's economic security, especially in
retirement.
To all the cynics who dismiss equal pay as just another women's
issue, I want to point out that the wage gap not only hurts women, it
hurts families. It hurts children being raised by single moms who have
to work two jobs to make ends meet when one might suffice were she to
be paid equally with her male coworkers. It hurts families with two
working parents who are struggling as one partner makes 20 percent less
than her male colleagues. Currently, single women who are heads of
households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers.
Again, currently single women who are heads of households are twice as
likely to be in poverty as single fathers. That is a fact that we must
face here and remedy. And we know that pay equity for women is closely
linked to eradicating poverty. For families who live below or near the
poverty line, the equal pay for women will make a significant
difference to the well-being of American families. And after all, Mr.
Speaker, isn't that why we are here?
Despite these statistics and shocking data that indicates that men
make over 20 percent more than their female colleagues on average, the
Supreme Court dealt a blow to working women last year when it decided
Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that case, former Goodyear employee Lilly
Ledbetter, an employee of 28 years, sued the company after she left the
company after discovering she had been paid significantly less than
male employees doing the same job during her nearly two decades of
employment. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Equal Pay Act of 1963
was in effect at that time. Though Ms. Ledbetter was clearly treated as
a second-class employee, although she got wonderful ratings and
compliments on her job, the Supreme Court let Goodyear off the hook on
what I think is a misrepresentation of the law.
The Supreme Court ruled that in order to enforce her right to be paid
fairly, Ms. Ledbetter would have had to file a wage discrimination
complaint within 180 days of when the discrimination began. Now,
imagine that. You're new on the job. You're happy to be there. You're
learning your job. And you have no idea what other people are paid or
whether you're being discriminated against. That shows you the grave
mistake made by the Supreme Court. But since pay practices typically
take place in secret, it would be impossible for a woman to discover
discrimination within a 180-day window that she has to file a claim.
Justice Ginsberg, the only woman serving on the Court, wisely noted
that the Ledbetter decision essentially gutted legislative protections
against discriminatory pay practices. Again, that would have been the
law of 1963. In its Ledbetter ruling, the Supreme Court has all but
endorsed gender discrimination in employment by robbing women of a
legal remedy to enforce equality. One certainly understands that we
need more women on the United States Supreme Court.
To overcome these efforts to nullify the Equal Pay Act, we must
redouble our efforts to insist that Lilly Ledbetter and the countless
hardworking women like her in America are compensated fairly.
Earlier this month I was proud to join Speaker Pelosi, Senator
Clinton, Rosa DeLauro, Lilly Ledbetter, and many of my colleagues at an
event in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

{time} 1045

This legislation we are debating today prohibits employers from
retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with
coworkers. Can you imagine that in most companies that is against the
rules? It puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing
with other forms of wage discrimination by allowing women to sue for
compensatory and punitive damages, and it will help prevent future pay
disparities by requiring the Department of Labor to expand outreach to
employers and to continue to collect and share wage information based
on gender.
Finally, it creates a grant program to strengthen the negotiation
skills of girls and women to help our daughters fight for the
compensation to which they are entitled.
Today, we have an historic opportunity to stand up for the women of
America and say, You deserve equal pay for equal work. Today, we have
an opportunity and an obligation to stand up for our mothers and
daughters and sisters and nieces who are making less than their male
counterparts for the exact same work.
Today, even though it is late in the day, we have an opportunity to
secure the promise of America so that tomorrow our daughters and sons
and granddaughters and grandsons will all have equal opportunity to
achieve the American dream. Until we do, we will never reach the gender
equality that women and men present at the 1848 Women's Rights
Convention aspired to achieve.
Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the working women in our
lives and to the generations of hardworking women who came before us to
support this legislation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will
soon become law, and I implore my colleagues to vote for it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend, the
distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. I wish her the
best today, and all those who participate in this debate.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, no worker should ever be subjected to discrimination
because of gender or any other reason. Anyone who commits such
discrimination must be stopped and punished for reprehensible behavior.
Discrimination has no place in the workplace.

[[Page 17425]]

For that reason, Congress has passed two major laws that prohibit an
employer from paying an employee a different wages or otherwise
discriminating in any term or condition of employment on the basis of
gender. These prohibitions against discrimination are provided in both
title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
The underlying legislation, H.R. 1338, seeks to further prevent
gender discrimination in the workplace. The legislation has raised some
concerns on how it seeks to achieve the goal. For example, in a letter
from the Secretary of Labor, Ms. Chao, to Chairman Miller, the
Secretary expressed concerns that the legislation would allow for
unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, and she also expressed
opposition to changes in the establishment requirement. Under current
law, employees whose pay is being compared, must work in the same
establishment. In the underlying legislation, that would change to mean
workplaces in the same county, and it also allows that change to be
defined even more broadly. But, without doubt,
Mr. Speaker, later this week, the House of Representatives is
scheduled to take a 5-week recess so Members can return to their
districts but, unfortunately, without having considered comprehensive
energy legislation. A few days ago, I held a town hall meeting with
constituents. One of them asked very clearly and emphatically that we
stay in session until we consider comprehensive energy legislation that
would reduce the price of gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign
energy sources. That was no isolated statement. Each and every time I
speak to my constituents these days, I hear their frustrations and
concerns with one specific issue, one specific problem facing the
Nation, the unacceptably high price of gasoline.
I understand my constituents' frustration with the majority's
unwillingness to act. They are upset and they want us to take action. I
agree with my constituents that we should not leave until we have
provided them, the Nation, comprehensive energy legislation.
I explained in that meeting that the minority each and every week has
attempted and continues to attempt to bring a number of energy
proposals before the House of Representatives for debate. However, the
majority consistently blocks all attempts at a comprehensive energy
debate.
The majority's constant attempts to block energy debates was even
mentioned in a publication that covers Capitol Hill, The Hill. That
newspaper, in an article a few days ago, stated, ``Democrats have
consistently put energy bills on the suspension calendar to block
Republicans from offering any alternatives at all. They have also shut
down the appropriations process for the year to avoid possibly losing
votes on energy bills.'' That sort of obstruction is unacceptable,
especially when the American people are calling for Congress to act.
The majority's obstruction, Mr. Speaker, is not limited to energy
legislation. It extends to virtually every bill, including the
underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the majority on the Rules Committee passed a restrictive
rule that blocked an open and fair debate. A total of 15 amendments
were submitted to the Rules Committee, four majority amendments and 11
minority amendments. Continuing its obstruction of an open debate, the
majority on the Rules Committee made every majority amendment in order,
while allowing only two minority amendments. The majority got 100
percent of their amendments made in order, while the minority got 18
percent of their amendments made in order.
This isn't the first time that has happened. Just last week, the
majority on the Rules Committee did the same thing with regard to a
bill, allowing every majority amendment while blocking an overwhelming
number of minority amendments.
So what happened to the majority's promise of an open and fair
debate? I think it was well described by a recent article in another
publication that covers Capitol Hill, called Politico, in an article on
the Speaker. It read, ``After promising fairness and open debate, she
has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar
any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.''
I think it's unnecessary and unfair, Mr. Speaker. I think it's
unfortunate and sad.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the Rules Committee and also from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR. I thank the chairwoman for yielding time and thank her
for her career of championing nondiscrimination and equal rights for
women in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of the
Paycheck Fairness Act and this rule and take another important step
towards equality for all Americans. During the 230 plus-year history of
our great Nation, the march towards equality under the law for all of
our citizens has sometimes been slow, but it has been steady.
Over time, the Congress has outlawed discrimination in the workplace
based upon a person's race, gender, age, national origin, religion, and
disability, because when it comes to employment and hiring and firing
and promotion and compensation, decisions are rightly based upon a
person's qualifications and job performance.
These are the values we share as Americans; that if someone works
hard and plays by the rules, and if they share the same job, duties and
responsibilities, no matter that they are a man or a woman, they will
receive equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, that does not always
happen, and sometimes women are paid less just because they are women
and the boss can get away with it. The wage disparity over time can
cost women over $400,000 to $2 million in lost wages.
This Paycheck Fairness Act addresses that disparity by providing more
effective remedies for gender-based wage discrimination and ensuring
that if a case goes all the way to a jury, that the arbitrary and
outdated caps on damages will be addressed.
Thank you to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. She introduced this
legislation 11 years ago, but she never gave up. Congresswoman DeLauro,
we are not going to give up just because the President has threatened
to veto the measure. I'd also like to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
Chairman George Miller, and Chairwoman Louise Slaughter for their
leadership and commitment to equality under the law for all Americans.
Passing this historic Paycheck Fairness Act will bring our Nation
closer to our promise of equality for all Americans. It is a hopeful
day for working women and families, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on their
behalf.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a
member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee
for her leadership on this issue and for the time. I also want to thank
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Rosa DeLauro for their
commitment and dedication to bringing this forward over hurdle past
hurdle past challenge past challenge. Thank you so much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1388 and the
underlying legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Mr. Speaker,
fairness is something we strive for in all aspects of our lives. From
an early age, we try to instill in our children the importance of
fairness, fair play, and equality. But, sadly, while we preach
fairness, on average, women today earn a deplorable 77 percent of what
men earn and, unfortunately, the wage gap in my home State of Ohio is
even more substantial than the national average.
According to the National Women's Law Center, Ohio ranked 30th in the
ratio of women's earnings to men's earnings. The Center gave Ohio,
along with 46 other States, a failing grade. That is simply
unacceptable.
I have read and heard the stories of wage discrimination. We have all
heard the story of Lilly Ledbetter, the worker who was a victim of
systematic pay

[[Page 17426]]

discrimination for 19 years. These are the stories of women who have
dedicated decades upon decades of their lives to their employers, only
to find out that they are compensated at a fraction of the rate of
their male counterparts.
With every paycheck these women deposit, they and their families are
being held back, their earning potential limited by a factor over which
they have no control, their gender, and a factor that has no affect on
their job performance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a letter my office received
on this issue from a college student at the University of Akron. She
wrote, ``Ever since I started working, I have become more knowledgeable
of the fact that in most cases men receive a higher pay than women do
for the same amount of work.''
We need to send a message to the young women in our country that the
status quo is not acceptable. We need to respond to the concerns of our
future leaders and show them that we are willing to stand up for their
right to earn equal pay for equal work.
This young woman went on to say, ``Equal pay for equal work is a
simple matter of justice for women.'' I couldn't say it better myself.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act.
This bill will close numerous loopholes in the 45-year old law that has
allowed employers to avoid liability for discriminatory practices.

{time} 1100

The American people expect their government to stand up for fairness
and justice. The Paycheck Fairness Act is not only about changing the
way we treat our working women. It is about paying rent, putting food
on the table, and paying for college tuition. We must return to the
founding principles of our Nation and what has moved us forward in
difficult times. Fairness has been at the heart of all that makes
America strong, and this Congress cannot turn away from that.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and this incredibly
important bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
author of this legislation, an outstanding Member, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I
commend Speaker Pelosi, the majority leader, Chairman Miller, and as
well Chairman Slaughter and the entire Rules Committee, for bringing
this important legislation to the floor.
With this resolution, we take up an effort that began more than 150
years ago when visionary women came together to stand up for women's
rights, to better the status of women in our society. In this
tradition, more than 11 years ago I first introduced the legislation
that we consider this morning, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I cannot
help but think of all the Aprils we have commemorated Equal Pay Day
without legislative movement. But, today, the legislative inertia we
have experienced for years comes to an end. I could not be more proud.
We have made some important strides during the last quarter century.
Women now make up a majority of the workforce, own 6 million small
businesses and are more likely to hold an advanced degree than men. But
for all of our successes, women continue to be stymied when it comes to
equal pay.
The wage gap is real. Over the course of her lifetime, a female high
school graduate will make $700,000 less than the young man she
graduates with. Compared to a man, a female college graduate stands to
lose up to $2 million in the course of her career. This is true across
the board. As the National Committee on Pay Equity tells us, the wage
gap today finds that women earn about 77 cents for every dollar men
earn.
By now, we are all familiar with the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the
woman whose pay discrimination case against Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company went all the way to the Supreme Court. In her testimony before
the Education and Labor Committee, she said, ``Goodyear acknowledged
that it was paying me a lot less than the men doing the same work, so I
was actually earning 20 percent less than the lowest paid male
supervisor in the same position. What happened to me is not only an
insult to my dignity, but it had real consequences for my ability to
care for my family. Every paycheck I received, I got less than what I
was entitled under the law.''
Clearly, the marketplace alone and even our court system will not
correct this injustice. We need a legislative solution. The Paycheck
Fairness Act would make modest, commonsense reforms to the Equal Pay
Act by closing numerous loopholes in the 45-year-old law that has
enabled some employers to evade liability.
It would clarify the ``any factor other than sex'' defense so that an
employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same
job must show that the disparity is not sex-based; that it is job
related and necessary for the businesses. It would prohibit employers
from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary
information with their coworkers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. Of course, employees such as human resources personnel
who have access to payroll information would not be protected if they
disclosed workers' salaries of other workers. And it would strengthen
the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages.
Pay equity is not just another benefit to be bargained for or
bargained away. It is part of something bigger, part of a promise in
which we all have a role, giving women the power to gain economic
security for themselves and for their families. I urge a yes vote on
this resolution.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to
reserve.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for her
leadership in the Rules Committee bringing this important bill to the
floor, I thank my colleague Rosa DeLauro for her stunning work in
bringing this legislation into print, and I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Last week, I was fortunate enough to participate in a rally with
several of my female colleagues in the House and Senate and our hero,
Lilly Ledbetter. Lilly's personal experience is a testament to the
Equal Pay Act, which guarantees equal pay for equal work, needs some
work of its own. H.R. 1338 closes some existing loopholes so that
employees can fight for their deserved wages without fear of
retaliation.
As we discussed these issues at the event last week, I was inspired
and comforted to see such a crowd of young women, many of whom are
recent college graduates just starting out in their careers. They can
be sure that with the passage this legislation, they may not face the
same barriers that women from their mothers' and grandmothers'
generations faced.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.
Help us secure a better economic future for our daughters, our
granddaughters and their friends.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, in 1963 President Kennedy signed
the Equal Pay Act in order to address the wage gap, and yet 45 years
later, more than my entire life, women still make on average only 77
cents for every dollar earned by men for the same work.
Last summer I had the opportunity to meet Lilly Ledbetter during a
House Judiciary Committee hearing. When she worked for Goodyear, she
had no proof of pay discrimination until someone anonymously slipped
payroll

[[Page 17427]]

records into her mailbox. When Lilly took her case to court, the
Supreme Court failed her, telling her she should have known all along
she was being discriminated against, even though Goodyear's payroll
records were secret. This bill lifts the cloak of secrecy that allows
these kinds of unfair pay practices to fester.
I urge my colleagues today to support eliminating discriminatory pay
practices. Let's create an America where our next generation of
daughters get paid for their worth equally, regardless of their gender.
My congratulations to Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Miller for
their leadership on this issue. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bold
step forward in righting the wrong of pay discrimination.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
chairwoman of the Rules Committee. Her presence on the Rules Committee
is evidence of the struggle, but yet the progress, and the reason why
we stand here today. I thank the long-standing, committed Member of
Congress, Rosa DeLauro, and I certainly thank the leadership for
recognizing as we approach a very important time of year, August 26th,
2008, that will reflect on the movement of women arguing not for
special preferences, but simply equality, that this Paycheck equality
legislation must pass today!
So the Paycheck Fairness Act is crucial to that equality, because it
clarifies the ``any factor other than sex'' defense that kept Ms.
Ledbetter from knowing and being able to petition for more money, is
clarified to show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job-related,
and necessary for the business. Do people realize that Ms. Ledbetter
worked and toiled for years without understanding that she was not
being paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work? How tragic in
America.
May I ask the Members to support this legislation, because it is
real, it is needed now!
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for
this important legislation as well as the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee on Education & Labor for working together to
see that gender equity is not just something we talk about, but
something we are actually willing to put into action.
This legislation is intended to combat the wage gap that still exists
today between men and women in the workplace. It is an important step
in addressing the persistent wage gap between women and men by updating
the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago.
The reality is the Equal Pay Act needs to be strengthened and
improved for all women to combat wage discrimination and eliminate
loopholes in the current law. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates
meaningful penalties against employers whose pay practices are proven
to have been discriminatory. The bill will also protect workers from
retaliation by their employers when employees discuss their pay with
coworkers.
Earlier this year the House passed H.R. 2831, legislation reversing
last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co., in which the court ruled, 5-4, that workers filing suit for
pay discrimination must do so within 180 days of the actual decision to
discriminate against them.
The Paycheck Protection Act is also needed to stop discriminatory pay
practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, and
granddaughters that do the same job as their male counterparts.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, which currently has 230 cosponsors, will
strengthen the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago--and as a
result improve the law's effectiveness, and help to address the
persistent wage gap between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act
would:
Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay by requiring
employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women doing the
same work are truly a result of factors other than sex.
Deter wage discrimination by strengthening penalties for equal pay
violations, and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire
about employers' wage practices or disclose their own wages. The bill's
measured approach would ensure that women can obtain the same remedies
as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national
origin. AAUW would strongly oppose any efforts to add such caps.
Provide women with a fair option to proceed in a class action suit
under the Equal Pay Act, and allow women to receive punitive and
compensatory damages for pay discrimination.
Clarify the establishment provision under the Equal Pay Act, which
would allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to determine
fair wages.
Authorize additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes.
It will aid in the efficient and effective enforcement of federal
anti-pay discrimination laws by requiring the EEOC to develop
regulations directing employers to collect wage data, reported by the
race, sex, and national origin of employees.
It will require the U.S. Department of Labor to reinstate activities
that promote equal pay, such as: Directing educational programs,
providing technical assistance to employers, recognizing businesses
that address the wage gap, collecting wage-related data, and conducting
and promoting research about pay disparities between men and women.
More importantly for our young ladies going into the workforce, it
will establish a competitive grant program to develop salary
negotiation training for women and girls.
As a Member of the Women's Caucus and former President of the Black
Women Lawyers Association of Houston, I have been fighting for pay
equity for American women since before I arrived here as a
Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal pay for equal work is
a simple matter of justice. Wage disparities are not simply a result of
women's education levels or life choices.
In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women appears
first after college--even when women are working full-time in the same
fields with the same major as men--and continues to widen during the
first ten years in the workforce.
Further, this persistent wage gap not only impacts the economic
security of women and their families today, it also directly affects
women's retirement security tomorrow. Now is the time for additional
proactive measures to effectively address wage discrimination and
eliminate loopholes that have hindered the Equal Pay Act's
effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues, both men and women, to support equality in
rights and pay for all Americans by supporting the Paycheck Fairness
Act, and vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I salute you for the work you
have been doing on this issue and the issue of equality for women and
the issue of equality for all people, and I salute Chairman Miller for
his work in Congress, for being on the verge of passing this
legislation.
You know, it is truly shocking that we have a situation where there
is a difference in pay depending on whether you are a man or a woman.
You have heard the statistics. But what is even more shocking is we had
a Supreme Court that probably when history is written, its most
shameful decision will be denying relief to a woman on the basis of a
claim that she did not know existed. The Supreme Court said that when
this person had been discriminated against for years and didn't know
about it, it was the burden on her to know about something that was
actively being hidden from her by her employer. It is a shocking
decision by our United States Supreme Court, and this Congress has an
opportunity to overturn that.
H.R. 1338 is going to address that loophole. The wage gap that
strikes women immediately upon entering the workforce is bad, and it
gets worse. Ten years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what
men do. The wage gap adds up quickly over the course of a career,
$400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime. This discrimination can cost
women security and retirement. Older women are less likely than older
men to receive pension income, and when they do, they only receive
about one-half the benefits that men

[[Page 17428]]

do. It can cost a woman half their pension that would be comparable for
a man.
Because of the wage gap, more women than men experience poverty or
teeter on the edge of poverty. Seventy percent of older Americans
living in poverty are women, and that is directly as a result of wage
discrimination.
The hope of the American Dream is that people who work hard will get
ahead regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, regardless
of their national origin, and it is the challenge of this Congress
being met by the promise of this legislation to make that American
dream of equality of opportunity available to all people and to
absolutely prohibit discrimination in wages solely on the basis of the
gender of the person doing the work.
H.R. 1338 has 230 cosponsors. It is also supported by major women's
and workers' rights advocates, including the National Committee on Pay
Equity and the National Women's Law Center. I ask for a ``yes'' vote
and unanimous passage by the House of Representatives.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
distinguished Chair how many speakers she has remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inform my colleague that I have no
further speakers and would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I would like
to thank all of our distinguished colleagues who have come to the floor
today to discuss this issue, the important issue of gender
discrimination in the workplace and the fact that as a society we have
to continue fighting discrimination.
The issue that I am constantly, constantly being contacted by my
constituents about is an issue that affects our entire society, and
that is the unacceptable price of gasoline, the continuous rise of
energy prices. There is no subject, Mr. Speaker, again, that my
constituents contact me and urge me to act on more than that issue,
that subject, that crisis really. It affects men and women. It affects
our entire society. The price of gasoline has become simply
unacceptable.
For weeks, we in the minority have pushed efforts to debate
comprehensive energy legislation, but the majority consistently blocks
our efforts to address one of the clearly most important issues facing
the United States today.

{time} 1115

It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering the
skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So today, I urge my colleagues to vote
with me to defeat the previous question so the House can finally
consider real solutions to the rising energy costs facing Americans
throughout our society each day.
If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule
to allow for consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, which
provides a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of
American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote
renewable and alternative energy technologies.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting no on the previous
question, Members can take a stand against these unacceptable prices of
gasoline, and we can finally begin a comprehensive energy debate. And I
remind all of our colleagues that voting no on the previous question
will not preclude consideration of the legislation, the underlying
legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act. And I remind them that the
unacceptable price of gasoline affects all of our constituents, men and
women. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to explain to the
listening persons and those in our galley why we are here today.
The other side has consistently talked as though this is an energy
bill, but let me remind all of us that this is an opportunity for the
United States to bring into compliance with pay scales, in compliance
with the law of 1963 for women who, as my colleague Ms. DeLauro pointed
out, comprise 40 percent of the workforce.
This legislation cures a wrong that has cost many women between
$400,000 and $2 million, not only in the lost wages they should have
been paid had there been equality, but also indirectly their pensions
and their Social Security in many cases. This hurts families, Mr.
Speaker. This hurts single parents who are trying, oftentimes doing two
jobs, to try to keep food on the table.
All the statistics show, which absolutely astonished me, that more
women who are single heads of household than men are under the poverty
line. One reason for that is they did not get equal pay. We have to
right this wrong. We have to do it today. I can't express enough my
gratitude for Congresswoman DeLauro and the Women's Caucus for all the
work that they have done. But it has been since 1963, 45 years ago,
when the law was passed demanding equal pay. And here we are in 2008,
Mr. Speaker, and we still don't have it.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes
on the rule, and, by all means, yes on the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1388 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down
energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,
encouraging the development of alternative and renewable
energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order
against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority
leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if
offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall
be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an Opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

[[Page 17429]]

described the rule using information from Congressional
Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the
previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to
the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor
Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a
germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 5843

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5843.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4137, HIGHER
EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1389 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1389

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act
of 1965, and for other purposes. All points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration are
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend, Mr.
Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution
1389.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1389 provides for
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4137, the Higher
Education Opportunity Act. The rule, which is a traditional conference
report rule, waives all points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration, and provides that the conference report
shall be considered as read.
It should be noted that despite the blanket waiver, the conference
report does not violate either clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The
conference report fully complies with the earmark and PAYGO rules of
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Chairman Miller on his dedication
to bringing this bill before us. I also want to thank Ranking Member
McKeon and the rest of the Education and Labor Committee for their work
on this bill. I also want to acknowledge Senator Kennedy for his hard
work and constant commitment to this important issue.
It has been 10 years since the Higher Education Act was authorized,
and with this conference agreement Congress will continue the vision of
Lyndon Johnson's great society where college is accessible and
affordable to every American.
As our Nation continues to experience economic uncertainty, it is
imperative that we make a college education more affordable. The
unfortunate reality is that skyrocketing costs are putting a college
education out of the reach for many middle-class families.
According to a recent College Board report, over the last 5 years
tuition and fees at 4-year public institutions have increased 31
percent after inflation. At private universities, tuition has increased
17 percent.
In addition to rising tuition, students and their families face a
cumbersome Federal student aid application process that is overly
complex and difficult to manage. Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education
Opportunity Act will resolve many of these issues, thereby continuing
this Congress' efforts to make college more affordable and accessible.
Nearly one year ago, the President signed into law landmark changes
to lender subsidies and student aid, followed shortly after by a law to
ensure access to loans and increase loan limits. And now, we are
reauthorizing legislation that will, for the first time in 10 years,
reform our higher education system so that it operates in the best
interest of students and families.
Specifically, the bill will require colleges to report reasons for
any tuition hikes, and plans for lowering student costs. H.R. 4137 will
reform and simplify the student loan system by requiring institutions
and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct, many of which were
included in the Sunshine Act which passed the House last year.
In an effort to be consumer friendly and provide full disclosure of
all options available for each student, the bill requires the Secretary
to develop a Web-based calculator to allow families to compare the
costs of different colleges. And it also requires lenders to provide
students with complete disclosure of the borrowing options, giving them
30 days after the approval of loans to find better deals.
Equally important, the bill provides for an increase in Pell Grant
funding from $5,800 to $8,000. This will give more of our youth the
opportunity to attend a university. The bill will also expand college
access and support for low-income and minority students by allowing
students to receive Pell Grant scholarship aid year around.
H.R. 4137 will also expand college opportunities for disabled
citizens by expanding eligibility for Pell Grant scholarships and
establishing a national center to provide support services.
During times of war, it is extremely important to ensure that our
military families and returning veterans have the support services they
deserve. This bill will increase college aid and support for veterans
and military families, create a new scholarship program for active duty
military personnel and their family members, and ensure fairness in
student and housing aid for veterans.
The bill also encourages students who graduate from college to enter
into public service in high-need areas by granting loan forgiveness. It
also provides up to $2,000 a year for 5 years for nurses, teachers,
mental health professionals, and other low-paying but crucial
professionals. I know this loan assistance and forgiveness will help my
home of State of California that is suffering from a lack of nurses,
teachers, and other vital support professionals who protect and assist
our children and most reliant Americans.
Simply put, this conference report will not only advance the
opportunity for every American to go to college,

[[Page 17430]]

but will also put us on track toward creating a better America.
As Lyndon Johnson said, ``We must open the doors of opportunity, but
we must also equip our people to walk through those doors.'' Our
Constitution creates those doors of opportunity, and today this bill
will equip our constituents to walk through those doors.
I want to thank once again Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon
for coming together on this important legislation. I stand strongly in
support of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. This is long overdue,
and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my good friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for
the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Increasing the affordability, accessibility, and reliability of our
Nation's institutions of higher education is critical to our economic
growth and the role of the United States in the global economy. Now
more than ever we need to reassure our Nation's youth that we are
willing to invest in their future. I believe that we must do all we can
to make education more affordable so that more Americans can achieve
the dream of graduating from college.
This year alone, over $90 billion in Federal financial aid is
available to students. However, with tuition costs on the rise,
students and their families continue to face really the question of how
to pay for a college education.
This legislation, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, is a
bipartisan effort that reauthorizes the Higher Education Act for 5
years and reforms America's higher education system, expanding college
access.
Seeking to address the college cost dilemma, the conference report
puts in place college affordability comparison tools that put college
costs information in the hands of consumers. Students will be able to
search, sort, and compare key cost indicators for every college in the
country. I believe we must do everything possible to enhance our
students' ability to obtain student loans and obtain the aid necessary
to complete their college education.
This bill helps to do that by simplifying the financial aid
application process, abbreviating the free Application for Federal
Student Aid form, and making financial aid information available to
students earlier in the college planning process.
I am especially pleased that the conference report will strengthen
our Nation's Pell Grants programs by increasing the maximum authorized
Pell Grant amount to $8,000, and by giving students access to Pell
Grants year round, a measure that will undoubtedly help many students.
I think we as a nation have the responsibility to support those in
every way possible who have served this country in the Armed Forces.
That is why I am pleased that this legislation includes measures to
specifically meet the unique needs of student soldiers.

{time} 1130

I am also pleased that the conference report expands opportunities
for minority students by providing increased funding for graduate
student programs, by reauthorizing programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO.
These programs serve our Nation's most under-represented groups and
provide the necessary guidance, support and awareness to provide
minority students the tools needed to succeed.
This conference report is a testament to the fact that Congress can
work in a bipartisan manner to produce quality legislation. Since the
Education Committee began working on the Higher Education
Reauthorization legislation, both sides of the aisle have worked
together to bridge their concerns and worked together to give students
a quality education.
I think it is appropriate to thank both the chairman, Mr. Miller, and
the ranking member, Mr. McKeon for their work on this important
legislation.
I know that the ranking member of the Higher Education Subcommittee,
Mr. Keller, has done admirable work on this legislation, and I thank
him as well, in addition to the subcommittee chairman.
I also wish to note the conference report has come to the floor for
final approval through the normal legislative and conference process,
allowing Members from both the minority and the majority to debate and
consider the issues of contention in the legislation.
Unfortunately, the majority, Mr. Speaker, in the 110th Congress, has
often used a procedure known as amendments between the two Houses to
avoid conference and subvert the rights of the minority. So I am
pleased that, in this instance, they have decided to use the regular
order, the normal conference procedure, and I would urge them to use
the conference procedure as well in the future. So while it is unique,
what they have done with this legislation, it is commendable.
I reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, my friend, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, it is not so much the next election that
will determine our Nation's future. It is the next generation. And this
bill focuses on the needs of growing leadership in our country through
providing a higher education to our citizens.
I want to commend Chairman Miller and the chairman on the Senate
side, Senator Kennedy, and on the Republican side, my good friend, Buck
McKeon and Mark Souder, and the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee
on Higher Education, Mr. Keller. They have done a magnificent job
putting together a bill that addresses a whole range of issues that are
supported in the higher education and broader business community in our
country. It represents the real needs of moving our kids on to college.
I think cutting the FAFSA form from seven pages down to two,
increasing the Pell Grant from $4,800 this year to $6,000 in 2009, up
to $8,000 in 2014, in terms of authorization, are very important parts
of this reauthorization.
But in 1998, when the reauthorization of Higher Ed was signed into
law by President Clinton, we established the GEAR UP program. Now, I am
credited with being the architect of that program, but the truth is all
of us worked together. It was a bipartisan effort, and the House and
Senate, Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy, all of us working
together.
Now some 2 million young people have been served over the last 10
years. 85 percent of them have graduated from high school, from the
toughest schools in our country, and in the most difficult
circumstances.
Featured on the front page of Philadelphia's newspaper is a young
man, Nicholas Shanks, who, unfortunately, spent years in a homeless
shelter, but has graduated at the head of his class, 3.9 average. He is
a GEAR UP student, and there are millions of them across country who
have done so well.
This is the most successful college awareness program in the
country's history. It is reauthorized in this legislation. It is
expanded. The appropriation or the authorizing level is doubled.
And I just want to thank the members of the conference committee for
its support of GEAR UP. It has proven its worth in some 48 States and
in all of our territories, in Guam and Puerto Rico, in terms of
developing young people who are economically disadvantaged but
academically have every ability to succeed. And we see that in the
college-going rates, which exceed the national average for all students
and exceed the high school graduation rates for all students.
So it is a great program, even if I am the author of it, and I want
to thank the conferees for including it, expanding it, and having it
reach more and more young people in important ways through
reauthorization.

[From the philly.com, July 26, 2008]

Formerly Homeless Teen Role Model

(By Ashwin Verghese)

Standing in a room full of homeless teenagers yesterday,
Nicholas Shanks was hopeful that he could be a role model.
``I really do hope I can help them some way, by setting an
example,'' said Shanks, a friendly, soft-spoken 18-year-old
who overcame homelessness in his high school years to become
his class valedictorian.

[[Page 17431]]

Shanks, who graduated from Martin Luther King High School
this year with a 3.91 GPA, was at work yesterday as a
counselor at the Traveler's Aid Society's summer program, a
camp for teens who have experienced homelessness. ``It sounds
like some of them really do appreciate what I've done,''
Shanks said of the 45 children in the program at the
Kirkbride Center at 49th and Arch Streets in West
Philadelphia.
What he has done has brought him national and local media
attention in recent days. Just yesterday he was featured in a
segment on Good Morning America.
Two days ago, Shanks got the best news of all: Foundation
Inc., the nonprofit that manages King High, offered to
bankroll his college tuition.
``It was a relief,'' he said of the money. ``I really never
expected to see that happen so fast.''
For his mother, Sherri Newton, the news was the answer to
her prayers.
``I've been praying for this for the longest time,'' she
said recalling how she dropped to her knees in thanks when
Nicholas told her. ``God is so good,'' she added. ``Thank
everybody that's going to be helping Nicholas.''
Shanks plans to matriculate this fall at the Art Institute
of Philadelphia, where he wants to major in animation and
media arts. He hopes to become a video game designer.
Art was an escape for Shanks years ago when he was living
in a crowded homeless shelter. He was 14 when his family
could no longer afford the rent on its Northeast Philadelphia
apartment. The family was forced to take refuge at the Mount
Airy Stenton Family Manor in Germantown, said Newton.
For two years, Shanks, Newton and Newton's mother shared a
cramped gymnasium with about 30 other families, Newton said.
Drawing--``creating worlds,'' as Shanks put it--allowed him
to escape the tiny confines.
``When I was in the shelter, it was boring a lot of
times,'' Shanks said. ``I had a CD player, paper and a
pencil, and that got me through most of the months.''
Shanks and Newton now live in transitional housing in
Kensington. But the family still faces problems. The lease is
up in October, and the family does not have a new place lined
up yet.
Newton, who battled drug addiction and unemployment for
years, said she has been clean for 17 months. She was
recently laid off as a teaching assistant and is looking for
employment.
``It's scary,'' Newton said. ``I just want to know where
we're going to move.''
Her son is relying on the optimism that saw him through
tough times before.
Shanks said he does not often think about his days in the
shelter unless he is around people with a similar history.
``I would not necessarily say I'm reliving my past,'' he
said, ``but if I ran into a situation where I hear something
about a similar past, I might be like, `Yeah, I know how
that's like.' ''
Steven Golden, another teen in the summer program, has a
very similar past. He's known Shanks for three years. The two
are the same age, but, because of academic troubles, Golden
is a year behind in school.
Seeing Shanks has motivated Golden to commit to his
studies.
``He's showed me I need to do this to succeed,'' said
Golden, a senior at Fitzsimons High School in North
Philadelphia. ``Seeing where he's at now, from where we both
were, he has inspired me.''
Mel Monk, director of the summer program, said that once
teens become homeless, ``education is the first thing that
takes a nosedive.'' The teens deal with embarrassment, he
said. Sometimes losing their home means they have to travel
across the city to get to school.
Shanks was able to persevere, Monk said, because of his
internal drive and the support of the people around him,
including his mother and teachers.
``They've got to have a person in their life telling them
they can do it,'' he added.
Monk hopes Shanks can show the younger children that they
can get into college, too.
``Nicholas is a model example,'' he said. ``He's been
through a lot, but he's maintained.''
Spasoje Jovanovic, 17, a former camper and now the
administrative assistant at the program, which is teaching
the teens about marine biology, said Shanks is an inspiration
to the others.
``He's proof that it's possible,'' said Jovanovic, who is
enrolled at the Community College of Philadelphia for the
fall.
Shanice Johnson, 15, has lived in four different homes with
her family this year alone. She expects to be in yet another
in a few months, she said.
Nonetheless, Johnson has been able to keep a 3.6 GPA. She
said Shanks' story gives her courage to keep working hard at
school through all of the tumult at home.
``He was in transitional housing, I was in transitional
housing,'' said Johnson, who wants to become a surgeon.
``He's someone I look up to.''

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield so much time as he will consume to the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Higher Education, who has done tremendous work in this
legislation, Mr. Keller.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida,
Mr. Diaz-Balart, for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the House Higher Education
Subcommittee, and a member of the conference committee, I rise today in
strong support of this bipartisan Higher Education Opportunity Act,
which is the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 10
years.
I also appreciate the regular order we have followed with respect to
the rule on this bill.
I support this important legislation for three key reasons. First, it
allows year-round Pell Grants for students who wish to complete their
education more quickly.
Second, it reduces burdensome red tape on students and families by
providing a much shorter, simpler application for Federal student
financial aid.
And third, it includes my legislation to curb wasteful spending by
closing a loophole that had allowed convicted child predators to
receive Federal financial aid to take college courses.
I am going to limit my remarks this morning to the wasteful spending
issue. It is a national embarrassment that we are wasting taxpayer
dollars for child molesters and rapists to take college courses, while
hardworking young people from lower and middle income families are
flipping hamburgers to pay for college.
I have been working to close this loophole for years. And today, the
most insane, wasteful spending program in America comes to an end. This
legislation ensures that taxpayer money for Pell Grants will go to low
and middle income students, not dangerous sexual predators.
Let me give you a real life example. James Sturtz is one of the most
violent sexual predators in America, and he is currently locked up in a
Wisconsin facility. He was convicted and sent to prison for raping a 4-
year-old girl. After being released from prison, he raped a woman at
knife-point, and was sent to prison a second time. After being
released, he met a college student waiting for a bus, persuaded her to
get in his car and then raped her at knife-point. He was then sent back
to prison for a third time, and after his sentence ended in 2006, he
was locked up in a civil confinement center to be held there
indefinitely.
Sturtz and several other locked up sexual predators decided to
exploit the civil confinement loophole and obtain thousands of dollars
in Federal Pell Grants to take college courses, like algebra, through
the mail. Then, Sturtz and two-thirds of the other inmates dropped
their classes and used our taxpayer money to buy blue jeans, music CDs,
movie DVDs, radios, television sets and DVD players.
Of course, even if they hadn't dropped their classes, there is zero
evidence that violent sexual predators who take algebra and calculus
classes have lower recidivism rates.
Well, how could this loophole happen in the first place?
Prison inmates have been ineligible for Pell Grants since 1994. In 20
States, including Florida and Wisconsin, they wisely hold the most
violent repeated sexual predators indefinitely in civil confinement
centers after they serve their regular prison sentence because they are
likely to repeat their crimes if released back into society.
For example, in my home State of Florida, 54 violent sexual predators
obtained over $200,000 in Pell Grants at taxpayer expense in 1 year
alone. Similar expenditures in the other 20 States with civil
confinement means millions of dollars being wasted, until now.
This was a team effort. I would like to especially thank ranking
member Buck McKeon, Chairman George Miller, as well as the other
members of the conference committee and our hardworking professional
staff members for working in a bipartisan spirit to include this
provision and so many other worthy provisions in this legislation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize the
Higher Education Act and vote yes on H.R. 4137.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from

[[Page 17432]]

Ohio, a fellow member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her leadership on this issue.
I rise in support of House Resolution 1389 and the underlying bill,
the College Opportunity and Affordability Act.
Our Nation is blessed to have the finest system of higher education
in the world, and I am proud that my district is the home of the
University of Akron and the Lorain County Community College. UA boasts
one of the top science and engineering programs in the Nation, and
Lorain County Community College is a leader in education and
entrepreneurial and economic development across northeast Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education Act was first signed into law in
1965 to help students from low income families afford a college
education. Unfortunately, in the 10 years since the Higher Education
Act was last reauthorized, the dream of a college degree has moved
further out of reach for far too many of our Nation's students.
Overall, the United States is third out of 30 industrialized nations
in postsecondary degree attainment, but only ninth out of 30 when
looking at younger workers. This is an ominous trend that we must act
swiftly to address.
With the cost of tuition and textbooks skyrocketing, we have taken
action to make college for affordable. Last year we passed legislation
that increased college financial aid by $18 billion and cut student
interest loan rates.
With this bill today, we are raising the bar even higher in fighting
for access to higher education by increasing the maximum Pell Grant
level from $5,800 per year to $8,000 by 2014.
This bill also provides for improved teacher training and development
programs. It provides loan forgiveness for students who choose public
sector careers, and creates a new scholarship program for active duty
military personnel and their families.
Mr. Speaker, from coast to coast, and throughout the heartland, this
great Nation is filled with bright and enthusiastic students seeking to
take advantage of any opportunity we can give them for a more
prosperous future. This bill makes critical investments in our students
to strengthen our workforce for the future of our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the College Opportunity and
Affordability Act.
I thank Chairman Miller for his diligent work in making this happen.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman for
yielding to me this morning. I also wanted to, in fact, thank Chairman
Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for working together to bring a bill
to the floor that makes certain that every student in the Nation has
access and receives the highest quality college education.
Currently, college tuition, no surprise to most of us, continues to
rise at a rate that prevents individuals from even attending college.
Over the past 5 years, the cost of obtaining a college education has
increased by 34 percent. The expense is staggering, but the financial
burden of college should not prevent individuals from seeking and
receiving an advanced education.
Furthermore, to remain an economic leader, America must ensure that
we are leaders in the fields of math, science, engineering and health
care. America has always been a leader in technology and innovation,
and must continue to put a renewed focus on this type of education. Our
kids must learn the skills necessary to compete for the high tech, high
paying jobs of the future.
And that is why I am so pleased that this bill, the Henry Ford
Scholarship Program Act, has been incorporated into the higher
education bill. This program establishes scholarships for high
achieving students who pursue undergraduate degrees in mathematics, in
science, in engineering and health-related activities. These are the
areas that will be critical for our future economic success. And I am
pleased to stand here today knowing that the children of America have
an extraordinary opportunity now to lead the world in these highly
skilled fields.
In my home State of Michigan, for example, this is as important as
anywhere as we work to transition to a new, high tech, cutting edge
economy.
And once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle for coming together to benefit the students of this
Nation. And I am personally very proud of this scholarship, one that I
believe in strongly, and that I fought hard for to move it toward
becoming law and helping our students succeed.

{time} 1145

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I'm privileged to yield 2 minutes to my
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. I rise today in strong support for the rule for the
conference report on the Higher Education Opportunity Act, and I thank
Chairwoman Slaughter and Congresswoman Matsui for bringing this rule to
the floor. I want to offer my sincere congratulations to Chairman
Miller and Ranking Member McKeon on this great achievement.
H.R. 4137 is a comprehensive bipartisan bill that will reauthorize
the Higher Education Act while addressing concerns about the cost of
education, restoring integrity and accountability to student loan
programs, and expanding college access and support for low-income and
minority students.
I greatly appreciate that H.R. 4137 includes a version of legislation
which we've worked and I've worked on for about 6 years, the Campus
Fire Safety Right To Know Act. I became involved in this issue of
campus fire safety after experiencing the horrible aftermath of a
catastrophic fire at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey,
in 2000. That fire killed three young freshman and wounded 58 other
students in a dorm on campus.
The campus fire safety reporting requirement in H.R. 4137 mandates
that colleges and universities provide prospective and current students
and parents with a report on the school's campus safety policies and
records.
Educating students about fire safety during their time in school will
have a strong impact on the choices they make in the future. If we can
influence what they learn, we can create a more fire-safe generation
for tomorrow and potentially save thousands of lives.
Mr. Speaker, I want to once again state my strong support for the
rule and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4131. As the first member
of my family to attend college, I applaud the chairman and the ranking
member for their dedication to making the dream of a college education
a reality for so many Americans who otherwise would not have had that
chance.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy
in permitting me to speak in favor of this rule and the underlying
bill.
It's exciting to see this landmark reauthorization come forward, and
particularly given the range of advantages that are going to be given
to young people around the country strengthening communities and
opportunities for higher education.
Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges we face at this point deals
literally with the future of the planet dealing with global warming and
sustainable development in a water-stressed, energy-short, carbon-
constrained world. I have been pleased to look in my community at
colleges and universities that are doing pioneering work with
developments on campus for sustainability, training students, and doing
research.
I am pleased that this legislation incorporates our Higher Education
Sustainability Act of 2007, H.R. 3637, which provides provisions here
that will help fund this research and training, sustainability
practices on campus, to be

[[Page 17433]]

able to make sure that the best practices that are being developed
across the country can be incorporated into the day-to-day operations,
that we can do more research, more training of students, and that we
will be able to incorporate them into how campus life itself operates.
Last but not least, I am pleased that the provision that would direct
the secretary of education to convene a sustainability summit to have a
national showcase of these best practices has been retained. This is an
important element to make sure that our colleges and universities
continue to be the change, the engine of innovation for the most vital
challenge of our time dealing with global warming and sustainable
development.
I strongly urge support of this legislation and that each and every
one of my colleagues look at these sustainability provisions and look
at how they can be applied to their colleges and universities back
home.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to
reserve.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee
for the time. I rise to support this rule and the conference report for
the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
I had the honor to serve on the Education and Workforce Committee for
my first 6 years in Congress, and it is a real pleasure to know that we
will finally be able to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. I commend
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon on this bipartisan bill.
This bill increases need-based aid and provides for more access to
information on the costs of college. It restores sunshine to student
loan programs and simplifies financial aid application processes. And
it makes new investments to encourage science and technology careers.
This bill focuses on the needs of students who are the future of this
country and the key to our global competitiveness. I'm particularly
pleased that this conference report includes a provision I worked on
with Congressman Tierney to hold States accountable for their
investment in higher education.
I also want to thank Chairman Miller and Congressman Bishop for
working to include a definition of ``diploma mills'' and for requiring
the Secretary of Education to provide information on these fraudulent
businesses that defraud students, their families, and employers.
Today we begin a Federal effort to prevent and prosecute diploma
mills. Diploma mills sell worthless degrees. They threaten the
reputation of America's colleges and universities by blatantly using
similar names. Diploma mills cheat taxpayers when local school
districts and even the Federal government hire one individual with a
fraudulent degree. Phony medical degrees from diploma mills can have
and have caused serious harm and even death. These fraudulent degrees
can be used to obtain visas making the fact that they exist a national
security issue.
The failure to shut down diploma mills has been noted in other
countries, harming our reputation around the world. The increasing
number of diploma mills has created, as you can see, serious problems.
This legislation includes the first step in addressing the problem, and
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to
reserve.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying conference
report, and I urge my colleagues to vote both for the rule and for H.R.
4137.
Let me commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon and
Subcommittee Chair Hinojosa and Ranking Member Keller for presiding
over such a collegial and bipartisan process. We entered into this
process with the goal of enhancing access and affordability, and I
truly believe that H.R. 4137 makes significant progress on achieving
both of those very important goals.
Let me talk about some specific elements of the bill that I think are
worthy of mention.
First, the bill very much strengthens the Perkins Loan program, the
loan program that this administration has seemed determined to kill but
has strong bipartisan support here in the Congress. The conference
report increases the maximum awards that students may receive in any
one year, it also increases the aggregate awards, and it also
strengthens the revolving loan fund by ensuring that funds collected be
returned to the revolving loan fund so that they may be reloaned to
future needy students. And all of this helps to reduce the dependence
on private loans for needy students, and that was one of our goals as
well.
The conference report simplifies the financial aid delivery process
by simplifying the completion of the so-called FAFSA form which is a
very daunting form for many families, yet it is the gatekeeper to
eligibility for all students' financial aid. It includes the provisions
of the Student Loan Sunshine Act. This results from investigations
conducted by the attorney general of my home State that revealed
several abuses in the student loan program, and this legislation
restores confidence and trust to the financial aid delivery system.
It also reestablishes a Federal role for supporting cooperative
education which helps students gain valuable career information and
also finance their education. It has many very valuable features in
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support it, and I thank my colleagues for
working so hard on it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of
my friend how many additional speakers she has.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman I have
two additional speakers.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. We continue to reserve.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my
friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from California for
her leadership. I thank the Education Committee and our leadership.
As many States in this great Nation, Texas is a college State; in my
community in particular, the University of Houston, Texas Southern
University, Houston Baptist, Saint Thomas, Houston Community College,
and I'm sure many, many others. This is a relief. This is a hallelujah
day to be able to help our young people reach their greatest promise.
This is an important initiative. It encourages colleges to reign in
price increases and provides consumers with helpful information. Now,
because of desperate times, many, many State legislatures are giving
our colleges the ability to raise tuition. It is going up and up and
up. Now there will have to be an accountability. You will have to
explain what are you doing to mitigate the cost. We want our children
educated. We don't want them broke.
This restores integrity and accountability to the student loan
program. You'll have an option, you'll have information, your parents
will have information. You will be able to work together so that you
can invest in your education and still be able to survive once you
graduate.
It simplifies the Federal Student Aid application access. It expands
college access and support for low-income and minority students. It
allows you to have your loans forgiven if you are police officers,
teachers, scientists, and others that are helping this community. It
strengthens our workforce and our competitiveness. It helps our
veterans and military families. It is a day that recognizes that
America is made great by those who educate and those who, with their
own genius, will provide for the next intelligence, the next leadership
of the 21st century.
All over the world they want to copy and emulate how we educate. They

[[Page 17434]]

want to come to the United States because of the principles of freedom.
This higher education bill will allow us to pursue that freedom in the
right way, and it assures equal college opportunities for students with
disabilities. I applaud that. I celebrate that. I encourage that
opportunity for those students whose minds are agile and who are ready
to go to work, and it encourages colleges, the most important place, to
adopt sustainable and energy-efficient practices. This is a valuable
step in educating our community.
I do want to close by simply saying we have to be on the front lines
of education, primary and secondary education. This is the bill that
does it. I ask my colleagues to support the Higher Education
Opportunity Act.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4137, To amend and extend the
Higher Education Act of 1965, introduced by my distinguished colleague
from California, Representative George Miller. This significant piece
of legislation provides greater access to colleges and universities,
making higher education affordable for all Americans, not just the
wealthy.
A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and
economic mobility in this country. As a member and senior whip of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the
maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This
legislation will increase funding to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, as well as Hispanic and other minority-serving
institutions, and it will expand college access and support for low-
income and minority students.
This legislation contains provisions allowing students to receive
Pell Grant scholarships year-round, and it increases the Pell Grant
maximum to $8,000. In addition, it strengthens college readiness
programs, namely the TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support
programs for low-income and first-generation students. These increases
will expand college access for low-income and minority students. The
amendment offered by my colleagues Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
and Representative Don Young expands upon current Pell Grant
eligibility, allowing children who lost a mother or father to our wars
in Iraq or Afghanistan to be eligible for the maximum amount of Pell
Grant assistance. In this age of global war on terror, it is imperative
that we ensure that those left behind by those who made the ultimate
sacrifice for our great Nation are given the greatest opportunity our
country can provide. As such, I encourage all my colleagues to join me
in supporting this important amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains important provisions opening
up even wider opportunities for our veterans by increasing college aid
and housing aid for not only veterans, but their families. This
legislation creates a new scholarship program for active duty military
personnel and family members, including children and spouses of active
duty military service members or veterans. It establishes support
centers to help veterans succeed in college and graduate. Finally, it
ensures fairness in student aid and housing aid for veterans, making it
easier for them to attend college while also fulfilling their military
service duties.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my strong support for an
amendment introduced by my distinguished colleague Congressman Danny
Davis restoring safeguards to student loan borrowers. Mr. Speaker,
students who take out loans borrow money as part of their pursuit to
better themselves and contribute to the advancement of our Nation and
economy. However, current bankruptcy laws apply the same severe
standards to student borrowers that it applies to those trying to
escape child support payments, alimony, overdue taxes, and criminal
fines. Under Mr. Davis's amendment, Government student loans and loans
made by nonprofit entities would remain non-dischargeable; other
student loans, made by for-profit banks and other lenders, would
continue to be non-dischargeable for the first 5 years after they come
due, and after that time they would be treated like other unsecured
consumer loans in bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my
colleagues to support this amendment, and to work to restore bankruptcy
protection to private student loans.
Understanding the federal application for Federal Student Aid can be
challenging and complex even for the most knowledgeable parent. The
College Opportunity and Affordability Act would streamline and simplify
the application process, giving families the tools they need to
properly plan for their college expenses. This legislation will reform
our higher education system, ensuring students and their families have
the information they need to understand their borrowing options when
applying for Federal and private loans.
Mr. Speaker, as an active member of the Committee on Homeland
Security, I am extremely supportive of the provisions in this
legislation that boost campus safety and disaster readiness plans. Last
year's tragedy at Virginia Tech has illustrated the horror to which
students might be exposed, and natural disasters in recent years have
underlined the necessity of having campus disaster plans.
This legislation helps all colleges develop and implement state-of-
the-art emergency systems and campus safety plans, and it requires the
Department of Education to develop and maintain a disaster plan in
preparation for emergencies. In addition, this legislation creates a
National Center for Campus Safety at the Department of Justice to work
in collaboration with the COPS program. Finally, it establishes a
disaster relief loan program, to help schools recover and rebuild in
the event of a disaster.
This important piece of legislation gives our youth, our veterans,
and our families the opportunity to not only dream of attending college
but actually realize that dream. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 4137 and the conference report.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to
reserve.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the
conference report. This bill contains many excellent provisions that
will help Oregon and, indeed, all American families better afford
college.
For example, the legislation increases the Pell Grant from the
current $5,800 per year ultimately to $9,000 per year, and it makes it
available for year-round education. It streamlines the Federal student
aid application process, restores integrity and accountability to the
student loan industry, and encourages colleges to better manage tuition
and price increases.
There are two provisions that I am particularly proud of and
supportive of in the bill. One is a provision intended to make textbook
prices more transparent and manageable. This is something that I have
been working on for over 5 years. It provides students with advance
information on textbook pricing so they can better plan for expenses
before each term begins. It assists faculty by ensuring that they have
complete information on textbook pricing before making purchase
decisions, and it requires textbook publishers to provide combined or
bundled educational products separately for purchase.
This bill also establishes a program for low-income Asian American
students in title III of the bill. Through the new program, grants will
be made available to eligible institutions where at least 10 percent of
the student body is Asian American and low-income. And this will have a
significant impact on the aspirations of all Americans, and this has
been an aspiration of the Asian American community for a long time.
I strongly support this conference report and urge the other Members
to support it.

{time} 1200

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend if she has
any additional speakers.
Ms. MATSUI. I have no additional speakers. I will reserve.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that
this legislation appropriately enjoys extraordinary bipartisan support,
and really, I'm pleased to see an example of Congress working together
across the aisle for the good of the Nation, in this instance, all of
those who seek a higher education, which is such an important part of
the American Dream. The dream of being able to acquire a higher
education and to see one's children and one's grandchildren do so, to
advance that dream as this legislation does is something that's
admirable; and I wish to commend all who have worked to make this
legislation possible.
Mr. Speaker, we will not fail to utilize every opportunity on this
House floor, before leaving for a 5-week break to be with our
constituents, to provide our constituents, before we leave a debate on
this floor on the issue that I certainly am being contacted most about
by my constituents, and I know that many of our colleagues are as well:
the unacceptable price of gasoline, the energy crisis facing American

[[Page 17435]]

families, American workers, American businesses.
Part of the reason that we are seeing this situation and that we are
seeking a debate to alleviate this crisis is that gas prices have
continued to rise, one important reason being because more and more so
we are dependent on foreign oil, while we avoid developing domestic
energy sources. And so we think that we need to comprehensively debate
this issue to alleviate the crisis. The crisis is affecting all
American families and affecting countless millions of businesses.
One important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny
portion of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of
America's energy independence, even though the people of that great
State overwhelmingly are in favor of searching for energy there.
With the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon, we should be looking to do
all we can to lower that price, and that includes domestic exploration
when the people of a State wish to permit it. I think it demonstrates
arrogance on our part to say we know better than the people of a State
and their Representatives. In the case of Alaska, all of their
Representatives in Congress are clamoring for what the overwhelming
majority of the people of that great State are also clamoring for: the
ability to search for additional sources of energy within their
borders.
Today I will be asking each of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider an
amendment that would have the effect of lowering the price of gasoline
and diesel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the
extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people
of the great State of Alaska wish to do so and their Senators and
Representatives wish to do so, in representation of the overwhelming
majority of the people of that great State.
I remind the Members that defeating the previous question will not
stop debate on the important underlying legislation. It enjoys
bipartisan support. We wish, in addition to bringing forward an
important piece of legislation like we are today, to offer the American
people a debate on the issue that is on the minds of the overwhelming
majority of American people, certainly of my constituents, the simply
unacceptable price of gasoline.
We have to do everything we can to deal with the issue. And I think
it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we're not and that we're not being
allowed to.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, by voting no on the
previous question, Members can take a stand, can show that they want to
do everything possible on this issue. Once again, I reiterate that this
will not preclude taking action on the important piece of education
legislation that we possibly, even unanimously, in this House,
certainly in consensus fashion, support.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
I would like to say, first, that nearly 80 percent of offshore oil is
in areas that are already open for exploration. In fact, 68 million
acres, onshore and offshore, are already under lease by oil companies,
but not being drilled.
Democrats have said ``use it or lose it'' to the oil companies: drill
the oil or give up the lease to someone who will. And Democrats have
called for mandatory leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska, which has more oil than the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Oil companies have billions of barrels of American oil available to
them right now, and the President's own Department of Energy says the
impact of any new drilling will be insignificant, promising only
pennies per gallon a decade or two down the road.
Under Democratic leadership, the Congress has enacted into law the
first new vehicle fuel efficiency standards in 32 years, saving up to
$1,000 in gas per car per year; a historic commitment to American-grown
biofuels, which are keeping gas prices 15 percent lower now than they
would otherwise be as a result of blended fuels; action to impact
record gas prices by suspending oil purchasing for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve; recovery rebates that help Americans struggling with
rising prices, including gas, with a check of $600 or more. And what
we're doing today, making college more affordable, will help American
working families.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us
to highlight educational challenges and offers remedies for them in
order to create a better tomorrow.
It is our responsibility to provide our constituents with greater
access to a college education, especially at a time when the price of
college is steadily increasing.
This bill will complete a year of important changes to higher
education policy. Nearly 1 year ago, the Democratic Congress took the
lead on landmark changes to lender subsidies and student aid, followed
by a measure to ensure access to loans and increase loan limits. And
now we will send the President yet another bill that makes college more
affordable and address the student loan process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1389 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6107) to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a
competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in
an environmentally sound program for the exploration,
development, and production of the oil and gas resources of
the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural
Resources, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute
if offered by Representative Rahall of West Virginia or his
designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be
separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

[[Page 17436]]

vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to
proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution [and]
has no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.
Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the
Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in
the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee
described the rule using information from Congressional
Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the
previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to
the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor
Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a
germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. MATSUI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6599, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1384

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6599) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause
11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII
in a daily issue dated July 30, 2008, or earlier and except
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each
amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who
caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be
considered as read. When the committee rises and reports the
bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do
pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 6599
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1384.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1384 provides an open rule
with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
The rule waives points of order against provisions of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule provides that any amendment to the bill must be printed in
the Congressional Record by July 30. Each amendment so printed may be
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee
and shall be considered as read.
The rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to stand with my colleagues
in support of H.R. 6599, the 2009 Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act and this rule.
Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made the lives of
America's veterans one of our top priorities. Years from now, history
will reflect that it was this Democratically led 110th Congress, in the
middle of two wars, that renewed the country's commitment to veterans
and their health.
Our commitment simply is a reflection of the pride and appreciation
the American people have for the service of their brave men and women
in uniform, who have served so greatly in recent conflicts and wars.

{time} 1215

Now, just weeks ago, after months of perseverance in the face of
opposition from the White House, this Congress, in a bipartisan way,
adopted the new 21st century GI Bill that provides a full 4-year
college tuition to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The new
GI Bill for our veterans was adopted by a vote here in the House of
256-156.
Last year, we adopted the largest reform and investment in veterans'
health care in the history of the Veterans Administration. And just
yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Congress adopted additional reforms to the
Veterans Administration process that will improve the lives of veterans
across this country.
Congressman Cazayoux from Louisiana brought H.R. 6445, that prohibits
the collection by the Department of Veterans Affairs of copayments or
other fees for hospital or nursing home care when they are
catastrophically disabled.
Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire also brought H.R. 2192, that
establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of the
Ombudsman to act as a liaison to veterans and their families with
respect to VA health care and their benefits.
I also salute my colleague, Congressman John Hall of New York. We
adopted his bill yesterday, H.R. 5892, the Veterans Disability Benefits
Claims Modernization Act, that directs the Department of Veterans
Affairs to modernize the disability benefits claims processing system
to ensure that our veterans are served in a timely and accurate way.
Now, in this appropriations bill that is before the House today, the
American people, through the actions of this Congress, will provide the
necessary resources for veterans and facilities and the infrastructure
for the Armed Forces. This includes training facilities, housing, and
equipment for our troops in their ongoing fight to defend our great
Nation here and overseas.
While our brave servicemembers are overseas, most military families
remain at home on bases, and we are committed to an excellent standard
of living for them and quality of life. That includes convenient child
care,

[[Page 17437]]

and a safe and affordable place to live. I know this because I have
conversations with the men and women who serve on the MacDill Air Force
Base in my hometown of Tampa, Florida. They tell me that they feel much
more safe and secure knowing that their families are well taken care of
and well served back home on the base.
So Members should be proud that we have gone above and beyond the
White House's initial budget offering. We provide nearly $4 billion
more than the President in additional resources, particularly for our
veterans health care programs.
Just last week, a panel testified before the Congress that returning
soldiers still are not receiving the health care they deserve at Walter
Reed and across the country, and this is unacceptable. And that is why
in this appropriations bill we fund the VA health care system to try to
get it back on track because we've asked everything of these great men
and women, the ultimate sacrifice, and the least we can do as their
government is support them when they return and ensure that they have
the health care they need. When our troops go off to fight valiantly
for our country, we're going to ensure that they have the best health
care when they return.
Now, the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are
the traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Oftentimes, these injuries will require a lifetime of continuing
medical care. In fact, the Veterans Health Administration estimates
that just next year, in 2009, they will treat more than 5.8 million
patients. I'm very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that in my hometown of
Tampa, we have an outstanding VA hospital, the James Haley VA Center.
It is known as the busiest VA hospital in the country. We are also
fortunate to have one of only four polytrauma units there that serve
the most critically wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
So I've seen directly how oftentimes medical staff is overworked,
they don't have the facilities that they need. That's why we provide
above and beyond the President's request and reject his $38 million cut
for medical and prosthetic research. We will continue to invest in
medical military construction to improve the aging and outdated medical
treatment facilities so they have access to the best medical care.
Now, to help the VA get a head start on helping those hundreds of
thousands of new patients in the VA system, we're going to ask that
they bring on additional VA claims processors because there is a
terrible backlog in this country, and that's the last thing that our
veterans should have to face after their service. Currently, in my
State, there are over 25,000 pending cases, and nearly 19 percent of
those have been in a holding pattern for over 180 days. We can and we
must do better for our veterans.
We also oppose, through this appropriations bill, the Bush
administration's squeeze on veterans' wallets. The Bush administration
has proposed increases in enrollment fees and doubling of prescription
drug copayments. How sensible is it to add to the already large number
of uninsured in America by making it harder for those who have
sacrificed in service to this Nation to get the care they need? Well,
this New Direction Congress can and will do better for our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly applaud the leadership of
Chairman Chet Edwards, who held numerous hearings in an open,
bipartisan process that gave Members and the many military families and
veterans groups an opportunity to review and weigh in, in a thoughtful
and responsible way, to ensure that our current and past military
troops and their families get the much-needed funding for various
programs that they have earned by way of their service.
Mr. Speaker, I know the American people will appreciate that this is
a bipartisan effort for our country's sons and daughters, who put their
lives on the line for us every day. We will fulfill our promise to help
them lead whole and healthy lives in honor of their sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is astonishing to me to what
lengths this liberal Congress will go to shut down debate and close the
legislative process.
This House, Mr. Speaker, has become far more dictatorial and far less
deliberative in the last 19 months than ever before. In this Congress,
there have been 59 closed rules, which is more than in any Congress in
the history of our country.
Mr. Speaker, as you well know, a closed rule means Members are
prohibited from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment to
the bill that is being considered on the floor. An open rule allows
Members to offer amendments to a bill that's being considered on the
House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is simply as simple as that.
But Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one single, solitary open rule
this entire year in this body. For this entire Congress, going back to
January of last year, there has been only one open rule on bills that
were not appropriations bills. These facts present a stark picture of
just how closed and restrictive this liberal Congress has become.
Yet the Speaker and Democrat-controlled Rules Committee aren't
satisfied with having the worst, most closed record in history. They've
decided to go even further to undermine the rules and traditions of the
U.S. House of Representatives. With this rule, they've reached an
absolute new low. They have chosen to breach the long-standing,
bipartisan process of an open rule for the consideration of
appropriations bills.
On what has been an open process on the House floor not just for
years, not for decades, but dating back to the creation of the
Appropriations Committee itself, this process is being closed down by
this oppressive, liberal Congress.
This rule provides for consideration of the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs funding bill for the next fiscal year. It is a bill
that has always, Mr. Speaker, had strong bipartisan support. For
example, last year it passed by a recorded vote of 409 in favor and
only two against. And during that debate last year, there were just 15
amendments that were offered. And the total debate on the House floor
was just 5 hours, which is a short time for appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, there is no part of this record that justifies what is
being proposed today to decimate this open process. There is simply no
excuse for what is being done and proposed by this rule.
I can only conclude that this is a blatant political attempt to
stifle debate on the House floor in order to hold onto political power.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the expense of the rules and
traditions of the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year begins on October 1;
that's just 62 days away. Yet this House hasn't passed one single
appropriations bill. At the end of the week, it will probably have
passed one. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican House
had passed every bill except one by this point of the year.
It is a troubling, disappointing, and dangerous situation when those
who control this liberal Congress are punting on their duty to pass the
12 annual appropriations bills while simultaneously undermining the
open consideration of these very same appropriations bills, an open
process that has been a bipartisan hallmark of this House since the
inception of the Appropriations Committee.
And why is this being done, Mr. Speaker? Again, I can only conclude
that it is because this liberal Congress refuses to allow open debate
and votes on producing more American-made energy. Those who control
this Congress have refused to allow a vote on lifting the ban on
offshore drilling, at ANWR in Alaska, and on other Federal lands.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama oppose offshore drilling
and in ANWR, but they refuse to let

[[Page 17438]]

Congress vote on this important issue while gas prices, Mr. Speaker,
are at record levels and Americans are hurting.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record three articles, one from
the New York Times regarding Speaker Pelosi, one from the McClatchy
Washington Bureau regarding Speaker Pelosi's position on offshore
drilling, one in the House of nearly 6 weeks ago from The Hill
regarding Mr. Obama's opinion on drilling, and one from the Las Vegas
Review Journal regarding Majority Leader Reid's position on drilling in
the Senate.
As you know, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly insisted that this House
won't ever vote, is not going to be permitted to vote, and that she
will do everything possible to block a vote on lowering gas prices by
producing more American-made energy by drilling for our own Nation's
gas and oil. Americans can't afford this head-in-the-sand approach.
Congress needs to stand up and vote on the Republicans' ``all of the
above'' energy plan that simply says, let's do everything that we can
to produce more American-made energy, including pursuing more clean
alternatives like wind and solar, more nuclear power, more biodiesel,
improving conservation, more investment in new technology research, and
of course, immediately more drilling and refining of oil and gas from
America's huge underground reserves.
Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear: we can continue with this ``drill
nothing'' approach, or we can decide to act, to change course and to
debate and vote on the Republicans ``all of the above'' plan to lower
gas prices by producing more energy here in America and finding ways,
at the same time, to use less.
Mr. Speaker, I believe our ``all of the above'' approach to lowering
gas prices would pass. It would pass, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if it
were permitted to have a vote on this House floor. I believe there is a
majority that would vote for it in this U.S. House. But such a vote has
yet to be allowed and is not being allowed today. And next week, we're
going on a 5-week vacation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable.
The House is being shut down in new, bolder ways to block a vote on
producing American-made energy. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,
this rule is proof of it.
The long-standing, bipartisan practice of considering appropriations
bills under an open process is being trampled on by this rule. The
actions that are being taken to restrict and shut down Members' ability
to offer amendments and debate spending bills--which I might add, Mr.
Speaker, is the very job that the American people elected us to do--is
being undermined by this appropriations process, and it creates a very
dangerous and volatile situation in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the leaders and the chairmen who've made this decision
may well rue the day that they chose to go down this path.

{time} 1230

By their actions, bipartisanship is being diminished, but more
importantly, Mr. Speaker, the traditions of this House are being
diminished. One cannot trample on the rules and practices of traditions
of this House with impunity and then expect no long-term damage to
result.
This is a sad and shameful rule. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it
and demand this House uphold open rules for consideration of
appropriations bills, which is one of the best practices historically
of this institution. If we do not correct the closed rule course that
is being set by this rule, it will do a great deal of long-term harm to
this House that will prove, in my opinion, more difficult to reverse in
the future.

[From the New York Times, July 17, 2008]

For Pelosi, a Fight Against Offshore Drilling

(By Carl Hulse)

Washington.--Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative
Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California
front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.
The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and the steady push to
tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had
galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore
drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures
like Ms. Pelosi.
She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries
near her San Francisco district and, after joining the
Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the
ban on coastal drilling through spending restrictions each
year.
``We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on
our coast,'' Ms. Pelosi told a crucial committee in 1996 as
she argued for keeping the ban before a Congress then
controlled by Republicans.
Now, with gasoline prices soaring, those drilling
restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as
calls intensify to pursue domestic oil more forcefully. Yet
despite increasing pressure from President Bush, a full-bore
assault by Congressional Republicans and some anxiety among
her own rank-and-file Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is not budging.
``The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a
gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying
to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore,'' Ms.
Pelosi said in an interview. ``That is not the cause, and I
am not going to let him get away with it.''
Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi,
who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded
drilling from reaching the floor.
And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority
leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to
approve drilling in areas now off limits. They argue that the
oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large
expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They
have also urged Mr. Bush to pour some fuel from national
reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to
lower prices.
Trying to demonstrate that Democrats are not opposed to
drilling in acceptable locales, the House is scheduled to
vote on Thursday on a proposal that would deny oil companies
any new leases unless they can show they are diligently
exploring existing holdings. The measure would also require
annual lease sales from lands in Alaska set aside as a
National Petroleum Reserve, and direct the Interior
Department to make sure a pipeline is linked to the reserves.
Democrats, not subtly, are calling the measure the Drill
Responsibly in Leased Lands, or Drill, Act.
In the Senate, Democrats are pushing a measure to curb
speculation in oil markets.
But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican
leader, who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska this weekend, said the Democrats'
approach was woefully insufficient. Mr. Boehner said Ms.
Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was
putting Democrats in the crosshairs of voters furious about
gas prices.
``I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other
vulnerable Democrats off a cliff, and they know it,'' said
Mr. Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats
representing more conservative districts.
He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to
thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position that he said
would prevail if the moment arrived. ``Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people
want,'' Mr. Boehner said.
In both the House and Senate, small groups of Democrats
have begun meeting informally with Republicans to try to
reach a bipartisan response to higher oil prices, and opening
up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the
Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the
Arctic refuge and elsewhere.
Backers of the drilling ban have pushed back furiously and
appear to have bolstered some of their colleagues. Senator
Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who has been fighting
offshore drilling since the 1970s, has been cornering fellow
senators to impress upon them the importance of the ban to
Californians, comparing it to a mainstay of farm-state
senators.
``This is our ethanol,'' Mrs. Boxer said of protecting the
coast from oil drilling.
Since taking over as speaker, Ms. Pelosi has asserted
herself on energy policy, which she sees as an overarching
cause that encompasses national security, climate change, the
economy, health care and the environment.
``This captures everything,'' said Ms. Pelosi, who last
year broke a deadlock that had lasted for decades over
increasing automotive fuel economy standards.
In a private meeting last week, according to some in
attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team
that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to
capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she
was having none of it. She attributes today's energy problems
to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a
comprehensive approach, to its ties to the oil industry and
to a mishandling of the economy.
With the drilling restrictions under such scrutiny, backers
of the ban say they are heartened that Ms. Pelosi wields the
power she does.
``It is really important to have a Californian as speaker
on this topic,'' said Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat
who represents Santa Barbara.

[[Page 17439]]

Ms. Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror
surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her
personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move
through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she
sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She
said national policy had to move beyond the long dispute over
the ban.
``This is part of the fight we are in,'' she said. ``We
have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will
say, `Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their
car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our
head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent.''
____

[From TheHill.com, July 19, 2008]

Webb Splits With Obama Over Drilling

(By J. Taylor Rushing)

By pushing a bill that distances himself from the
Democratic Party and its presidential candidate on offshore
drilling, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is picking a curious time
to exercise his well-known independence.
Webb wants his home state to have the right to explore for
energy off Virginia's coast. His staff insists his proposal
pertains only to natural gas, and not oil, and that it is
completely in line with the state's other two leading
Democrats--Gov. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner, who is
running for Senate.
Yet by attaching his name to the bill, sponsored by Sen.
John Warner (R-Va.), Webb is taking a step away from Barack
Obama (D-Ill.), the party's presidential candidate, who
opposes offshore drilling, and one closer to Sen. John McCain
(Ariz.), the GOP standard-bearer who recently called for
lifting the federal ban.
Webb's divergence from his party also comes as his name is
being mentioned on Obama's short list for a running mate.
A key McCain ally, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, seized on the similarities between Webb and McCain
on offshore drilling.
``It shows Sen. Webb is right sometimes,'' Graham said.
Webb rejected the suggestion that his position differs from
other Democrats', saying that the bill calls for ``a very
careful approach,'' state leaders would be a key part of the
decision, and Virginia desperately needs the revenue stream
for cash-starved transportation needs. Such decisions
therefore should be made by Virginia, not Washington, he
said.
``We can't just not act,'' he said. ``It's time we had some
leadership to really grab the larger picture and solve these
problems.''
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois and Sen.
Charles Schumer (D) of New York dismissed any concerns about
Webb's stance, saying they did not notice his proposal
Wednesday. Durbin, however, pointedly rejected Webb's
argument that states should have the right to make drilling
decisions.
``There's national concerns here, too,'' Durbin said.
The Obama campaign would not directly address Webb's
proposal, but instead pointed to a statement Obama released
Wednesday on offshore drilling.
``Opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at
least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on
gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America
only has 3 percent of the world's oil,'' Obama said in a
statement that did not explicitly distinguish between oil and
gas drilling.
McCain on Tuesday reversed a long-held stance and called
for states to have the right to explore for oil offshore. A
pair of federal moratoriums have been in place since the
1980s--one controlled by the executive branch, one by
Congress--that bar offshore drilling.
Webb's proposal, unveiled Wednesday with John Warner, would
allow Virginia to request a federal waiver to drill for
natural gas at least 50 miles from the coastline on an
exploration-only basis. A second waiver would be needed if
gas is found, and any revenues would be split between state
and federal coffers.
The legislation ``offers a preliminary step toward
exploration and development of one of our domestic energy
sources,'' Webb said. ``In order to address our nation's
energy crisis, all options need to be on the table.''
One of Virginia's most prominent environmental groups also
opposes Webb's idea, saying there is no plausible
environmental distinction between gas and oil drilling and
that any environmental damage would spread far beyond
Virginia's coast.
``This puts the camel's nose under the tent,'' said Glen
Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club,
which has 17,000 members in the commonwealth. ``And the risk
associated with this would affect not just Virginia. It would
affect Maryland. It would affect North Carolina. You can't
just do this on a one-state-only basis.''
Kaine has carefully distinguished between oil and gas
drilling, saying that Virginia so far does not endorse oil
exploration. Mark Warner, campaigning Wednesday in the state,
advocated lifting the federal moratorium on oil drilling to
allow Virginia to explore. He also distinguished between oil
and gas, saying that natural gas presents fewer environmental
risks.
____

[From McClatchy Newspapers, July 18, 2008]

Pelosi Vows To Block Offshore Drilling Vote

(By Rob Hotakainen)

Washington.--A plan to lift the ban on coastal drilling is
stalled on Capitol Hill, for one simple reason: A Californian
who opposes President Bush's proposal is calling the shots in
the House of Representatives.
Despite growing public support for ending the ban, even in
California, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she
won't allow a vote.
``I have no plans to do so,'' Pelosi said Thursday.
It's an example of the vast power placed in the office of
the speaker, who sets the agenda for the 435-member House.
Members can force a vote if enough of them sign a petition,
but that's a rarity because it requires rank-and-file
Democrats to line up against their boss.
In this case, Pelosi is going against a rising tide of
public opinion. Faced with rapidly increasing gasoline
prices, 73 percent of Americans now favor offshore drilling,
according to a poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
Support is even growing in California, where a majority of
residents have long supported the ban. A new Field Poll
survey shows that just 51 percent now favor the ban, compared
with 56 percent in 2005.
Pelosi made her remarks in a wide-ranging interview with
CNN, in which she grabbed headlines for saying Bush was ``a
total failure'' who had lost credibility with Americans on
his handling of the war, the economy and energy issues. She
said Congress has been forced ``to sweep up after his mess
over and over and over again.''
Pelosi's Democratic colleagues in California are happy that
the president's drilling plan is going nowhere, at least for
now.
``When Americans go to the pump and are faced with gas
prices well over $4 a gallon, it may be tempting to believe
that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would bring
immediate relief,'' Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., said Friday.
But she said Congress ``cannot make rash decisions that will
leave a legacy of irresponsible energy policy for our
children and grandchildren to inherit.''
Pelosi and other Californians have long cited the 1969 oil
spill off Santa Barbara as the main reason for their
opposition to drilling. The president's plan is opposed by
California's three top leaders: Republican Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, who heads
the Senate environment committee, and Dianne Feinstein.
``Californians have learned the hard way how much damage--
environmental and economic--can be caused by a major oil
spill,'' Feinstein said.
But Pelosi may be hard-pressed to stand firm against
lifting the moratorium. She's under heavy pressure from House
Republicans, who have been unrelenting in their political
attacks against the speaker, blaming her for the record
gasoline prices.
On Friday, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio
called on Pelosi to stop ``ignoring the calls of the American
people.'' He said he would lead a delegation of 10 House
Republicans on an ``American energy tour'' to Colorado and
Alaska this weekend to put a spotlight on the refusal of
Democratic leaders to allow drilling in Alaska and elsewhere.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling has been in
effect since 1981, but Congress must renew it each year. The
issue could come to a head again in September, though Pelosi
could make it tougher for opponents to kill the ban if she
includes it in an omnibus spending bill that may be required
to keep the government operating.
Acknowledging her ability to influence decision-making,
Pelosi said in the CNN interview that she gets to operate
differently than her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader
Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid must reach out to Republicans to
muster 60 votes--enough to stop a filibuster--to get anything
done.
``In the House, the power rests in the speaker, the power
of recognition, of setting the agenda . . . Very different
rules,'' Pelosi said.
____

[From the Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 14, 2008]

Reid Won't Allow Offshore Vote in Senate

Washington.--Sen. Harry Reid said today he will not allow a
Senate vote on opening new offshore areas to oil drilling,
prompting a Republican to charge the Senate majority leader
was ``scared chicken'' to allow senators to decide on the
matter.
Reid said a call by President Bush for Congress to repeal a
law that prohibits new drilling was not realistic. Bush
issued the challenge after announcing he was lifting a long-
standing executive order that bans offshore energy
exploration off the East and West coasts.
``The president is trying to make this a political gimmick,
and we're trying to figure out a way to do something about
these (gasoline) prices,'' Reid said. ``And we are interested
in increasing domestic production but we want to be realistic
as to what expectations should be.''

[[Page 17440]]

Reid told reporters he is more interested in solutions that
would seek to curb oil price speculation, release oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and call on energy companies
to explain why they are not drilling on oil leases they
already have been granted by the government.
In a sign of rising tensions over rising gasoline prices,
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., shortly afterward charged Reid
was afraid to allow votes on increasing energy production.
``Does it seem to you like it does to me that Harry Reid is
either scared chicken to have a vote? Or has he decided he is
going to dictate to the United States Senate,'' Domenici said
at a news conference.
Domenici went on, adding Reid ``is saying `I am frightened
with the idea we are going to have a vote on a new plan for
this huge reserve of gas and oil that belongs to none other
than the people of the United States who are clamoring for us
to produce more oil.' ''
In response, Reid spokesman Jon Summers said: ``This is the
United States Senate. It is not a schoolyard. Name calling is
not going to do anything to lower energy prices. We need
Republicans to work with us on a policy that will protect
consumers and lower gas prices.''
Talking to reporters, Reid said the United States cannot
merely produce its way out of energy dependence. ``The math
doesn't add up,'' he said.
``There is not a single Democrat that doesn't think we can
do a better job with domestic production, but for this Johnny
One Note of just drill, drill, drill, it is not going to do
the trick.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the Record reflects
and that it is very clear that on this very important appropriations
bill relating to veterans affairs and military construction, every
Member out of 435 in this House had the opportunity to submit an
amendment if they chose to do so.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CASTOR. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding.
Let me ask this question: Would a Member be able to come down to the
floor when this bill is being taken up and offer a second-degree
amendment to an amendment that is being offered by another Member?
Ms. CASTOR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am fairly new in this
Congress. I was proud to be part of a class that ushered in the
strongest ethics reform since Watergate, and it seems to me that it is
entirely fair and proper for Members to be able to offer an amendment
to this bill, this very important bill, but it's also important that it
is done in a responsible way so that there are no ambushes.
And I would like to point out that the Republican member from the
Appropriations Committee that came to the Rules Committee did state,
and I took notes that afternoon, that Chairman Edwards did a great job.
We've had 18 hearings. This has been an open and bipartisan process, a
very open process. It has served as a model of bipartisanship.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
This is a critical piece of legislation that speaks to the quality of
life of our men and women in uniform. One of the consequences of having
the most effective, powerful military force in the world is that we
have a great deal of activity that takes place training and operating
military facilities across the country. And, sadly, Mr. Speaker, one of
the areas that we have not been quite as good as we should is dealing
with the consequences of those military operations. The American
landscape are littered with the residue of past military operations,
base operations, and training exercises. There are bombs, explosives,
military toxins and environmental hazards in every State of the union,
over 3,000 sites across America.
One of the things I have worked on since I came to Congress was to
have the Department of Defense and, most important, we in Congress do a
better job of helping the military clean up after itself. I have come
to this floor repeatedly with examples where bombs have turned up in
people's backyards. I see the former chairman of the committee from
California on the floor and am reminded of the three young children in
San Diego who discovered bombs in a subdivision, and two of them were
killed. Over 60 more people have been killed according to my research
here in the United States.
It is time for us to take responsibility to clean up that explosive
and toxic legacy, in part because it's not going to get any cheaper.
Over the years it's going to cost more and more. Failure to do this
right puts innocent children's lives at risk. Remember when we came to
the floor with a coloring book that told children what they should do
when they found unexploded ordinances near their schools. The Pentagon
had Larry the Lizard trying to tell them what to do, when they found a
shell . . . rather than spending money to clean it up and remove that
hazard.
I am pleased that this year we are fully funding the--the 2005 BRAC
account. I am pleased with the leadership from Chairman Edwards,
Ranking Member Wamp and my good friend Mr. Farr from California, who
has been struggling with this issue for years in his district, they
were able to put an additional $80 million to clean up the legacy of
BRAC sites.
I appreciate that this is a difficult budget year but it's always a
difficult budget year, and we never seem to quite have enough to deal
with the environmental problems that face our Department of Defense. I
hope that this is a start in the right direction for a renewed
commitment to clean up this toxic legacy that risks American lives here
in this country and will develop new technology that will actually save
American lives overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan if we do it
right. I hope it makes possible more progress in the future, and I urge
support.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such
time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague's
yielding. It is really a most interesting commentary, your
presentation, which summarizes in this rule what appears to be the
dominant leadership of the liberal Democratic leadership in the House.
That is, in the quest of power, the ends justify the means. Indeed, at
this point in our history when the people's House finds itself
dominated by leadership who will exercise the ends justifying the means
to maintain power, indeed the public ought to be most concerned about
their people's House.
Mr. Speaker, I in turn, though, want to congratulate, myself, both
Chairman Edwards and Mr. Wamp for producing a truly bipartisan fiscal
year 2009 Military Construction appropriations bill in the longstanding
tradition of this committee. Their work is a demonstration to the House
that the Democrats and Republicans can work together to create
legislation the majority of our Members can support.
As we all know, the Appropriations Committee has steered off course
this year because of one single issue which is critical to the American
public and which has significant bipartisan support in the House. I do
not fault my friend Chairman Obey for the breakdown of the
appropriations process this year. While we have had our share of
disagreements over the years on overall funding levels and policy
issues, he and I have historically worked well together to move our
spending bills through the House in a timely fashion.
However, this year the largely bipartisan work of the Appropriations
Committee has ground to a virtually standstill because of the energy
issue. For reasons I do not fully understand, given present pressures
on our economy and the increased worldwide demand for oil, the majority
leadership has decided to put on the shelf most of the annual spending
bills as well as any and all meaningful bipartisan efforts to

[[Page 17441]]

lower the price of oil and gas. I don't understand this decision nor do
I agree with it. We have had an opportunity and we have an obligation
to work on a bipartisan basis to develop and pass long-term energy
solutions that involve a combination of conservation, alternative and
renewable energy sources, and the development of proven resources both
onshore and offshore in the United States.
This effort to bolster our energy resources would create thousands of
well-paying union and nonunion jobs across the United States. The
overwhelming majority of Americans favor increased domestic energy
production. So what is the downside if we develop energy resources in a
responsible, environmentally safe manner? Why is the Democratic
leadership standing in the way?
Just yesterday a dedicated group of Members, led by our colleagues
John Peterson and Neil Abercrombie, introduced sweeping bipartisan
energy legislation in an attempt to break the current energy gridlock
in the House. I applaud their efforts. We ought to debate their bill
openly in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor before we
leave this town for an August break.
The mere message that Congress was actually debating energy policy,
in meaningful, bipartisan debate, would send a signal to the markets
and to the foreign suppliers of oil that the United States is serious
about addressing its energy future. That powerful message would send
oil prices down almost overnight. I believe that an honest energy
debate on the floor of the House would be, in itself, a stimulus
package that would have a tremendously positive ripple effect
throughout our economy, touching every American business and consumer.
Let me respectfully remind my colleagues that it was our Speaker,
then the minority leader, in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat
majority's governing philosophy, and I quote: ``Bills should come to
the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.
Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee
markups.'' Mr. Speaker, that's important enough. Let me repeat. The
Speaker: ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows
open, full, and fair debate. Bills should be developed following full
hearings and open subcommittee markups.''
As the body knows, we have not had an open, full, and fair debate on
energy policy in committee nor have we had any open amendment process
on the House floor. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee has not
moved any bills through the full committee since June 25 because of a
pending energy production amendment supported by a bipartisan majority
of the committee members but opposed by the majority leadership.
I would remind our colleagues that most of the challenges facing us
today have little or nothing to do with partisan politics. At a time
when our country is facing daunting challenges at home and abroad, my
constituents and your constituents are looking for real leadership.
Rather than providing the leadership our constituents deserve, the body
is now in a state of paralysis.
Again, I remind my colleagues that it was then a minority leader, the
gentlewoman from San Francisco, who wrote in an October 20, 2007,
letter to Speaker Hastert: ``The voice of every American has a right to
be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on this floor.''
I encourage each of my colleagues to remind the Speaker of these
words so we can return to regular order in our committee work and
restore civility and open debate to the legislative process in the
House. It is time to set aside partisan politics and get to work. We
can do better. We must do better. Let's support our veterans funding
bill today and then move quickly to support our constituents by openly
debating potentially energy solutions.
Again, the House should not leave town for the August recess until it
votes to lower gas prices, increase the supply of American-made energy,
and promote energy independence.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing
with this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

{time} 1245

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I will
be back later today to manage the time during general debate and
consideration of amendments as the ranking member of the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee. But I come today to speak briefly on the rule for my only
negative comments today because it is ironic that on the same day, at
the same time that the House joins in a bipartisan way with a record
commitment to our veterans and our military construction and
installation needs around the world, that we also are making history by
the consideration of this rule, which is unfortunate.
I even know that there are members of the majority who think that it
is unfortunate that we are here very late in July, basically clamping
down on the process in order to achieve an objective. I understand why,
but I regret it, and I know certain members of the majority regret it
as well.
The main thing though is I come in opposition to the rule but in
tremendous support of the bill. My hat is off to Chairman Edwards, my
subcommittee chairman, who has been an excellent partner. I will come
back to this later in the day. And Chairman Obey and Ranking Member
Lewis, who have worked on this bill very, very well, because the House
will sometime today or tomorrow make a historic commitment to every man
and woman in uniform, those serving now and those that have served in
the past. I think that is great for the United States of America at a
time where we have a war on two fronts.
I just shook Holly Petraeus' hand here in the Capitol today, the
spouse of General Petraeus, David Petraeus, perhaps the greatest
military general in the modern era of the United States of America.
These threats are real, the enemy is vicious. Our challenges are
many. And we do come together today on this bill. I am grateful for
that. I wish it was being considered in another way because this rule
is not in keeping with the traditions and the history of this committee
and the House.
Ms. CASTOR. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of trying
to plan the time, could I inquire of my distinguished colleague how
many speakers she has left.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close after the gentleman
from Washington has made his closing statement.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank her for that information, and am
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
today in support of this veterans funding bill. This is a great victory
for 400,000 central Florida veterans because it provides $220 million
for a new VA hospital in Orlando. What does this mean for our central
Florida vets? As a result of this hospital, our Orlando area vets will
no longer have to travel 2 hours to Tampa. They will no longer be
living in the largest metropolitan area in the United States without a
VA hospital. Instead, they will have a brand new state-of-the-art 134-
bed hospital and access to world class physicians and researchers
working in partnership with the new UCF Medical School. Our vets
deserve it.
We didn't get here by accident. The critical turning point began on
September 10, 2003. That is when the VA CARES Commission held their
hearing in central Florida to determine what cities if any in America
would get a new VA hospital, since one hadn't been built in 30 years. I
testified at that committee and pleaded that a new one be built in
Orlando because of the large number of veterans we had and their lack
of access to care. The VA CARES

[[Page 17442]]

Commission agreed. This decision was ratified by the VA Secretary and
then ratified by Congress.
Today, Congress takes the biggest step forward in funding this
project. Although we have already provided $75 million toward this
project, this new funding of $220 million is quite significant because
it's $100 million more than the President asked for and is the largest
single investment so far in this new project.
Where do we go from here? We ask our Senate colleagues to act, and we
finish the job. We will work together on a bipartisan basis,
Republicans and Democrats, to complete this worthwhile project.
I'd like to close just by saying that this has been very much a team
effort. I would like to thank my Democratic and Republican colleagues
on both sides of the aisle.
Ms. CASTOR. I would also like to join with my colleague from Florida
(Mr. Keller) in saluting Chairman Obey and the other members of the
Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee because as that new VA hospital goes to Orlando, it will
relieve a great deal of pressure in Tampa, in my hometown, at the Haley
VA Center, the busiest VA Center in the country, and the Bay Pines
Medical Center in St. Petersburg.
So I thank the gentleman for expressing his opinion on this, and I
join with him.
With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of H.R.
6566, the American Energy Act, an all-of-the-above plan that tackles
the current energy crisis we are facing in this country. A well-known
Oklahoman has recently alerted us to the fact that we spend $700
billion a year on foreign oil. That is $700 billion. That number is
staggering and should be enough for any American to sit up and take
notice and know that something has to change.
The American Energy Act paves the way to decrease our reliance on
foreign oil by increasing the production of American-made energy. It
not only allows for oil exploration both in the Arctic coastal plain
and offshore, a move that 73 percent of Americans support, according to
the latest CNN poll. It also eliminates the obstacle to the
construction of new oil refineries and nuclear power plants.
Now, we all know that increased production of traditional forms of
energy, such as oil and natural gas, is only the first step. The
American Energy Act also addresses the future of American-made energy
by promoting research and development of renewable and alternative
energy sources.
One of the best components of this bill is the permanent extension of
the tax credit for alternative energy production. Oklahoma is the ninth
largest producer of wind energy, and we look forward to continued
growth in that industry. I know that extending the production tax
credit on wind energy will send the right message to wind producers
that the American government is ready to work with them to expand upon
this already successful alternative energy source.
The Speaker recently was quoted as saying that her refusal to bring
legislation aimed at increasing American energy to the floor for a vote
was an effort to ``save the planet.'' While I appreciate the
gentlewoman from California's feelings that she has a moral obligation
to promote conservation, what about her obligation to the American
people, living here and now, who are forced to choose between driving
to work and putting food on the dinner table?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30
additional seconds.
Mr. LUCAS. It's irresponsible to adjourn for 5 weeks without passing
a meaningful legislation to reduce the skyrocketing gas prices
Americans are forced to pay. Now is the time for America to take its
place in the forefront of energy development by utilizing the vast
natural resources we have in this country.
I ask all of my colleagues today, stand up, demand a vote on the
American Energy Act. Do something for our folks back home.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to one theme that we
have heard here in the last 20 minutes or so. We have heard complaints
about the ``outrage'' that is being perpetrated by the passage of this
rule because it is alleged that this rule closes up consideration of
this bill and in fact prevents Members from offering legitimate
amendments.
Let me point out this rule does one thing and one thing only. It
simply says that if a Member wants to offer an amendment, that that
Member should notice the House 1 day ahead of time in the Congressional
Record so that we do not legislate by ambush. The only thing that is
required for an amendment to be considered on this floor is that it be
printed in the Congressional Record the day before it is considered so
that no Member of the House is blind-sided by any amendment.
We believe that the bill managers on both sides of the aisle have a
right to know in an orderly way which amendments are going to be
offered to bills. We also believe that any individual Member who
happens to have a project in his district which is going to be
challenged by another Member, that that Member has the right to notice
of that challenge. And we believe that every single Member of this
House has a right to know ahead of time what they are going to be
called upon to vote on by way of amendments. So this rule simply says
any amendment is in order so long as it was printed the day before.
Now, the gentleman managing the bill on the other side of the aisle
asked the question, ``Will secondary amendments be allowed?'' My
understanding is yes. My understanding is that this rule provides--or
that this rule does not in any way get in the way of the ability of
Members to offer secondary amendments.
So, very simply, this bill is attempting to meet the military needs
of the country. It's attempting to meet the needs of our veterans in
terms of health care. It's meant to meet the needs of our communities
in terms of construction on military bases all around the country.
This bill builds upon the fact that in the last 2 years we have
provided the largest increase in veterans' health benefits in the
history of the country. This bill continues in that tradition. It is a
terrific bill for veterans. It is a terrific bill for the communities
that host military facilities around the country. And instead of having
a sham debate about legislation which is not before us today, I think
we would do well to confine our comments to the bill at hand, which is
the military construction bill.
It's a good bill, and I would predict it will be supported on a huge
bipartisan basis. It was reported unanimously by the subcommittee. What
we ought to do, instead of pretending that there's a procedural
problem, when in fact there is none, we ought to get to the subject at
hand.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me time. In my short time during my service in Congress, I
have been a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and have
chaired the Health Care Subcommittee, and I am here in the short amount
of time I have been allotted to commend the Appropriations Committee
for a couple of provisions included in this bill. One deals with
travel.
This bill increases the travel reimbursement for our veterans going
to a VA hospital or facility from 28.5 cents per mile to 41.5 cents per
mile, while we have been discussing the cost of gasoline that has real
effects upon our veterans.

[[Page 17443]]

As we work to boost VA health care funding, it's important to be
reminded that the exceptional medical service that is offered by the VA
can only be enjoyed if the veteran can afford to travel to that
facility to see that physician.
For most of the time I have been in Congress, I have offered an
amendment to the appropriations process to increase that mileage rate.
For 30 years, it was 11 cents a mile. Last year, we were successful in
increasing it to 28.5 cents and, today, 41.5 cents. I commend my
colleagues for their support for that change.
Today's high gas prices mean that many veterans would not otherwise
be able to see and be provided with the health care they need.
The second provision is fee-based care. I am pleased that this
subcommittee and the committee has added $200 million in fee-based
services to improve access to veterans care. Earlier this week on the
suspension calendar we had legislation that I introduced that would
allow a pilot project to access our veterans to health care providers
outside the VA system for fee-based care. If you live such a long
distance between where you live and the hospital, or where you live and
the CBOC, the outpatient clinic, you would be entitled to receive that
service through a private pay contract from the VA to that care
provider. That bill is H.R. 1527. I am still hopeful it will be on the
House floor this week. But this bill provides the funding to allow that
service to happen.
So, again, as a Member of Congress who cares strongly about our
veterans and who represents a district that is rural, this bill is
important, and makes significant strides in taking care of our rural
veterans.

{time} 1300

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until my
colleague from Washington has made his closing statement.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and if I infer by what
he said, this may be the end of open rules in this House. There have
been many people that have said on the floor today that this rule is in
fact an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an open rule. It does not permit an open
process that allows Members to come to the floor and offer amendments
to this veterans funding bill. Instead, it restricts and closes down
the ability, by limiting amendments to only those who preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record. I didn't, Mr. Speaker, so I am
prohibited later on today from offering an amendment if I chose to do
so. This clearly violates the open process by which appropriations
bills have long been considered in this House.
Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. I would like to quote several
statements from my Democrat colleagues in the past Congress and in this
Congress.
On September 15, 2005, this is in the last Congress, Mr. Hastings of
Florida made the following statement on the House floor about a
preprinting requirement for a Coast Guard authorization bill.
Mr. Hastings from Florida said, and I am quoting: ``I am nevertheless
disappointed that the preprinting of amendments was even required.
Despite the majority's claims, this legislative process which they call
'open' is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every
Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.'' Mr. Hastings
of Florida said that in the last Congress.
In a report prepared by Ms. Slaughter before becoming chairman of the
Rules Committee, in this report, which is entitled ``Broken Promises:
The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' Ms. Slaughter and her Democrat
colleagues stated, and I quote from page 26 of this report, ``Rules
with preprinting requirements are not open rules.''
Quoting further from the same page: ``Further, there is a significant
difference between an open rule and a rule with a preprinting
requirement. A preprinting requirement forces Members to reveal their
amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that may assist
the floor managers, but can disadvantage the Member offering it. In
addition, a preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that
might emerge during the course of debate.'' That comes from a Democrat
publication.
The rule before the House today is not an open rule, by their own
definition. The long-standing tradition has been deliberately violated.
But don't take my word about the past.
Quoting again from the Congressional Record, this is Ms. Matsui from
last year, and she is a member of the Rules Committee, last year in the
110th Congress she states regarding the Energy and Water appropriations
bill: ``As I mentioned at the outset of this debate, this bill is made
in order under an open rule, which is our tradition. I hope that all
Members will give that tradition the respect it deserves.''
Where is the respect, Mr. Speaker? Where is the respect?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record excerpts from
``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' printed by
the then-minority party of the Rules Committee.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this House has been blocked repeatedly for many
months from being allowed to vote on lifting the ban on drilling.
Congress needs to act now to produce more American-made energy.
Congress needs to vote now on lifting the offshore drilling ban. By
defeating the previous question on this rule, the House can vote on
drilling offshore. When the previous question is defeated, I will move
to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my
colleagues this will not slow down the process of working on the MILCON
bill. This is just an addition to it, an addition that I think is very,
very important, since Congress is contemplating and probably will go on
a 5-week break without taking up any energy legislation.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can
consider this vitally important issue for America.

Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy

A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic
Process in the 108th Congress

(Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office--Hon. Louise M.
Slaughter, Ranking Member)

4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open
Rules''
During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out
four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement.
This provision requires Members to submit their amendments
for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance
with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor
debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically
calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them
``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the
appendices attached to this report.
While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-
printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common
tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules
Committee report, there is a significant difference between
an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing requirement. A
pre-printing requirement forces Members to reveal their
amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that
may assist the floor managers, but can disadvantage the
Member offering it. In addition, a pre-printing requirement
blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the
course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier was in the
minority, he made the following statement about the
preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on national
service legislation:
``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the
Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it
is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of

[[Page 17444]]

House debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is
impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with
a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment
to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome pre-
printing process? Shouldn't the committees that report these
bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation
under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can
do better.''
We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose
of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected
Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a
manner that they believe is in the best interest of their
constituents and the Nation as a whole. It is not to help the
floor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in
allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions''
would allow at least some House business to occur in an open
format--in a procedural framework that allows Members to
bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion
and debate under the five-minute rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the American people will be pleased today
that the House of Representatives will move and pass, hopefully on a
bipartisan basis, like it was in the Appropriations Committee, a
bipartisan bill that provides so much for the servicemen and -women and
their families who are being asked to sacrifice so much after many
years of war.
This bill is a fitting salute and tribute to the men and women who
are on the front lines, who are on the battlefield and those in the
military and VA hospitals across this country and the outpatient
clinics fighting a different kind of war, to help those who return
maintain a dignified quality of life for them and their families.
We will also assist veterans of wars past and demonstrate our
appreciation for their service by ensuring that their claims will be
processed in a timely fashion and that they have access to the range of
health care options available to them and every American.
Mr. Speaker, this ``New Direction'' Congress has pledged to put our
troops and veterans first. By restoring GI veterans education benefits,
improving veterans health care, rebuilding our military and
strengthening other benefits for our troops and military families, we
are working to keep our promises to our courageous and faithful men and
women in uniform. For too long, officials in Washington have neglected
our troops and veterans in a time of war. On the battlefield, the
military pledges to leave no soldier behind, and, as a nation, let it
be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
disgraceful rule. To illustrate just how bad this rule is, and to
provide some context, I'd like to discuss a few telling numbers. I'm
just going to throw these numbers out there for consideration: 12, 7, 4
and 9. That's 12, 7, 4 and 9.
These numbers are significant, and let me tell you why. The first
number is 12. The House has 12 appropriations bills that it must
consider in order to fund the Federal budget; 12 bills to consider in
order to responsibly exercise our constitutional power of the purse; 12
appropriations bills that cover the priorities that are first and
foremost in Americans' minds.
We've now reached the final week of July and the Democratic majority
has brought up its adjournment resolution. Traditionally, this is the
week when the House wraps up its versions of these 12 appropriations
bills, or at least a majority of them. The idea is to finalize or make
significant progress in our most important duty as legislators before
adjourning for a month of recess in August.
So now that we have arrived at the end of July, how many
appropriations bills remain for the House to consider? Twelve. Every
last one of them. Today we are considering our very first one of 12.
The Democratic Majority thought, what the heck, why not squeeze one in
before heading out of town. So, we're starting our job right about the
time we've traditionally tried to finish it.
And speaking of tradition, one of the longest-held traditions in this
body is the practice of considering all regular appropriations bills
under a completely open process. This is one of the few opportunities
in the House where all Members, majority and minority, have the
unfettered ability to offer any amendments they see fit. These
amendments are of course subject to points of order, and ultimately a
vote. But Members have had the opportunity to offer them and make their
case.
Which brings me to the second number on my list: the number 7. We
would have to go back 7 years to find any example of restrictions on a
general appropriations bill.
In 2001, the Rule providing for consideration of the Foreign
Operations bill had a pre-printing requirement. This restriction was
entirely unopposed. Not one voice of opposition was raised, and the
Rule passed by voice vote.
And what was the reason for this restriction? We had a very busy
week, in a very busy month, and we all agreed--Democrats and
Republicans--agreed to expedite the procedures. Considering we passed 9
of 13 appropriations bills prior to departing for August recess that
year, I suppose you could say the unopposed restrictions were
justified. Seven years passed before any restrictions were again
imposed.
Until today. Today the Democratic majority is apparently exhausted by
their efforts to name post office buildings and avoid meaningful action
to bring down energy costs. They are in such a rush to get out the door
for a 5-week recess that they insist on bringing up their very first
appropriations bill under a restricted Rule. They are denying Members
the ability to freely bring their amendments to the floor and have
their voices heard.
And to add an element of the absurd, they are actually calling this
an open rule. With straight faces, no less.
What's the reason for this closed process? I don't doubt expediency
plays a part. When you're rushing out the door, you prefer not to get
bogged down by open, substantive debate. But the full explanation lies
in what the Democratic majority hopes to avoid--any possibility that
Republicans will seek to offer energy-related amendments to the
underlying bill.
Which brings us to the third number on my list: the number 4.
Americans are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gas. The mutually
reinforcing trends of high gas prices and high food prices have
strained working Americans enormously. They know Government policies
bear much of the blame, and they rightly expect this Congress to do
something about it.
Republicans have tried every means possible to force this Democratic
majority to consider real solutions to our energy crisis. But we have
faced nothing but roadblocks.
And now, the Democratic majority is using every trick in the book to
get out of town without ever scheduling a meaningful vote. And on their
way out the door, they are trampling on the rights of Members to an
open and fair appropriations process.
And this brings us to the fourth and final number: the number 9. The
latest polls show Congress' approval rating at an abysmal 9 percent.
All but 9 percent of the American population thinks we are failing at
our job. Frankly, I'd like to know who this 9 percent is who supports
what we're doing. Under the Democratic majority, we are failing in our
duty to address Federal spending. We are failing in our duty to find a
workable and effective solution to the energy crisis we face. We are
failing in our duty to have open and honest debate on the challenges we
face. And just this afternoon, we had a vote on a resolution to
adjourn, despite all of these failures. Mr. Speaker, the numbers don't
lie. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1384 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6108) to provide for
exploration, development, and production activities for
mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for
other purposes. All points of order against the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided
and controlled by the majority and minority leader, and (2)
an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Mr.
Rahall of West Virginia or his designee, which shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress)

[[Page 17445]]

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about. what the House should
be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution ... [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in
which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 3370. An act to resolve pending claims against Libya by
United States nationals, and for other purposes.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative
days for Members to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4137.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4137, HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 1389, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R.
4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1389, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
July 30, 2008, at page 17093.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report
on H.R. 4137, which strengthens and reauthorizes the Higher Education
Act. In America, a college degree has always been the ticket to middle
class. More and more, our future depends upon our ability to produce
well-educated and skilled workers to take the jobs of the 21st century.
Over the past 2 years, this Congress has built a strong record of
working in a bipartisan way to make college more affordable and
accessible. Last year we enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access
Act, which provides for the single largest increase in Federal student
aid since the GI Bill.
But we also know that there is still work to do to ensure that the
doors of college are truly open to all qualified students who want to
attend. The last time the Higher Education Act was authorized was 1998.
In those 10 years that have passed, our world and our country have
changed, and so have the needs of college-going students.
Today's students face a number of challenges on their path to
college, from skyrocketing college tuition prices, to needlessly
complicated student aid and application processes, to the predatory
tactics of student lenders. This conference report will remove these
obstacles and reshape our higher education programs in the best
interests of students and families.
To address soaring costs, this legislation will increase the
transparency and the accountability of the tuition pricing system,
shining a bright light on the prices set by colleges and universities.
It requires the Department of Education to create new, user friendly
Web sites with helpful information on college prices and the factors
that are driving these tuition increases. Colleges with the largest
increases in tuition will be required to report their reasons for
raising those prices.
This bill will also ensure that States hold up their end of the
bargain in funding higher education by establishing for the first time
a maintenance-of-effort requirement on the States that receive Federal
funds through the student loan program. This means while we are putting
in money from the top from the Federal Government, the States will
hopefully stop taking that money out of the bottom and leaving families
and students who are borrowing loans to go to college no better off
than they were before these actions. This is a dramatic change from the
patterns of the past.
To better protect students while navigating the often murky world of
college loans, this bill restores trust and accountability to the
student loan programs by cleaning up the conflicts of interest between
the lenders and the colleges. All Federal and private student lenders
will be required to provide full and fair disclosure about the terms
and conditions of the loans they offer. And to help borrowers' reliance
on more expensive private loans, we will help ensure that students and
families first exhaust the less expensive Federal loan and aid options
before turning to private loans.
It will also help students manage their textbook costs. It provides
students and faculties with complete pricing information before each
semester so they can shop around for the most

[[Page 17446]]

affordable deals. For the first time, textbook publishers will be
required to offer less expensive versions of each expensive bundled
textbook they sell.
This bicameral compromise also simplifies the Federal student aid
application process and provides families with early estimates of their
expected financial aid packages to help them better plan for their
expenses a year ahead of the time.
In addition, H.R. 4137 will make Pell Grant scholarships available
year-round for the first time.
It strengthens the TRIO and the GEAR UP college readiness and support
programs that are critical to helping so many students stay in school
and graduate.
It expands funding for graduate programs at historically Black
colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and
predominantly Black institutions.
It increases college aid and support programs for veterans and
military families.
It ensures equal college opportunities and fair learning environments
for students with disabilities.
It makes colleges safer for the entire campus community.
It encourages colleges and universities to adopt energy efficient and
sustainable practices on their campuses.
I am confident that this legislation will improve the higher
education system and make it more affordable, fairer and easier to
navigate for students and families. Almost all of these students are
borrowing money. Time is money, and time is effort, and we need to make
this process more streamlined, fairer to families and fairer to
students.
None of this, I want to say, would be possible without the leadership
and the passion and the determination of Senator Ted Kennedy, and I
would like to thank him for that.

{time} 1315

Also, Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski stepped in
when Senator Kennedy became ill and did a magnificent job of
shepherding this bill and this conference report through the Senate.
I would also like to thank all the members of our committee for their
hard work. And I would especially like to recognize Congressmen Buck
McKeon, Ruben Hinojosa, and Ric Keller, and their staffs including Amy
Raaf Jones, Moira Lenehan, and Ricardo Martinez.
And, finally, I would like to thank my staff for their tireless
efforts on this reauthorization, including Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock,
Denise Forte, Stephanie Moore, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel,
Sharon Lewis, Margaret Young, Fred Jones, and Arman Rezaee.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it took us 5 long years to get here today on the cusp of
the first comprehensive renewal of Federal higher education programs in
a decade. I am here to tell you that sometimes what we say is true;
good things do come to those who wait.
I want to begin by thanking Chairman Miller, chairman of the full
committee, and Representatives Hinojosa and Keller, the chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee, for their strong efforts on this
product that we have here today.
The four of us have worked as equal partners in this endeavor, not
always agreeing, but never losing sight of our shared commitment to
making higher education in this country more accessible, affordable,
and accountable. Representative Castle has also been a close partner of
mine in the effort to reign in college costs, and I want to recognize
him for his commitment.
Of course, the House did not do this alone. Senator Kennedy and
Senator Enzi have worked equally hard, and I want to thank them and
recognize them for their efforts. Although Senator Kennedy was not able
to be here in Washington for our final conference meeting yesterday, he
has had a profound impact on the legislation, and he remains in our
thoughts. Senator Mikulski filled in for him and did a yeoman's job and
we want to thank her for her efforts.
We know how important higher education is, both to individuals and to
our Nation. A college degree can be a ticket to the middle class. It
helps individuals prepare for good jobs, and allows them to pursue new
skills in a changing economy. Higher education also has important
societal benefits. College education citizens are healthier, more
civically-minded, have lower unemployment rates, and use fewer
government benefits. An educated citizenry is also vital to maintaining
our competitive edge in a changing world.
Because higher education is so important, we have made it a priority
to ensure all Americans have access to a quality, affordable college
education. In addition to making close to $100 billion in financial aid
available to students, the Federal Government also spends billions of
dollars each year on aid to institutions, support for college access
programs, investments in research and development, and many other
avenues that support higher education.
Despite the considerable Federal investment, or perhaps, in part,
because of it, colleges and universities have increased tuition and
fees year in and year out. The increases have come in good economic
times and in bad, whether enrollments are surging or holding steady. It
seems the only thing consistent about college costs is that they are
going up, and going up rapidly.
With this bill, we hope to change that. Our principles for reform are
based on the idea that by giving good information to consumers, we can
empower them to exert influence on the marketplace. Through the power
of sunshine and transparency, we are lifting the veil on college costs
and holding institutions of higher learning accountable for their role
in the cost equation.
Those principles of sunshine and transparency are hallmarks of this
bill, and not just in the area of college costs. We are also letting
the sun shine in on college operations and quality through enhanced
institutional disclosure and a more transparent accreditation process.
There are numerous positive reforms in this bill, too many even for me
to name.
Of course, it is not a perfect bill. No bill is. I am particularly
concerned about the number of new programs created in the conference
report. Rather than trying to micromanage from Washington by creating a
brandnew program for every possible contingency, we should focus on
less red tape and greater local flexibility.
However, on the whole, this bill is an achievement of persistence and
commitment. It updates programs to meet the needs of students in the
21st century. It recognizes the value of for-profit institutions of
higher education. It promotes distance education, a mode of delivery
that becomes more important every day as gas prices force students to
limit their commuting to and from school. And, it uses the power of
sunshine and transparency to transform all aspects of our higher
education system. Above all else, this bill offers real solutions to
the college cost crisis.
I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their commitment to
this cause.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the Subcommittee on Higher Education Chair,
who has done a magnificent job in shepherding this bill to the floor.
Mr. HINOJOSA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for HR
4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
We are near the end of our long journey to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act. I would like to personally thank all of the members of
the conference committee, especially our leaders, Chairman Ted Kennedy,
Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Enzi, Chairman George Miller,
Representative Buck McKeon, and Representative Ric

[[Page 17447]]

Keller, for their commitment to producing a bipartisan, forward-looking
bill that will update our existing higher education programs and
address emerging needs.
I thank all the committee staff members in both the majority and
minority who worked with great commitment to getting the job done. They
had a mindset that told me that they didn't know it couldn't be done,
``and that is why we did it.''
In the Higher Education Opportunity Act, we are taking significant
steps to improve our student aid delivery system, ensure the integrity
of our student loan programs, and provide students and families with
the tools that they need to make informed choices about which college
to attend and how to finance it. These are complex issues, and on a
bipartisan, bicameral basis we have come together to offer some
practical solutions. We couldn't have done it if we had not worked
together.
I am particularly proud of the provisions that will help our veterans
and active duty military have full access to the education benefits
that are due to them. The provision to establish veterans' centers and
veteran student support teams on college campuses will help our
veterans get the full benefit of the GI bill expansion that we just
enacted.
Finally, I would like to highlight the great progress we have made in
strengthening minority serving institutions. After 10 years of waiting,
Hispanic serving institutions will have support for graduate programs
leading to masters and doctoral degrees. We are addressing the urgent
needs for teachers and college faculty with an emphasis on building the
capacity of minority serving institutions to meet this need. We will
leverage minority serving institutions to engage more youth in science
and technology. The Higher Education Opportunity Act represents real
progress for our communities.
In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for helping us
reach this point. I hope we can get this legislation, which measures
over one foot, with over 1,100 pages, to the President's desk as soon
as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for
H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
We are near the end of our long journey to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act. I would like to personally thank all of the members of
the conference committee--especially our leaders Chairman Kennedy,
Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Enzi, Chairman Miller, Representative
McKeon, and Representative Keller--for their commitment to producing a
bipartisan, forward-looking bill that will update our existing higher
education programs and address emerging needs.
This has been an enormous undertaking. The last reauthorization of
the Higher Education act took place during my first term in Congress
over 10 years ago.
We began this Congress with a series of hearings focused on the steps
we needed to take to improve access and affordability in higher
education and to position our Nation and our students too at the
leading edge of the global economy. We asked the higher education
community and all of our members to come forward with new ideas. This
bill reflects the creativity and innovation that makes a U.S. college
education sought after in all parts of the world.
Last fall, we enacted into law the largest increase in Federal
student aid since the GI bill with the College Cost Reduction Act.
In the Higher Education Opportunity Act, we are taking significant
steps to improve our student aid delivery system, ensure the integrity
of our student loan programs, and provide students and families with
the tools that they need to make informed choices about which college
to attend and how to finance it. These are complex issues, and on a
bipartisan, bicameral basis we have come together to offer some
practical solutions.
I am particularly proud of the provisions that will help our veterans
and active duty military have full access to the education benefits
that are due to them. The provision to establish veterans' centers and
veteran student support teams on college campuses will help our
veterans get the full benefits of the GI bill expansion that we just
enacted.
Finally, I would like to highlight the great progress we have made in
strengthening minority-serving institutions. With over 40 percent of
our public school children being racial or ethnic minorities and nearly
half of all minority students attending minority-serving institutions,
we are taking some very important steps in this legislation to build
our capacity in this critical area. After 10 years of waiting,
Hispanic-Serving Institutions will have support for graduate programs.
We built on the foundation that we established in the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act for Asian and Pacific Islander-serving
institutions, predominantly Black Colleges and Universities, tribally-
controlled colleges and universities, and Historically Black Colleges
and Universities. We are addressing the urgent need for teachers and
college faculty with an emphasis on building the capacity of minority-
serving institutions to meet this need. We will leverage minority-
serving institutions to engage more youth in the sciences and
technology. The Higher Education Opportunity Act represents real
progress for our communities
In closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for helping us
reach this point. I hope that we can get this legislation to the
President's desk as soon as possible.
Mr. McKEON. I yield now to the subcommittee ranking member, the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ric Keller, 4 minutes.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the House Higher Education
Subcommittee and a member of the conference committee, I rise today in
strong support of the bipartisan Higher Education Opportunity Act,
which is the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 10
years.
I support this legislation for three reasons.
First, it allows year-round Pell Grants for students who wish to
complete their education more quickly.
Second, it reduces the burdensome red tape on students and families
by providing a much shorter, simpler application for Federal student
financial aid.
And, third, it includes my legislation to curb wasteful spending by
closing a loophole that had allowed convicted child predators to
receive Federal financial aid to take college courses. I am going to
limit my remarks today to the wasteful spending issue.
It is a national embarrassment that we are wasting taxpayer dollars
for child molesters and rapists to take college courses, while hard-
working young people from lower and middle income families are flipping
hamburgers to pay for college.
I have been working to close this loophole for years, and today, the
most insane, wasteful spending program in America comes to an end. This
legislation ensures that taxpayer money for Pell Grants will go to low
and middle income students, not dangerous sexual predators. Let me give
you a real-life example.
James Sturtz is one of the most violent sexual predators in America
and he is currently locked up in a Wisconsin facility. He was convicted
and sent to prison for raping a 4-year-old girl. After being released
from prison, he raped a woman at knife-point and was sent to prison a
second time. After being released, he met a college student waiting for
a bus, persuaded her to get in his car, and then raped her at knife-
point. He was then sent back to prison for a third time; and after his
sentence ended in 2006 he was locked up in a civil confinement center,
to be held there indefinitely.
Sturtz and several other locked-up sexual predators decided to
exploit this civil confinement loophole and obtained thousands of
dollars in Federal Pell Grants to take college courses like algebra
through the mail. Then, Sturtz and two-thirds of the other inmates
dropped their classes and used our taxpayer money to buy blue jeans,
music CDs, movie DVDs, radios, television sets, and DVD players. Of
course, even if they hadn't dropped their classes, there is zero
evidence that violent sexual predators who take algebra and calculus
classes have lower recidivism rates.
How did this loophole happen in the first place? Prison inmates have
been ineligible for Pell Grants since 1994. In 20 States, including
Florida and Wisconsin, they wisely hold the most violent repeated
sexual predators indefinitely in civil confinement centers, after they
have served their regular prison sentence, because they are likely to
repeat their crimes if released back into society.

[[Page 17448]]

For example, in my home State of Florida, 54 violent sexual predators
obtained over $200,000 in Pell Grants at taxpayer expense in 1 year
alone. Similar expenditures in the other 20 States with civil
confinement means millions of dollars being wasted. Until now.
This was a team effort. I would like to especially thank Ranking
Member Buck McKeon, Chairman George Miller, as well as the other
members of the conference committee and our entire hard-working
professional staff members for working in a bipartisan spirit to
include this provision and so many other worthy provisions in this
legislation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize the
Higher Education Act and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4137.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R.
4137, the College Access and Affordability Act.
Higher education is not a luxury. It is a public good.
Today, we have an opportunity to expand college access, increase
student aid, and make institutions and lenders more accountable to the
students they serve.
I believe quality education is the foundation of our nation's ability
to compete in a global economy.
Unfortunately, the skyrocketing cost of college has created a
significant barrier for many students. It is unacceptable that in 2005,
the price of college was equal to 71.3 percent of household income for
the bottom fifth of the population.
I am especially pleased H.R. 4137 will incrementally increase the
maximum Pell award for students to $8,000 in 2014.
Two-thirds of four-year undergraduate students graduate with debt,
and the average student loan debt among graduating seniors is $19,237.
I am also grateful this conference report includes an amendment
offered by Representative Jim Moran and myself, to study how student
debt levels impact a graduate's decision to enter into a public service
career.
In the next ten years, 90 percent of our nation's federal executives
will be over the age of 50 and nearing retirement.
The study will include: an assessment of current recruiting and
retaining challenges; an evaluation of existing federal programs and
whether additional programs could increase recruitment rates;
recommendations for pilot programs that would increase recruitment
rates.
The time to recognize and encourage an increased commitment to public
service is now. According to the Higher Education Research Institute,
two-thirds of the 2005 freshman class at institutions of higher
education expressed a desire to serve others, the highest rate in a
generation. Furthermore, applications to Teach for America and City
Year have increased, and religious missions involving young Americans
have increased dramatically.
Congressman Moran and I have also introduced the Public Service
Academy Act, modeled after our existing military academies, to create
the first national civilian institution of higher education in the
United States. The public service academy would provide students a
competitive, federally subsidized, public service-driven undergraduate
education. In return for a 4-year liberal arts education, students
would be required to serve our country for 5 years in the public sector
after graduation.
The Public Service Academy would strengthen and protect the United
States by creating a corps of well-trained, highly-qualified civilian
leaders willing to devote themselves to leadership through patriotic
public service.
It is alarming to think, in this period of economic uncertainty, we
would be willing to provide anything less than the highest quality
education to citizens of our Nation.
Access to higher education is critical to maintaining our global
competitiveness.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady
from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I represent 100,000 college
students and eight colleges and universities in the San Diego region,
and obviously I am very interested in the provisions in the conference
report for College Opportunity and Affordability Act. And I am proud of
this agreement for many of the reasons that have been given, but I am
proud of it for these reasons also:
It makes servicemembers eligible for more financial aid. It stops
student loan interest from piling up when servicemembers are off
serving our country. And, it guarantees our men and women in uniform
will not use their academic standing when they return. And, also,
because it allows students to receive work study payments when they are
prevented from working by natural disasters such as we had with the
wildfires in the San Diego region.
I want to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman
Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi for their hard work. I urge the
adoption of this conference report.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just like to thank the
gentlewoman for all of her work on behalf of military families, making
sure that they did not pay an additional price for being in the
military and lose their eligibility, for her work on that amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I yield now to the gentleman from Wisconsin, our senior
member on the committee, Mr. Petri, 2 minutes.

{time} 1330

Mr. PETRI. I am happy to support the provisions in this conference
report that put in place a number of reforms that will improve access
to higher education, increase transparency in college costs, and
provide more accountability in the Federal student loan programs.
One of my top priorities over the years has been to ensure students
access to Federal aid and to provide greater budget responsibility to
taxpayers with regard to the management of Federal student aid funds.
This legislation incorporates several provisions aimed at protecting
students' financial interests.
Furthermore, I strongly support the sunshine measures that will
provide greater transparency about relationships between lenders and
schools. I am pleased that the conference report also retains the
language that I offered to provide greater fiscal accountability at the
Department of Education by requiring a Department of Justice review of
any settlement with lenders that exceeds $1 million.
The conference report also contains a critical first step toward the
implementation of my Income-Dependent Education Assistance Act which
would create a new direct consolidated loan for student borrowers that
would be pegged to their income after graduation and collected by the
IRS.
It also includes several provisions that Representative Grijalva and
I first proposed in the House that would establish a strong national
effort to improve the accessibility of instructional materials for
postsecondary students with visual impairments and other print
disabilities.
Though there is that much is positive in this conference report, I am
disappointed that we failed to adequately address the problems that
currently exist in the accreditation system. For many years I have
argued that accreditation fails to protect the public interest because
it is costly and intrusive and does not ensure educational quality. I
believe the reforms included in this bill will do little to improve the
system and may, in fact, have made it even worse.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues for working so hard over the
years to reauthorize these important higher education programs. I
support today's conference report and look forward to making further
improvements in the future.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who has been so helpful on this
legislation, both in teacher education and in community service and the
work study programs.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, from 2001 to 2006, the cost of higher
education exploded in this country. It went up 40 percent, destroying
the dreams of too many young people and damaging our economy. During
that time period, the Congress turned a deaf ear to that issue. The
Pell Grant program had been basically frozen, and the

[[Page 17449]]

interest rates for the Stafford Student Loan Program incredibly was
increased.
Last year, under Mr. Miller's leadership, we passed the College Cost
Reduction Act which addressed those two problems. This year we are
finally addressing a piece of legislation that was 5 years overdue, the
Higher Education Reauthorization Act which, as the prior speakers have
said, will do many good things in terms of holding colleges and
universities accountable for high costs, and also cleaning up unethical
lending practices which had cropped up, and many students, so desperate
to find access to money, fell victim to.
I urge support for this conference report which, again, has been long
overdue for 5 years, and applaud the leadership of Mr. Miller, Mr.
Kennedy and Mr. Hinojosa in leading the Congress in a new direction.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield now to the gentlelady
from Washington, a member of the committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 5
minutes.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, as someone who is still paying
off some student loans, I understand how difficult it is for parents
and students as they face dramatic increases in college costs. And as
the first in my family to the graduate from college, I know firsthand
the value and the importance of a good education. It truly is the
doorway to success, and is a critical piece to making America more
competitive in the global economy.
I am pleased how this bill does aim to improve America's
competitiveness. It seeks to make college more affordable, and it
cracks down on the fraudulent practice of ``diploma mills'' where
people manufacture fake diplomas.
Since being elected to Congress I have worked to improve America's
competitiveness, and I believe it is important that we are focusing
more on math and science education. And through the Mathematics and
Science Scholars Program, this legislation will refocus the program to
award graduate and postgraduate scholarships to U.S. students studying
math, science, engineering or computer science.
In addition, this bill incorporates an adjunct content specialist
program, which I think is very important to bringing the real world
experience into the classroom, and it provides grants to school
districts to recruit adjunct content specialists, these experts in
math, science and critical foreign languages.
I believe our education can be improved if we allow smart and
successful people like Bill Gates to spend time in the classroom.
Wouldn't it be great to have someone like Bill Gates in the classroom
helping inspire our high school students?
However, we are not simply seeing a shortage of engineers and
scientists. We also need welders, plumbers, auto mechanics, lab
technicians, doctors, nurses, pharmacy techs.
In my eastern Washington district, manufacturers turn away job
applicants because prospective employees don't have the math skills
needed for precision manufacturing. These are good paying jobs, on
average, $42,000 a year. And most of them come with good medical and
retirement benefits.
Along with increasing our competitiveness, the rising cost of college
must be addressed. We must increase support for loan and grant programs
that give students additional options and opportunities for post-high
school education. College tuition continues to dramatically increase,
clearly impacting students' ability to afford college.
Each year, approximately $9 million is disbursed to students in
Eastern Washington colleges and universities through the Perkins Loan
program, and I am pleased that the bill we are considering today
increases funding for Perkins loan programs.
I am also pleased that this bill opens wider the door for students
with intellectual disabilities. For the first time, these students will
be eligible for Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants and the Federal Work Study Program.
Today businesses are increasing more opportunities to employ people
with intellectual disabilities to become employed so that these
employees can earn higher wages, allowing them to realize their dreams
and become self-sufficient.
The conference report builds on the successful delivery of
educational services to these students made possible through the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
Finally, I am pleased we are working to eradicate the practice of
diploma mills. Provisions in this bill increase transparency to give
consumers more information and require the Secretary to continue her
efforts to further crack down on fraudulent diploma mills.
In Spokane, purchasers of these phony degrees from a local diploma
mill included at least 135 Federal Government employees. We need to
protect the integrity of our higher education system and the diplomas
so many of us have worked hard to earn.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts on this
important bill. We must do all we can to prepare our kids for the
opportunities life presents. If we equip them with a solid education
and the workforce skills, America will continue to lead in innovation
and excellence.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has been so helpful on this legislation
with respect to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the
TRIO program.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I
support the passage of the conference report.
I commend full Committee Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairman
Hinojosa, Ranking Members McKeon and Keller for their leadership on
this bill. I extend my deepest thanks to the chairman for his
commitment to enhancing minority education and for his steadfast
support on multiple issues that were especially important to me and to
institutions serving the black community.
I would be remiss if I did not thank the Education and Labor staff,
who so skillfully worked to establish the many wonderful programs that
will improve higher education for so many.
There are multiple provisions of this bill that will benefit Chicago
and other places throughout the country. I am especially pleased that
the bill strengthens minority-serving institutions, especially HBCUs
and Predominantly Black Institutions, or PBIs. I am very glad that the
bill strengthens the TRIO programs that serve first-generation low-
income students, and the prohibition on the Department of Education's
Absolute Priority within the Upward Bound program.
At this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman
Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, I
would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois
about section 725.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I concur completely with the
gentleman's understanding. The conferees intend that this
reauthorization is to strengthen the ability of both the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions to
develop masters professionals. For this reason, the conferees intend
that any appropriated funds be divided proportionately between the
sections 723 and 724.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the chairman of the committee for his
clarification and appreciate his and the conferees commitment to
writing the statute to promote unity among the higher education
community that serves mostly African American students.
It is an excellent bill. I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the passage of
the conference report for H.R. 4137, which authorizes the Higher
Education Opportunity Act. This bill reauthorizes the higher education
act for the first time in 10 years. I commend full-Committee Chairman
George Miller and sub-Committee Chairman Ruben Hinojosa for their
leadership on this bill. I extend my deepest thanks to the Chairman for
his commitment to enhancing minority education and for his steadfast
support on multiple issues that were especially important to me and to
institutions serving the

[[Page 17450]]

Black community. I would be remiss if I did not thank the Education and
Labor staff who so skillfully advocated to establish so many wonderful
programs that will improve higher education opportunities for so many.
There are multiple provisions of this bill that will benefit Chicago
and Illinois. To begin, this bill greatly expands access to higher
education for low-income and minority students. By increasing Pell
grants to $8,000, extending the grants to year-round, and allowing
part-time students to qualify for Pell grants, this bill will enable
many more of my constituents to attend college.
I am especially pleased that the bill authorizes programs for both
undergraduate and masters programs at Predominantly Black Institutions.
PBIs represent a growing cadre of four-year and two-year institutions
that serve as the access point for a growing number of urban and rural
Black students whose family and financial situations limit their
ability to gain access to college in many states. Many of these
students come from low-income families and are also ``first
generation'' college students, whose educational preparation for
college and family finances present special challenges to educational
success. PBIs are not eligible to receive funding under the HBCU
capacity-building funds given that PBIs were not established prior to
1964. The undergraduate PBI program will provide federal support to
strengthen the institutional capacity of schools to attract, retain,
and graduate their students. Chicago has many PBIs that provide high
quality education for many low-income, minority students, including:
Chicago State University, Malcolm X College, Harold Washington College,
Olive-Harvey College, Kennedy King College, East-West University,
Robert Morris College, and South Suburban College. In addition, the new
PBI masters program promotes the development of more Black masters-
level professionals in the science and health fields by providing
specific institutional support. For example, Chicago State University
will qualify for valuable aid to strengthen its masters programs in the
biological sciences and computer science as well as strengthen its
first professional program in pharmaceutical science. Together, these
new PBI programs will enhance the access for low-income African
American students to higher education.
I also am pleased that the bill strengthens both HBCU undergraduate
and graduate education. As a graduate of an HBCU, I am very familiar
with the benefits these institutions provide to low-income students.
The new masters program for HBCUs in Title VII fills a void in current
law. Title III, Part B includes institutional support for undergraduate
education at HBCUs, and Section 326 provides institutional support for
doctoral and first professional programs at HBCUs. The new Section 723
completes this continuum by supporting HBCUs with masters programs in
the fields of science and health as well as clarifies the congressional
intent that the existing Section 326 pertains to doctoral and first
professional programs.
Further, the bill strengthens the TRIO programs, which are key
supports for low-income, first-generation college students to prepare
and succeed in higher education. Importantly, the bill institutes an
appeals process when applicants have evidence of errors in the handling
or scoring of the applications. A number of Chicago institutions
unfortunately have had difficulties in the last few years with denial
of applications for suspect reasons and due to glitches with the
Grants.gov system. Having a procedure in place to allow due process for
these applicants is an important element to ensuring a fair application
process. Further, the bill prohibits the implementation of the absolute
priority that the Department imposed on the Upward Bound program,
forcing programs to dramatically alter the nature of the services
provided. I am happy that any future evaluations of Upward Bound will
exclude the cohorts of students chosen under this well-intentioned but
ill-conceived priority.
Chicago also has many for-profit institutions of higher education
that serve an important role in educating students. I am glad that the
Conference Report provides additional flexibility for these
institutions in terms of the 90/10 rule, including flexibility in the
types of revenue that count toward the 10 percent, the Departmental
response to violations of the rule, and exceeding loan limits as a
result of the enactment of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student
Loans Act. Further, I support the increased monitoring and reporting
requirements of for-profit institutions as a means to provide
transparency and safeguards for students.
I am happy that the bill emphasizes the need to support populations
that are underrepresented in higher education. One such population
about which I am particularly concerned is African American men. The
under-representation of minority males, especially African American
men, is a matter of public record that is reinforced by high drop-out
rates in urban and rural school districts, and lower participation/
enrollment rates of these groups in colleges and universities. The
American Council on Education's Minorities in Higher Education Annual
Reports have consistently documented these factors for almost two
decades. For example, although the enrollment of black men in higher
education increased between 2000 to 2001, less than 3 percent of black
men received a combination of associate's, bachelor's, or master's
degrees. Clearly, ensuring success of students in higher education
necessitates examining and promoting the success of minority males. To
this end, the Conference Report includes a study of minority male
access to and success in higher education that will provide key data to
lawmakers so that we can better tailor our policies to promote minority
men in higher education. The bill also encourages the involvement of
individuals--such as African American men--who are from populations
underrepresented in higher education in the TRIO programs, in teacher
residency programs, in teacher preparation courses at minority serving
institutions, and in loan forgiveness programs. These provisions will
help ensure that the higher education community better reflects the
diversity of our Nation.
Another population about which I am particularly concerned is
individuals in prison. After Congress barred prisoners from receiving
Pell grants in 1994, provision of postsecondary correctional education
dropped greatly. Multiple empirical studies demonstrate that
postsecondary correctional education improves the atmosphere in
prisons, increases successful reentry, increases employment after
release, and decreases criminal behavior. For example, studies show
that such education helps improve communication among staff and
inmates, develop positive peer role models, and reduce disciplinary
infractions. Further, multiple studies show that postsecondary
education saves taxpayers' money. In 2001, government analysts in
Maryland calculated that such programs saved state taxpayers more than
$24 million annually, more than two times what the state spent on such
programs. Given that the average annual cost of incarceration is more
than $22,000 per prisoner and that more than half of formerly-
incarcerated people return to prison with 3 years, providing higher
education within prisons promises to be a cost-effective investment of
taxpayer dollars.
Currently, only approximately 5 percent of the total prison
population is enrolled in postsecondary education. Current Federal
postsecondary correctional grants target youth, resulting in a great
need for such programs for adults. The Conference report expands higher
education opportunities for older students by extending the qualifying
age for such programs to 35 and by allowing up to 7 years to study
while in prison. These provisions will allow greater flexibility to
states to identify and serve individual inmates who are best able to
benefit from postsecondary correctional education. In addition, the
bill authorizes a study on the effectiveness of postsecondary
correctional education. This study will greatly advance our
understanding of what makes programs effective in educating individuals
and reducing post release offending.
Further, I am pleased that the bill takes steps to ease the
discrimination against low-income students with drug convictions. There
are multiple problems with a one-size-fits-all penalty based on
financial aid. It inappropriately uses the financial aid application
process to apply a mandatory minimum sentence above and beyond what the
judicial system has imposed for a restricted group of students. Also,
given that the penalty applies only to students receiving Federal aid
who must maintain a C average or higher, the current provision unfairly
denies aid only to low-income, high-performing students. The Conference
report makes it easier for students who lose aid to re-qualify for
Federal aid after it is removed. The report also requires an important
study of who is denied Federal aid so that lawmakers can better
understand whether this policy penalizes particular categories of
students compared to others. As the Committee on Education and Labor's
Report indicated, the study will examine the demographic background of
the students excluded from Federal aid by the drug prohibition as well
as the nature of the offenses underlying the exclusion. The variables
for study are clearly enumerated in the Committee Report.
In closing, there are many elements of this Conference report that
will help many low-income students to access and succeed in higher
education. I am proud to serve in the Congress that is making such a
considerable investment in our students so that all youth--especially
low-income, minority students--have access to quality postsecondary
education.

[[Page 17451]]

Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield now to the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), subcommittee ranking member on the committee and champion
of reducing college costs, 2 minutes.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will
see what I can do about college costs in 2 minutes.
I thank both the gentlemen from California for their tremendous work
on this legislation. I will submit a statement for the Record.
I am one who watched college costs go up even in the time I have been
in Congress at a rate that is higher than anything else in the country,
maybe not gasoline in the last year or two, but health care and all the
other things that we worry about so much.
And we have heard many Members come to the floor and speak about the
need to educate our children. I think every one of us here understands
that the future of our economy in this country depends upon these young
individuals being able to get access to higher education. And I believe
that this legislation, which I totally support, will at least help with
this.
We are now going to have more transparency than we did before. We are
going to have publication of lists of those schools which have had the
highest rate of increases in recent years, for example.
But we have also spoken to some of the areas such as student loans,
the Perkins Act and others, in which we are helping individuals get
more funding, or were controlling funding better than we did before. I
think that is extraordinarily important as well.
I hate to have borrowing. I love what some schools are doing now and
using their funds to help with the tuition issues. But the bottom line
is that some borrowing is going to be necessary.
I am very appreciative of some amendments that I was involved with,
the Teach for America program, to allow very bright young students in
this country that weren't necessarily going into education to be able
to teach for a while and hopefully, in some cases, stay in education. I
think that is an important step in terms of where we are going.
And I believe that the reauthorization, in general, is absolutely
essential if we are going to be able to move forward with respect to
education.
The transparency is significant. That alone won't change the cost of
higher education. I don't think we have the authority here to tell
private schools and even State public schools exactly how to do that.
But we certainly have the authority to pass good legislation such as
this in order for the public to be able to understand exactly what they
are dealing with.
For all these reasons, I would encourage all of us to support this
good legislation. Again, I thank all those staff individuals and, of
course, the Members that had anything to do with putting this together.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey) who, again, was so helpful in the
business partnership agreements.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have had an
opportunity in this bill to honor my friend and mentor, the late
Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who was a leader on guaranteeing equality for
all by creating Patsy T. Mink Fellowships.
While we have made great strides in providing educational
opportunities for women and minorities, far too few are becoming
college professors. The Mink Fellowships will be used to encourage
women and minorities to become professors in fields where they are
under-represented.
In addition to providing more diversity and opportunity in graduate
programs, we recognize the need for more opportunities to attain
certificates and degrees in high-wage, high-skilled jobs. This bill
helps colleges partner with local businesses to create ``for-credit''
classes focused on the skills and certificates needed for high-wage
jobs in the local community.
Also, many of our Nation's students enter college needing remedial
education classes. Far too many get stuck taking those classes, never
graduates. This bill fixes that. Let's pass it.
Mr. McKEON. Might I inquire how much time both sides have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon)
has 13 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has 17 minutes remaining.

{time} 1345

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) who's been a champion on
campus safety during this legislation.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
conference report to the Higher Education Opportunity Act, H.R. 4137.
First, let me start out by thanking Chairman Miller and Ranking
Member McKeon. I also want to thank the staff for their professionalism
and their courtesy and their work for getting this bill to where it is,
and my own staff, Kim Becknell and Phil Putter.
The passage of this bill will help millions of Americans make the
dream of a college education a reality. In particular, I'm proud to see
that many of my provisions are in the bill, including student loan
forgiveness for nursing students; incentives for nurses to become
instructors, helping to end our nursing shortage; tuition forgiveness
for teachers working in New York's BOCES schools; making career and
professional schools more affordable; expanding the availability of
guaranteed student loans or Stafford loans to more nursing and
professional schools; expanding the Graduate Assistance Areas of
National Need Program, and expanding Project GRAD U.S.A.; also
monitoring our Nation's most expensive schools' tuition rates and
offering students and families a tool for an education.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to the Higher
Education Opportunity Act, H.R. 4137.
Let me first start out by thanking the Chairman, Ranking Member, and
hardworking staff on the Committee on Education and Labor for their
efforts and professionalism in passing one of the most comprehensive
education bills in years.
The passage of this bill will help millions of Americans make the
dream of a college education a reality.
In particular, I am proud to see that many of my provisions are in
the bill including:
Student loan forgiveness for nursing students;
Incentives for nurses to become instructors, helping to end our
Nation's nursing shortage;
Tuition forgiveness for teachers working in New York's BOCES schools;
Making career and professional schools more affordable;
Expanding the availability of Guaranteed Student Loans or Stafford
Loans to more nursing and professional schools;
Ensuring that degrees earned from rabbinical schools will continue to
be recognized as the equivalent of bachelor's degrees;
Expanding the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program;
Expanding Project GRAD USA;
Monitoring our Nation's most expensive schools' tuition rates and
offering students and families a tool to estimate increased costs over
the course of a college education;
Studying the ability of teachers to meet the needs of students with
dyslexia.
I am especially pleased that the bill addresses the need for colleges
and universities to have policies in place to immediately warn their
campus communities when a serious crime or other emergency threatens
the safety of students or employees on campus.
These provisions are similar to those in my ``Virginia Tech Victims
Campus Emergency Response Policy and Notification Act'' or VTV Act,
H.R. 5735.
The tragic events of April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Tech,
reminded us that horrific incidents can happen anywhere and that we
must be prepared.
The addition of an emergency notification provision to the Jeanne
Clery Act will help ensure that students and employees are empowered
with information about potential significant threats to their safety
such as an unknown shooting suspect at large or an impending natural
disaster.
Because emergencies can escalate or spread quickly it is vital that
emergency notifications occur without any delay and these provisions
appropriately provide that warnings must occur ``immediately . . . upon
confirmation'' of a threat.

[[Page 17452]]

Minutes can mean the difference between life and death.
Using both high and low tech means, many institutions across the
country, including Florida Atlantic University, Ferrum College and
Northern Illinois University, have already adopted this approach and
are issuing campuswide emergency notifications in less than 30 minutes
after an incident has occurred.
These provisions will be a very fitting living memorial to the
innocent victims of April 16, 2007 and I applaud their family members
who have sought to have something positive come out of that dark day.
The Virginia Tech Victims Family group members have been tireless
advocates for safer campuses and their devotion has helped make these
provisions a reality. I would ask that the victims' names be included
at an appropriate place in the Record.
I would also like to thank Catherine Bath, Jonathan Kassa and S.
Daniel Carter of the nonprofit organization Security On Campus, Inc.,
SOC, for their leadership on and help with these issues. Founded in
1987 by Connie Clery and her late husband Howard after their daughter
Jeanne's murder in a campus residence hall, SOC continues to be the
Nation's leading voice for safer campuses and victims' rights on
campus.
To honor the memory of the lives that were lost as a result of the
incident at Virginia Tech, I humbly submit the following names in the
Congressional Record:
Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Christopher James Bishop, Brian Roy Bluhm,
Ryan Christopher Clark, Austin Michelle Cloyd, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak,
Kevin P. Granata, and Matthew Gregory Gwaltney.
Caitlin Millar Hammaren, Jeremy Michael Herbstritt, Rachael Elizabeth
Hill, Emily Jane Hilscher, Jarrett Lee Lane, Matthew Joseph La Porte,
Henry J. Lee, and Liviu Librescu.
G.V. Loganathan, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Lauren Ashley
McCain, Daniel Patrick O'Neil, Juan Ramon Ortiz-Ortiz, Minal Hiralal
Panchal, Daniel Alejandro Perez, and Erin Nicole Peterson.
Michael Steven Pohle, Jr., Julia Kathleen Pryde, Mary Karen Read,
Reema Joseph Samaha, Waleed Mohamed Shaalan, Leslie Geraldine Sherman,
Maxine Shelly Turner, and Nicole Regina White.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) who did groundbreaking work
and made such an effort to make sure the States meet the responsibility
for financing public higher education.
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McKeon. This
was a cooperative effort, a bipartisan effort for sure focusing on
access and affordability.
There's a partnership in education, higher education in particular,
between parents and children, entire families, levels of government at
both the State and Federal level, and the institutions. The families
for too long have seen their share of that partnership go up and up in
tuition and fees.
This Congress dealt with the reconciliation bill last year, putting
$20 billion additionally in for Pell Grants, reducing the cost of
loans. We needed to ask these institutions to step up to the plate, and
we've done that in this bill. They have incentives to keep their
tuition low and the incentives go to more aid to the students. They're
going to be held accountable by being required to report any reasons
for tuition increases.
States are going to have to maintain their investment in higher
education so they can't supplant their responsibilities with either the
money from the Federal Government or by charging students more in
tuition and fees. If they do, they won't get access to a program. So
they have that incentive to move forward.
We restore the integrity and accountability to the student loan
programs, we've provided loan forgiveness for people, and all of this
focuses, Mr. Speaker, on families and makes that partnership work.
I support the bill and ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and thank him for all of his work
on the foreign language partnerships and the creation of the deputy
assistant secretary.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the others in commending
Chairman Miller and Mr. McKeon and allow me to point out some of the
good provisions that are in this bill that I have worked on.
It allows Pell Grants to be used year round and by part-time
students. It empowers community colleges to provide childcare programs
so that working mothers can attend school. It has grants and loan
forgiveness for math, science, and foreign language students who pledge
to work in those areas after graduation.
As the chairman just said, it creates a deputy assistant secretary
for international and foreign language education. It directs the
Institute of Medicine to study the shortage of nursing faculty, which
is one of the principal reasons for the shortage of nurses in America.
It provides funding to institutions of higher education that
encourage science and engineering students to develop foreign language
proficiency. It creates a scholarship database of financial assistance
for post-secondary and graduate programs in science, technology, and
engineering.
There are many other good features in this bill, and I, again,
commend those who put it together. And I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and thank him for his work on
the business workforce partnerships and on the textbook rental program.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our efforts
to make college more affordable and accessible for American families. I
would like to take a moment to highlight four of the provisions I
included in this bill.
This bill encourages colleges and employers to join together to form
business workforce partnerships that will help graduating students find
jobs and provide local businesses the skilled workers they need. It
also provides grants to minority-serving institutions to help them
recruit and prepare the teachers of tomorrow and improve the diversity
of our Nation's workforce.
Additionally, my language added to this bill forgives the student
loans of veterans who are determined to be totally and permanently
disabled by the VA.
And finally, the conference report includes an amendment that I
offered along with Congressman Tim Ryan to establish textbook rental
programs to help students save money.
This conference report is a significant improvement to our higher
education system, and I am proud to have been a part of the conference
committee that reported this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield now to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee, for 3 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. I thank Ranking Member McKeon for his leadership and
yielding the time, and I also want to thank Chairman Miller for working
with us to develop a bipartisan bill.
You hear a lot about the controversies between the parties and the
partisanship, but here is a huge piece of legislation that we were able
to work through in a basically unanimous way between the House and even
the Senate.
I want to talk about a few amendments that I worked with. In fact,
there was controversy on each one of these things, but we were able to
come to reconciliation.
One is GEAR UP, which is widely supported, and my good friend, Chaka
Fattah, developed this concept. I was an original cosponsor. We moved
it with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, then a
Republican Congress with a Republican President sustained the program,
and now a Democratic Congress with a Republican President. But in that
we've made some significant changes that allow GEAR UP to put a 2-1
match for scholarship money because one of the intentions of this was
to get actual cash to help students get to college who were low-income,
and we wanted to give them a commitment in junior high that we will
back them up. And this will help balance that back more to cash to
those students.
It also allows them to work with the first year of college and to
connect with TRIO and others and not just get them there.

[[Page 17453]]

In the Drug-Free Student Loan provision, which has been much aligned
by pro-drug groups around the country, we've clarified the Department
of Education's confusion on how best to implement this plus added a
warning that the universities and colleges are to tell the students
that they're at risk of losing their loan if they're convicted of a
drug crime. They can get it back with a drug test. They can get it back
the third time. You can go to college but not at taxpayer expense.
We also had an amendment dealing with for-profits' cohort default
rates. One of the unintended consequences if you make it too difficult
for how many students don't graduate, that for-profit schools would
have stopped seeking minority, low-income students, or any subgroup
that shows any risk of more defaults of student loans. And we would
have had the unintended consequence if we didn't delay the
implementation of the 3-year averaging, which we also worked to get,
and I appreciate the chairman working with this because this is very
important in many of these for-profit technical schools or others that
are serving higher-need, less historically graduating percentages. Our
goal with GEAR UP, with TRIO, and others is to increase those
percentages, but you don't want to punish the colleges that reach out.
We also changed in distance education. We made it easier for
basically Internet universities or colleges and universities that use
that to get accreditation because if you choke the accreditation, you
will cut off the expansion and the accessibility. And this is very
important for many colleges and universities.
Lastly, I had an amendment in committee that was defeated, but
Senator Gregg proposed it in the Senate, and this is the Academic Bill
of Rights. I'm pleased that not only it passed the Senate but that the
House in effect receded to the Senate. This is something that David
Horowitz had advocated for many years, and I'm pleased this is in the
bill, too.
I want to thank Chairman Miller for his work and Ranking Member
McKeon.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and thank him for his work on the
Teach to Reach grants and the students success grants for community
college students.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and I want to thank you,
Chairman Miller, and the Senate committee chairs for drafting a bill
that will help millions of Americans go to college and graduate without
crippling debt.
I'm proud to have introduced a number of this bill's provisions that
will help to ensure every American has a world-class education. Our
Nation's teachers confront a multitude of challenges, and if we aren't
providing them with the tools to succeed, we're failing them and their
students.
This legislation authorizes grants to train general education
teachers to work with students who have autism and other disabilities.
A program to make sure educators learn the best techniques to help kids
read at grade level and student success grants that will help students
stay in college to complete their degrees and succeed in the workplace.
The revolutionizing Education Through Digital Investment Act will
better engage young students by greatly expanding the ways technology
is utilized in the classroom.
There is no greater way to impact the future of our country than by
ensuring that all of our children receive the highest quality
education. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this
critically important legislation.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time we have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from California
(Mr. McKeon) has 10 minutes. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I would be happy to yield at this time to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) for 3 minutes.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and
ranking member for the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, which
I'm here to offer my strong support, and I thank Chairman Miller and
Congressman McKeon for ensuring the language for my bill, H.R. 2220,
the Mental Health Security for America's Families in Education Act, was
included in the legislation.
This language directs the Secretary of Education to clarify how and
when schools can communicate with the parent if a student demonstrates
that they pose a significant risk of suicide, homicide, or assault.
Schools acting in good faith by communicating with parents would also
be protected from liability.
The current Family Education Rights and Privacy Act passed in 1974
was originally passed to protect the confidentiality of student
records. However, it's a confusing array of regulations meant to notify
parents but often stands in the way as schools are more prone to call
an attorney to get clarification than they are to call parents.
As a child psychologist, I understand the importance of
confidentiality, but there are times that it may be in the best
interest of the student to inform those who can provide the necessary
help to protect them and others. Parents are in the best position to
help students suffering from mental illness by providing emotional
support medical history, coordinating care with various mental health
professionals, and long-term follow up. Parents will be around long
after the school is gone.
Behind a law like this there are stories of beautiful lives
tragically stopped in their youth. Children like Stephanie Cady from
North Franklin Township who was a junior at Elizabethtown College until
she withdrew for medical reasons. According to her parents, she was
struggling with depression and paranoia during her sophomore year. Her
friends persuaded her to get help, but her parents were never told that
she was taking medication until just this past Christmas.
Unfortunately, the right combination of help from her parents and
therapists came too late and, sadly, she took her own life in April of
2008.
In 2002, Charles Mahoney from Burgettstown took his own life while in
school at Allegheny College in Pennsylvania.
And since the passing of their children, the Mahoneys and the Cadys
have advocated for change to existing laws so the parents can help
before it is too late.
Families know the privacy laws that prevent schools from sharing
information with parents have to be changed so the parents can get
involved to help with the children that they love. Our shared hope is
that through the important change of law, their actions will prevent
other parents from suffering the same losses, and their children's
lives can be remembered at least in saving the lives of others.
This bill we are dealing with today is taking an important step in
saving those lives, and I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking
Member McKeon for their support of this critically important and life-
saving provision that will prevent other tragedies like this and
Virginia Tech happening again in the future.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and I want to thank him for his
work on the cohort default rate and on the year-round Pell Grant.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Chairman Miller, for your work on this very,
very important piece of legislation, the first time in a decade
Congress is going to pass a Higher Education Act. I'm happy to support
this long past-due improvement to higher education.
This legislation is about inclusion and not exclusion. The bill
simplifies the means by which students and families can research
colleges, apply for help, and gather information to aid in the
important decisions we all must make.

{time} 1400

It expands access and support for poor students and students of color

[[Page 17454]]

through changes to Pell Grants and improvements to TRIO and GEAR UP,
additional support for students who have with disabilities, additional
support for veterans and their families.
This piece of legislation is a hallmark of the work of this Congress
and this session. I'm proud to be on the committee and proud to serve
in the development of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time in a decade, Congress will
pass a higher education act, and I am happy to support the long past-
due improvements to higher education that will be put into effect by
the passage of this bill.
This Higher Education Opportunity Act demonstrates a commitment by
this Congress to inclusion. The bill simplifies the means by which
students and families can research colleges, apply for student aid and
gather information to aid in the important decision making process.
It expands access and support for poor students and students of color
through changes to Pell Grants and improvements to TRIO and GEAR UP,
making college accessible to first-generation students and those who
are most likely to be expensed out of college.
It offers expanded support for veterans and their families to honor
their continued sacrifice by creating new scholarships and by
establishing education support centers and other services to aid in
access to education.
It establishes more opportunities for students with disabilities to
gain equal access to college by offering national centers of support,
aiding colleges in recruitment and retention of students with
disabilities, and expands Pell Grant eligibility. Additionally, one of
my priorities will create model demonstration programs to improve the
access to quality materials for students with print disabilities. It
will also create a commission to consider ways to better distribute
these materials.
The rising cost of a college education means that students now more
than ever must be informed about their decisions as they relate to
living expenses and borrowing for education. This bill will add a
number of mechanisms to aid students in making these choices, including
a provision I worked hard to add that will improve the way cohort
default rates are calculated. These changes, though more modest than I
had hoped, will encourage schools and lenders to provide better
financial literacy to guide students with post-college debt.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act marks a significant improvement
in our national commitment to inclusive access to higher education and
expresses our continued efforts to make college more affordable and
accessible.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and thank her for all
her work on the TRIO program. It is so important to get kids to college
and to stay in college.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the conference
report on H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I am a proud
cosponsor of this legislation; and I thank Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member McKeon, and the conferees.
I want to highlight two achievements of particular importance to my
constituents.
The first is a provision that broadens the discretion afforded to
school financial aid administrators. It allows them to take into
account expenses incurred by families who are caring for an adult
dependent when calculating a student's financial aid package. This
sounds like a minor technical change, but it is not.
A constituent of mine shared a very personal story about her family's
struggle to make ends meet while caring for their eldest child, who is
a disabled adult, and also trying to send their youngest to college. In
determining whether this family qualified for financial aid, an
administrator could not take this situation into consideration. With
the provision included in this bill, they now can.
We have also taken great steps in this legislation to ensure the
continued success of the Upward Bound Program. This program plays a
very important role in my district helping first generation and low-
income high school students achieve their dreams of a college
education. These programs have faced challenges over the past year. I
am proud we have been able to resolve these issues.
We have simplified the FAFSA form and done many other steps. I thank
you for your efforts.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. How much time is remaining, might I
inquire of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield at this time to my
good friend from across the aisle, a former member of the committee,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), 1 minute.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you.
In 1997, when we created GEAR UP in this legislation, it was an idea.
Today, after 10 years, some 2 million young people later, it stands as
the largest early college awareness program in our country's history,
operating in 48 States and in many of our territories. It has been an
extraordinary success. Eighty-five percent of the young people
graduated from high school, 64 percent going on to college.
I want to thank Chairman Miller and the ranking member, Buck McKeon,
Ruben Hinojosa and Mark Souder and the committee for tweaking GEAR UP
in a very positive way, taking the language from the GEAR UP and Go Act
that I introduced, adding a seventh year to focus on that entry into
college and retention issues and also allowing dual and concurrent
enrollment, along with a number of anti-dropout prevention efforts at
the community college and high school level.
I want to thank the committee. This is a great bill overall, and GEAR
UP is wonderful. But the increase in Pell, the simplification of the
FAFSA form, there is a lot that could be said. This is a historic piece
of legislation, and I thank you for the time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), and I want to thank him for his
work on dislocated workers and on the rural communities.
Mr. HARE. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the College
Opportunity and Affordability Act conference report.
The conference report includes the College and University Rural
Education Act, which I introduced with Representatives Loebsack and
Zack Space. This measure will stop the brain drain and create
opportunities in rural America by increasing enrollment of rural high
school graduates in institutions of higher education; creating
employment pipelines; and providing training for professions of need in
rural areas.
Today's bill also includes a provision I developed with Mr. Loebsack
to prepare individuals to serve as administrators and principals in
rural areas. School leadership is key to student achievement, and rural
America experiences a huge deficit in this area.
I included a measure to help dislocated workers by informing them of
their right to an alternative income calculation when applying for
financial aid. This will ensure that workers who lost their jobs have
access to retraining opportunities.
This conference report builds upon the work we started in the College
Cost Reduction Act. I commend Ranking Member McKeon and my chairman,
Chairman Miller, and urge all my colleagues to support the conference
report.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and thank him for all of his work
on the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and on the modeling
and simulation program.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and commend
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Hinojosa, and Ranking
Member Keller for their hard work on this bill.
This bill contains many important provisions that will make college
more affordable for our students, particularly the Pell Grant and loan
forgiveness provisions.
It also has many provisions helpful to institutions of higher
learning, especially Historically Black Colleges and Universities which
have been funded

[[Page 17455]]

for new master's programs at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions.
It also, as the Chairman has indicated, has a new program to help the
rapidly growing field of modeling and simulation.
Mr. Speaker, there is new language in the bill dealing with the
accreditation of colleges, and it is important to explicitly note that
this new language does not adversely affect or change anti-
discrimination provisions.
The bill also contains a direction to the Department of Education to
reword the financial aid application to make it clear that students can
get financial aid, even if they have a drug offense.
We have worked long and hard on this bill, and for the foregoing
reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, it has been ten years since the Higher Education Act has
been reauthorized and I am pleased that we will now make many needed
updates to this law. I would like to commend Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member McKeon, Chairman Hinojosa, and Ranking Member Keller for their
work on this bill. I would also like to thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee,
Senators Kennedy and Enzi. Additionally, I would like to express my
gratitude to Senator Mikulski for all her efforts in Senator Kennedy's
absence. I would also like to thank the House and Senate Committees'
staff; we could not have reached this point without your hard work and
dedication.
This bill contains many important provisions that will help make a
college education more affordable for student and their families. I am
particularly pleased with the increase in the authorization of the Pell
grant and the loan forgiveness provision that will aid students who
give back to their community if they enter a profession in an area of
national need, including mental health professionals and child welfare
workers.
The legislation also specifically assists minority students in
several ways. For example, it contains a provision to promote cultural
diversity in the entertainment media industry. It will also require
that a study be conducted on whether race, ethnicity, or gender biases
exist in the design of standardized admission tests used by higher
education institutions. The information collected for the study is
intended to be made available to the public--except in cases where the
entity providing the information shows good cause or in the case where
the information is proprietary--so that if such biases are found we can
work to correct them.
The bill requires the Department of Education to conform hate crime
reporting requirements to FBI guidelines to more accurately report
incidents of hate crimes on our campuses. This will result in
consistent and accurate reporting of crimes against persons and crimes
against property. In addition, improved data will give parents and
students a more accurate sense of campus safety and education
institutions a better picture of their campus climate.
The legislation also contains many provisions helpful to institutions
of higher education. The Secretary will now be required to develop and
maintain a plan to help schools cope with natural and man-made
disasters. The bill also creates an Education Disaster and Emergency
Relief Loan Program to provide emergency loan funds to schools after a
federal declared major disaster or emergency, including those schools
affected by the 2005 Gulf Hurricanes. Additionally, the bill includes a
provision which significantly helps schools affected by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita by holding them harmless for purposes of Title III
funding.
This bill also does a great deal to help the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities. The authorization levels for HBCUs have been
increased to $375 million dollars, which is almost three times the
amount that is in the current Higher Education Act. The amount for the
Historically Black Graduate Institutions program has significantly
increased as well. The bill also provides funding for Masters programs
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly Black
Institutions that focus on science, technology, engineering,
mathematics, health and other fields in which Blacks are
underrepresented.
The legislation strengthens and develops college-level programs in
the rapidly growing field of Modeling and Simulation. This is a field
of study that refers to replicating a system on a smaller scale or on a
computer for extensive examination. There is not a single field of
study or profession that cannot benefit from this type of analysis
including urban planning, medicine and national security.
This legislation includes several positive changes to the TRIO
programs, which provide assistance to low-income and first generation
college-going students. The bill eliminates the Absolute Priority
conditions imposed on Upward Bound programs by the Department of
Education without requiring a recompetition. In addition, the bill
creates an appeals process for TRIO programs to ensure that the
grantmaking process is as fair and transparent as possible.
Mr. Speaker, there is a clarification that I feel must be made with
regard to new language added to an existing accreditation provision.
Current law requires that accrediting agencies or associations apply
and enforce their standards in a manner that respects the missions of
institutions of higher education. This bill states that respecting
missions of institutions of higher education includes religious
missions. It is important to explicitly note what is and is not
intended by the new language. Pursuant to the House Report filed by the
House Committee on Education and Labor on December 19, 2007 (H. Rept.
110-500, Part I), it is important to make clear that this new language
does not affect or change nondiscrimination provisions. The House
Report states in relevant part:
``The new language requiring accrediting agencies or associations to
apply and enforce their standards in a manner that respects the
missions of institutions of higher education, including religious
missions, reflects Congress' belief that accredited institutions should
be allowed to choose their own missions rather than having them imposed
or regulated by accrediting bodies. In response to concerns raised by
Representatives Robert C. Scott (D-VA) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) about
whether the amendment would harm the ability of accreditors to enforce
nondiscrimination provisions, the author of the amendment,
Representative Timothy Walberg (R-MI), explained that the provision
would not affect nondiscrimination provisions and instead would require
accreditors to respect the missions of schools, including when the
missions are religious.
``It is the intent of the Committee that this amendment does not
change or alter current accreditation requirements, and the exemptions
included in those requirements (such as those allowed by the American
Bar Association and the American Psychological Association), for the
enforcement of nondiscrimination provisions. The Committee also notes
that this provision does not alter title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 or other federal
antidiscrimination statutes, which remain applicable to institutions of
higher education to the same extent as before. The Department of
Education shall not promulgate any regulations that provide any new
exceptions to current nondiscrimination provisions.
``It is also the intent of the Committee that this amendment does not
change or alter current accreditation requirements, and the exemptions
included in those requirements, for training professionals in the
practice of medicine and other health care professions.''
Similarly, the Senate report that accompanies S. 1642 (the companion
bill to H.R. 4137) filed by the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions on November 15, 2007 (Report No. 110-231) confirms
this position. The Senate report states in relevant part:
``Accrediting agencies or associations recognized by the Department
of Education are invested with a public trust and perform an important
public function. Congress expects that those receiving Department
recognition will perform those functions with the same diligence and
competence as would be provided by any public body and that their
procedures will be conducted with the same level of transparency, due
process, and accountability that would apply to the Department if it
performed this function itself.
``The new language requiring accrediting agencies or associations to
apply and enforce their standards in a manner that respects the
missions of institutions of higher education, including religious
missions, reflects these goals. It is not intended to allow an
institution to deny a person participation in, the benefits of, or to
subject a person to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance under existing laws, including
those with respect to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
or disability; or because the person has not complied with a standard
of the institution that requires the person to discriminate on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or
disability.''
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight a provision included in
the Statement of Managers to the Conference which I feel is extremely
important. Currently, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA) is written in a way that misleads many students to believe that
if they have been convicted of a

[[Page 17456]]

drug offense, they do not qualify for financial aid. In the Statement
of Managers, Conferees encourage the Department to reword the FAFSA to
more accurately reflect the ways in which students who have been
convicted of drug offenses can obtain financial aid.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked long and hard for a comprehensive,
bipartisan bill. While not perfect, I believe this bill goes a long way
towards making college more affordable for students and their families
and towards helping our institutions and higher education provide a
quality education to our nation's youth. For the foregoing reasons, I
support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act is truly a bipartisan
achievement, reflecting major priorities of both parties, as you can
see from the debate. In recognition of that fact, I would like to take
just a moment to touch on some of the reforms that Members on our side
of the aisle were able to secure in this bill.
This bill includes meaningful steps to address the college cost
crisis. I have been fighting this battle for years, and the steps in
this bill are a victory for students and their families.
We have ensured that this bill increases accountability through the
power of sunshine and transparency. H.R. 4137 will put quality
information in the hands of students and parents to help them make more
informed decisions when choosing their path for obtaining a higher
education.
This conference report protects student privacy by prohibiting the
development of a Federal unit record system. Republicans believe
students should not be forced to relinquish their privacy just because
they wish to pursue post-secondary education.
This bill includes numerous reforms to strengthen Pell Grants for
low-income students. The bill now prohibits Pell Grants from being
provided to sex offenders that remain involuntarily confined by closing
a loophole that allowed these individuals, deemed so dangerous that
they cannot be released after completing their incarceration, to
receive taxpayer-funded Pell Grants to pursue higher education. The
bill also includes a sensible funding limitation to protect taxpayers
and ensure students are making progress toward completing their
degrees.
This conference report also includes a proposal to make transfer of
credit policies public so students can plan ahead and avoid wasting
time and money. It encourages States to develop and improve
articulation agreements to make credit transfer easier among
institutions within a State and across State lines.
Republicans have worked with our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle for years to make it easier to apply for financial aid. Thanks to
that effort, this legislation will create a shorter EZ-FAFSA form and
make financial aid information available to students earlier in the
college planning process.
Several committee members championed new efforts to ensure our higher
education system can help meet our growing international competitive
challenges. Specifically, the bill includes provisions to help increase
the number of math, science, and foreign language teachers and
professionals.
Republicans believe students should not be discriminated against on
college campuses because of their political or ideological views, and
that's why we fought to ensure the college conference would include an
Academic Bill of Rights.
The bill also protects local control and prevents Federal meddling in
curricula in programs under the Higher Education Act, including teacher
training programs and within academic competitiveness grants.
Finally, in a time of war, we all recognize that our higher education
system must be flexible enough to meet the unique needs of student-
soldiers. The bill includes numerous proposals to improve higher
education opportunities for members of the Armed Forces, including
changes to allow greater participation in TRIO college access programs
and improvements to the way financial aid is calculated for military
personnel.
The bill also creates a Web site to make it easier for veterans and
members of the military to find information on financial aid
opportunities available to them, and it requires States to provide in-
state tuition rates to members of the military, their spouses, and
their dependent children.
These are just a few of the many reforms that were important to
members of the committee during this process. I want to thank Chairman
Miller again for working with me to ensure this bill is truly
bipartisan, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes on
this bill that contains so many important provisions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House,
families across America and students everywhere, it is a pleasure to
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, who revolutionized and
changed and simplified the student loan application form for all of
America's families and students from this day forward, Mr. Emanuel.
Mr. EMANUEL. When I was campaigning, I met a firefighter, Pat Kehoe,
who told me about the night before he and his wife were trying to fill
out the form for their only child to go to college. He talked about it
was 108 questions, how complicated it was.
So I went and personally checked it. Go to page 8 and complete the
columns on the left of worksheets A, B, and C. Enter the student, and
spouse, totals in questions 44, 45, and 46 respectively.
Worksheet B, first of 12 items: Payments to tax-deferred pension and
savings plans, including, but not limited to, amounts reported on the
W-2 form in boxes 12a through 12d, codes D, E, F, G, H, and S.
If you can fill this out, forget college; go to graduate school. This
is the most complicated form out there, for kids just trying to go to
college.
This new legislation is going to take that 108 questions, those eight
pages, take it down to two pages, 44 questions, and take it from
bureaucratize language down to consumer-friendly language.
It's high time that parents who were trying to make sure that their
kids had a shot at the American Dream don't have the government
stepping in the way and preventing that.
I want to thank the chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional
30 seconds.
Mr. EMANUEL. This legislation goes from protecting colleges to
empowering college students, and this Congress will be remembered
because of the chairman being the most friendly to college students and
those families, for going to $20 billion in additional aid to kids to
go to college, for the GI Bill which is new, and now this legislation.
And I thank the chairman for his work, as well as the ranking member,
for making sure that families across America who are trying to send
their kids to college no longer have to jump through hoops every year
filling out a form that was more friendly to the bureaucracy than it
was to their family and their children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I want to thank him for his
work on the sustainability program and creating a summit on
sustainability in colleges and universities.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this measure and for the hard work that the chairman and
the ranking member have done. This is truly a landmark reauthorization.
We're all pleased to see it come forward.
The major challenge of this century is literally the future of the
planet, global warming, sustainable development in a water-stressed,
energy short, carbon-constrained world.
To help us cope, this higher education reauthorization incorporates
the provision of our Higher Education Sustainability Act. Inspired by
the late Debbie Murdock from Portland State University, it will fund
programs in our colleges and universities for research, for training of
students, for sustainability practices on campus.
It also does direct the Secretary of Education to convene a
sustainability

[[Page 17457]]

summit to be able to showcase all these best practices.
One of the things that I am pleased about as I travel around the
country, is looking at the environmental progress on our campuses. This
legislation will help accelerate that vital process, and I deeply
appreciate what the committee has done.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and thank him for his work on the real-time
writers program.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a 10-year member of the Education and Labor
Committee, I'm very proud of the product that the chairman and the
ranking member and members of the committee have produced in this
Congress today. It's the most important investment that this country is
going to make in the future of our Nation for many years to come, but
I'm especially grateful for the inclusion of the real-time court
reporter scholarship program.
The court reporters are the guardians of our public record, and not
too many of my colleagues realize that with the Telecom Act, we
mandated closed captioning for every television program in the United
States. But because of the shortage of court reporters, we're having a
hard time filling our courtrooms and meeting closed captioning
services.

{time} 1415

So I'm glad they included it; I commend them for the job they've
done; and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Speaker as to
the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has
2 minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
For years, Republicans have fought on behalf of students and families
to make college more affordable. Now our cause is bipartisan, and our
vision for reform is the centerpiece of a comprehensive Higher
Education Act reauthorization.
For students and families grappling with rising college costs, this
bill establishes college affordability comparison tools to help put
cost increases into perspective. Students will be able to search, sort,
and compare key cost indicators for every school in the country. We
will identify institutions that are the most costly, the least costly,
and those with the fastest rising costs. And for schools engaging in a
pattern of extraordinarily high cost increases, we demand greater
disclosure and concrete steps to identify inefficiencies and fix them.
This legislation reflects Republican principles for reform, including
financial aid simplification, protection of student privacy, safeguards
for taxpayer dollars, an emphasis on competitiveness, and many more
positive reforms.
Before I close, I want to recognize the staff on both sides of the
aisle for their hard work. I want to thank Amy Jones, in particular,
for her tireless efforts. Amy has carried this bill now through two
Congresses, and we couldn't have done it without her.
I also want to recognize Susan Ross and Rob Borden on my staff, along
with my staff director, Sally Stroup.
I'd also like to recognize Chairman Miller's staff--and I'm trying to
learn their names--including Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff
Appel; great people, and they've worked hard and worked well together.
Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't perfect, but it will make a real
difference to students and families struggling to pay for college. I
encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes to send this
bill to the President for his signature.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, and members of the committee, I'm very proud of this
legislation. I'm very proud of the members of my committee on both
sides of the aisle. This legislation doesn't just belong to this
committee at this time or to the majority party just at this time, this
legislation has been worked on by many people on both sides of the
aisle.
When the Republicans were in the majority and Mr. McKeon was the
subcommittee chair, he pushed hard for this legislation. And Mr. Kildee
has spent many years on our committee working on behalf of higher
education. And Mr. Hinojosa authored legislation, along with Mr.
McKeon, that made it through the House in the last session.
Why has that been true? Why is this legislation so broadly supported?
Because we all understand the importance of a well-educated American
population, and we all understand the urgency of this moment. At no
time in our history has America needed a better educated population
than it needs today.
And we understand the importance of a college education and what it
means to America's families, what it means to young people as they
start out in their careers, as they start out their families, and their
ability to provide for themselves and go to jobs that are interesting,
that work for them, that make sense for them, and yet be able to have
the skills so they can continue in the American economic system. This
legislation does all of those things.
This legislation helps to make college more affordable. It certainly
helps to make it more accessible. And it has done that because of the
agreements that we have reached on both sides of the aisle. Mr. McKeon
has pushed long and hard for increases in the Pell Grants, long and
hard for accountability in this system, and long and hard to make sure
that the cost of college, that we have greater transparency, that we
understand it better, that parents would be able to decipher, that
students would be able to decipher and understand it. This legislation
improves this act with respect to all of those provisions of the law.
I tried to recognize the contributions made by each Member on our
side of the aisle and the programs that they worked on to increase
access to college for so many populations that haven't been given the
full opportunity in the past that will be able to take advantage of
that opportunity.
And finally, this legislation makes it more affordable for many
students. It's in combination with what we did in the reconciliation
bill, where we provided $20 billion in new resources for students by
cutting the interest rates, by providing forgiveness for loans, by
increasing the Pell Grants, and providing real-time tuition assistance
for those who want to go into teaching.
This is an important piece of legislation; it's important to the
Congress, it's important to our Nation, it's important to families and
students who struggle mightily to figure out how they can finance an
education.
I think this is a big step in assuring that every qualified student
should be able to afford college. They may have to borrow some money,
but it's well worth that if they can achieve a college education. And I
think it's going to make a major contribution to strengthening the
American economy.
This is a moment in time legislation and authorization of the Higher
Education Act. But for over 45 years, there has been a fixed star in
increasing the opportunity for young people to go to college and
increasing the wherewithal for families and students to afford a
college education, and that was the Senator from Massachusetts, who,
unfortunately, is not able to be with us as we pass this conference
report today in the House and in the Senate, but he is with us in great
spirit. He called the other day to congratulate us with great
enthusiasm. He wasn't convinced we were actually going to get it done,
and he said he was quite excited that we did. And he was looking
forward to the passage of this legislation.
He has been a moving force for opportunity at all levels of society.
But he, first and foremost, has understood the opportunity that
education provides. Whether it's early childhood education, preschool
education, elementary, secondary education, community colleges, 4-year
colleges, graduate schools, Senator Ted Kennedy has been a champion

[[Page 17458]]

of making sure that those doors are open to everybody in this society.
And this legislation, I think, honors that commitment that Senator
Kennedy has had for so many years as he has continued to sit on the
Education Committee in the United States Senate and pound out this
legislation that is so important to America's families, to America's
students, and to America's economy.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I thanked
them earlier, but I want to thank all the members of the committee on
both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership
on this issue, and certainly to all of the staff for their help. And
happy birthday to Joe Novotny.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on the conference
report for H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I want to
thank my dear friend Senator Kennedy for all of his hard work on this
bill.
Like our fuel and food, college tuition prices continue to rise,
making a college degree unaffordable for many of our constituents. If
Congress is serious about helping our country through this economic
downturn, we must provide our young people with the tools and resources
to be successful now and in an increasingly global economy.
Back home in Michigan, we are facing higher and higher unemployment
rates. Many are forced to look to a new career field after a plant
closes, and others are simply having a hard time transferring the
skills they learned from their previous career to a new one. I want to
do everything I can to help the citizens of Michigan's 15th
Congressional District through this tough time and I believe that
access to a college education is one way to do so.
Many of you have probably heard from constituents who have had
trouble navigating the federal student aid program or difficulty
filling out the extensive application forms. The last thing we want is
to discourage anyone from attending college merely because they find
the federal aid process confusing or overwhelming.
H.R. 4137 proposes to streamline the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) in order to make it easier for students and their
families to navigate. This will be done by cutting the number of
questions of the FAFSA form in half and allowing applicants to save
their information rather than re-filing a new form each year. It will
also allow students and their families to determine their Expected
Family Contribution and their federal student aid package prior to
college so that families can plan accordingly.
For those of us with children and grandchildren, we all know how
expensive a college education can be. Back home in Michigan, over
143,000 students take out need-based loans each year. While this bill
will not cover the cost of a college education, it will help to make
the costs a little more manageable by increasing the value of the Pell
grant. H.R. 4137 will increase the maximum Pell grant increase from the
current level of $5,800 to $8,000 by the 2014 school year. More
importantly, this bill will allow students access to Pell grants year
round, ensuring that students who are going to school part-time will
have access to this aid.
For those many students who do rely on student loans to pay for
school, this legislation will ensure that lenders are serving the best
interests of our students. This will be done by requiring higher
education institutions and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct and
ban all gifts and revenue sharing agreements between institutions and
lenders. Lenders will now also be required to provide students with
full and fair information about their loans before they sign on the
dotted line, as well as be informed by the lenders of all borrowing
options available to them when taking out and repaying loans.
This legislation will increase aid to our veterans and military
personnel. The veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have served our
country honorably and it is our duty to ensure that they have access to
a college education should they desire to return to school. I know
colleges across the country have seen increases in the enrollment of
veterans; however, many do not have the resources to give the veterans
the support they need. This is frankly unacceptable and this
legislation will help correct this problem.
H.R. 4137 will create a scholarship program that could award up to
$5,000 for veterans, their spouses, or their children enrolled in
college. It will also create support centers on college campuses
designed to coordinate services and assist veterans with enrollment and
completion of their degrees. More importantly, H.R. 4137 will ensure
that veterans are not penalized by their financial contributions to
their GI benefits in the financial aid process.
This bill will reward students who enter public service fields in
areas of high-need by establishing a $10,000 loan forgiveness program
for individuals who study to become nurses; early childhood educators;
librarians; teachers; school counselors; public sector employees;
medical specialists; among other career fields.
Mr. Speaker, as the federal representative of a number of great
universities and colleges in my district, I want to ensure that my
constituents are able to take advantage of the education these fine
institutions provide. However, with Michigan's economy struggling, many
students are forced to forego college altogether in favor of working to
support their families and pay their bills. Over the August district
work period I look forward to going home to these constituents and
telling them that a college education can still be an option. I want to
tell them that Congress is willing to increase federal aid for
students. I want to tell them that Congress is going to make the
federal aid application process simpler and easier for them. And at the
end of the day, I want to tell my constituents that H.R. 4137 was
signed into law. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation, let us all show our constituents that access to a college
education is a top priority for Congress.
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference
Report accompanying H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
This legislation will complete a long-overdue reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act, bringing the promise of opportunity to countless
young Americans. I commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon
for their work on this critical legislation.
In particular, I wish to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
McKeon for including in this conference report provisions from
legislation I introduced, H.R. 4139, the College and University Rural
Education Act. This legislation will help to foster new opportunities
and a higher quality of life for residents of rural America.
The provisions that I mention authorize grants to rural serving
institutions to improve access to higher education in rural America,
and also to create employment pipelines that benefit the community.
These grants can be used by rural-serving institutions to collaborate
with regional school districts to improve access to higher education
for high school graduates in rural America, where participation lags.
Additionally, these grants can be used to create other outreach
programs that will bring more nontraditional students back into the
classroom.
These grants can also be used to create new employment pipelines for
professions of need in the region. By providing support for the
development of new training programs for high-need occupations, as well
as opportunities for students to attain professional development in
these occupations, this legislation goes a long way towards improving
the quality of life in rural America.
Again, I wish to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for all their
hard work on this crucial legislation. I also want to thank Congressmen
Hare and Loebsack for their original cosponsorship for the legislation
and support throughout the process. Finally, I want to offer my thanks
to all the staff on the Committee for their tireless efforts to improve
opportunities for residents of rural areas.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Conference Report on H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act,
which will reauthorize the Higher Education Act through Fiscal Year
2012. This is the first time in almost a decade that this bill has been
reauthorized, and I am proud to be part of a Congress that has placed
such a high priority on making college a reality for all of our
Nation's students. This bill builds on legislation that passed last
year to help lower college costs and boost federal loan support for our
students. Given the state of our economy, it is imperative that we
invest in our education system to promote new employment and ensure
that today's students can adapt to the jobs of tomorrow.
Two of the main goals of the Higher Education Opportunity Act are to
make a college education accessible to all students and to lower
college costs for those students and their families. I am pIeased that
this bill increases the maximum amount of Pell Grants, which help 5.5
million low-income and minority students attend college, from $5,800 to
$8,000 by the 2014 academic year. This meaure also boosts funding for
the TRIO program and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP), which provide college readiness and
support for low-income and first-generation students. H.R. 4137 ensures
equal college opportunities for

[[Page 17459]]

students with disabilities by creating the National Center for
Information and Technical Support to improve college recruitment,
retention, and completion of students with disabilities, and would also
expand eligibility for Pell Grants for students with intellectual
disabilities.
H.R. 4137 also establishes a user-friendly website to provide
students and families with helpful information about college pricing,
and will streamline the cumbersome filing process for Free Application
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Families will now be able to receive
estimates of their expected contribution and the amount of financial
aid they may receive. H.R. 4137 requires higher education institutions
and student loan providers to give borrowers fair and full information
on their loan terms and repayment options, as well as promote financial
literacy and education for students and families.
One of the goals of the 110th Congress is to create a new generation
of innovators so that we continue to build an educated, skilled
workforce in the vital areas of science, math, engineering and
information technology. To maintain our international competitiveness
and economic advantage in the coming years, our Nation must invest more
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education.
That is why I am pleased that H.R. 4137 includes many new initiatives
and increases STEM funding. These new programs include grants for
colleges and universities to provide incentives for students in STEM
majors to teach in these academic areas; the YES Partnership Grant
Program, which provides funding to eligible colleges to support
minority youth engagement in STEM fields through outreach and hands-on
experiential learning; and the Robert C. Byrd Mathematics and Science
Honors Scholarship Program, which focuses on encouraging students to
earn degrees in math and science.
H.R. 4137 increases college aid and support for our veterans and
military families by requiring colleges and universities to treat
students returning from military service as continuously enrolled
students and preventing active duty servicemembers from accruing
interest on student loans for the duration of their activation. The
measure also encourages those students who commit to a job in high-need
areas and public service for at least five years by establishing a
$10,000 loan forgiveness program for nurses, early childhood educators,
foreign language specialists, child welfare workers, school counselors,
public sector employees, medical specialists, and mental health
professionals. This measure further addresses the shortage of nursing
faculty by establishing competitive grants to fund scholarships for
nurses studying for advanced degrees with the intention of becoming
faculty.
In recent years, our country's college and university campuses have
seen terrible tragedies. H.R. 4137 will boost campus safety by helping
all colleges develop and implement state of the art emergency systems
and campus safety plans, and will also create a National Center for
Campus Safety at the Department of Justice. Administrators and students
on campuses across the country have also pushed for environmental, or
``green,'' initiatives, and this measure supports these efforts by
providing funding for environmental sustainability programs.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4137 shows that Congress is committed to the
success of our students, and we will work to make sure that they can
pursue their dreams without the burdens of unnecessary costs and debt.
While we may find ourselves facing hard economic decisions, we must
empower the next generation with the necessary tools and invest in
their education. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act will set
a blueprint for the future, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote
for this bill.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference agreement. This is the first time in ten years that we will
reauthorize the Higher Education Act, landmark legislation that has
strengthened our colleges and universities and made the dream of higher
education possible for countless Americans. I commend the bipartisan,
bicameral work of Education and Labor Chairman George Miller and
Ranking Member Buck McKeon, and Senators Kennedy, Mikulski and Enzi who
crafted this compromise, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support
of it.
Our Nation's competitiveness depends on a vigorous college and
university system and on ample opportunities for Americans to pursue
their educational goals. As the first member of my family to graduate
from college, I know firsthand that affordable access to higher
education is the key to the American Dream for working families. H.R.
4137 is an important step to make sure our schools remain strong and
that students from all walks of life can go to college.
H.R. 4137 keeps costs down for students and provides additional
support through Pell Grants and education loans. It strengthens
successful college-readiness initiatives and bolsters cooperation
between school districts and teacher-preparation faculties. It improves
access to emergency notification services for students. And it makes
the process of applying to and planning for school easier: streamlining
the federal student financial aid application; creating the ``College
Navigator'' to provide cost and aid data to prospective students; and
ensuring professors and students know the costs of course textbooks
before the semester starts.
I am pleased that this bill includes support for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities in my district and across North Carolina,
recognizing schools that have added master's degree programs with a new
source of grant funding. It also provides new funding for Predominately
Black Institutions. These schools, which include Fayetteville State
University, Shaw University and North Carolina Wesleyan in my
Congressional district, have an important ongoing role in improving
educational opportunities for African Americans. I am also pleased that
the conference agreement recognizes the situation of military families,
like so many families of soldiers at North Carolina's Fort Bragg, who
move frequently or are deployed abroad. H.R. 4137 requires states to
offer in-state tuition rates to soldiers and their dependents when the
soldier is deployed for more than 30 days. We must not allow service to
our country to prevent the education of a soldier or his or her family.
Mr. Speaker, education is the key to better lives and a brighter
future for individuals and our Nation. H.R. 4137 improves educational
opportunities for all Americans. I am pleased to support this
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially recognize the good work
of GEAR UP students and staff in Philadelphia. Tens of thousands of
Philadelphia high school students have been fortunate enough to benefit
from GEAR UP, either directly as participants in the State or
partnership grants we have been awarded, or indirectly as recipients of
the CORE Philly scholarship program which was jump started by GEAR UP.
I am proud that Philadelphia has received one of the greatest
investments from this exemplary program.
Beyond just the direct benefits of GEAR UP, Philadelphia's students
are being raised in communities that are increasingly focused on
college and greater opportunities for the next generation. Although not
surprising, it is encouraging to learn that when adults (whether
teachers, support staff or parents) commit to preparing their students
for college, high school graduation rates shoot through the roof. Our
students are ready, willing and able to meet the challenges of this new
century and the next, we need only prepare and support them.
In Philadelphia we are seeing renewed attention brought to the
challenge of abysmal high school graduation rates. I have every
confidence that as the educational leaders of our city contemplate
strategies to reengage disconnected students and catch those at risk of
falling through the cracks, they will look to the national and local
successes of GEAR UP.
In the past 10 years, GEAR UP has served millions of students across
the country. I look forward to advocating on behalf of the millions
more who will benefit in the future and the opportunity to expand this
program to even more communities.
Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues and
their staff who created this ambitious document. The Higher Education
Opportunity Act paves the way for a renewed commitment to the future
success of our children and the prosperity of our Nation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act. I thank the Conferees for their work on this
issue, and especially commend Chairmen Miller and Kennedy, Ranking
Members McKeon and Enzi, and Senator Mikulski for their efforts in
bringing this bipartisan legislation to the Floor today.
Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of new jobs require some post-secondary
education. But paying for college can be a real challenge for many
students and their families. In order to maintain America's competitive
advantage, spur economic development, and fulfill the potential of our
Nation's students, we must make college affordability and accessibility
a priority.
This Congress has responded to that challenge. Beginning last year
with the largest increase in student assistance since the G.I. Bill, we
have worked to open the door to college for our Nation's best and
brightest. And today, we continue that commitment.
The bill increases the maximum Pell grant again to $6,000 for 2009
and $8,000 for 2014.

[[Page 17460]]

It also allows for year-round Pell grants to give students more options
and allow them to complete their degrees earlier.
It furthers our ambitious Competitiveness Agenda by creating programs
to recruit new science and technology teachers and collaborate with the
business community to improve science, technology, engineering, math,
and foreign language education. These important provisions will help
ensure American innovation in the competitive global economy.
The Conference Report before us today aims to provide more
transparency and clarity in the financial aid process by simplifying
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, creating a user-friendly
website to centralize information about schools and costs, and ensuring
that students and parents get easy-to-understand information about the
terms and conditions of Federal and private loans. It also includes
provisions to require schools and lenders to adopt strict codes of
conduct to avoid conflicts of interest and protect students from
aggressive lending practices.
Finally, the Conference Report includes provisions from the Teach for
America Act, a bill I introduced with Mr. Castle, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Regula, and Mr. Sarbanes. These provisions will allow Teach for America
to expand its reach and put more qualified and enthusiastic teachers in
our Nation's classrooms.
Mr. Speaker, today's bill will increase transparency, simplify the
financial aid process, and make higher education more affordable. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it today.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4137, the
Higher Education Opportunity Act. I want to thank my colleagues on the
Education and Labor Committee and in the Senate for their commitment to
this important piece of legislation. While this reauthorization is long
overdue, I believe this compromise bill will provide millions of our
nation's students with increased access to higher education.
This bipartisan bill will help provide families with critical
information about the cost of college and student financial aid
programs. By helping families better understand the true financial
costs of higher education and how they can apply for student aid,
families will be better able to make informed choices about their
student's education.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act truly an investment in education
at all levels. To provide all of our children with a high quality
education that will better prepare them for success in school and in
life we must ensure that there is a qualified, caring, competent
teacher in every classroom, particularly in the early years. This bill
makes great progress toward this goal by expanding student loan
forgiveness and professional development programs that will help
recruit, prepare, and retain teachers in the field of early education.
This bill will also provide more low-income and minority students
with support to prepare for and successfully attend college. I am
particularly pleased to see provisions in this reauthorization that
provide much-needed resources to Native Hawaiian-serving institutions
for programs to help Native Hawaiians meet the demands of careers in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues from both chambers for their
tireless efforts in advancing this significant legislation. In
particular, I would like to recognize Senator Ted Kennedy for his
leadership and for his years of dedication to improving access to high
quality education for all of our students.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Higher Education
Opportunity Act.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference
report on the Higher Education Opportunity Act. As a conferee on this
bill, I am very pleased that we have a final bill before us. I want to
thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for all their hard work
on this bill, and I especially thank them for including provisions that
are very important to people in Michigan.
Higher education is vitally important for students entering the
workforce and for the global competitiveness of this country. This bill
will ensure students have better access to higher education, and that
they have received a high quality educational experience when they
receive their degree. Now that a college degree is the bare minimum
requirement for so many jobs, the need for better access is stronger
than ever.
Let me comment on some specific provisions in the bill.
In 2007, Representative Blumenauer and I joined together to introduce
the Higher Education Sustainability Act (H.R. 3637). I commend
Representative Blumenauer for his leadership in ``greening'' colleges
and universities, and I am grateful that he allowed me to partner with
him on an issue that is so dear to my heart. I am very pleased that
provisions of our bill have been included in the conference report,
especially now when energy prices and shortages are on everyone's mind.
Simply put, sustainability is meeting the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs. As population growth, urban development and growing
energy use place stress on our ecosystem, it is imperative that we
develop innovative and successful sustainable operations and programs.
Colleges and universities are in a unique position to foster new
knowledge, evaluate policies and discover new technologies to address
sustainability. Sustainable operations and programs on university
campuses include water and energy conservation, recycling, and academic
programs such as engineering courses that encourage innovative product
designs, e.g., alternative fuels for cars, other new energy sources,
and new types of packaging that use fewer natural materials.
The conference report contains two key sustainability provisions.
First, it convenes a Summit on Sustainability with higher education
experts working in the area of sustainable operations and programs. The
Federal Government and university and business leaders are encouraged
to identify best practices in sustainability by promoting current
efforts, enhancing research and identifying opportunities for
partnerships to expand sustainable operations and academic programs.
Also, it authorizes the Sustainability Grant Program. The Secretary of
Education, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, is authorized to award grants to colleges and
universities to establish sustainability research programs, such as
developing new alternative energy sources. It also allows schools to
implement sustainability practices on campus.
The conference report also contains an important study of distance
education. It requires the Secretary of Education to contract with the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a scientifically valid study of the quality of distance
education, as compared to traditional, campus-based education. With so
many students using distance education and a huge Federal investment in
helping students attend college, it is critical that we effectively
evaluate new modes of instruction to ensure that our students are
receiving a topnotch education.
Finally, the conference report contains an array of provisions
related to science, technology, engineering and math, collectively
``STEM'', education. Notably, it includes the National STEM Database to
allow students with an interest in the STEM fields to more easily find
financial aid. Also, it authorizes important loan forgiveness for
college graduates pursuing careers in the STEM fields, and it
authorizes the Mathematics and Science Scholars Program to award
scholarships to students pursuing STEM majors. Now, more than ever, we
must increase the size of our STEM workforce to maintain our
competitiveness and national security.
In closing, I support this conference report since it helps students
and makes many overdue improvements to the Higher Education Act. I urge
all Members to vote in support of it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Miller and
Mr. McKeon for producing a strong piece of legislation. The Higher
Education Opportunity Act does what the name suggests. It expands
affordability and access to college education for the broadest range of
Americans. It expands Pell Grants, the basis of financial aid, and I'm
pleased to say it allows Pell Grants to be used year round and for
certificate programs and part-time students, something I have been
working on for a long time.
This Act will help bring transparency and accountability to student
loan programs by requiring institutions of higher education and lenders
to adopt strict codes of conduct, and protects students from aggressive
marketing practices by lenders. It will provide students with full
information about their borrowing options when taking out loans, and
help promote financial literacy for students and their parents.
This legislation will help streamline the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, and encourage the Department of Education
to coordinate with the IRS to use information that the Government
already has. It as well expands the access for low-income families to
student aid with an easy to use two-page FAFSA-EZ form. Additionally,
the bill strengthens the TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness programs
for first-generation and low-income students.
One of the complaints I hear most from students and their parents is
about the ever-increasing cost of college textbooks. This bill will
help make textbook costs more manageable

[[Page 17461]]

by ensuring students know the price of textbooks in advance so they can
plan for the expense. And it requires colleges and faculty members to
have access to the textbook costs when making selections for their
courses.
The bill also builds on our work to restore the full benefits of the
GI Bill to our Nation's veterans, by creating a new scholarship program
for active duty military personnel and family members. It also
establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college and
ensures fairness for veterans in student aid decisions.
I am pleased that this bill will help colleges recruit, retain, and
graduate students with disabilities. The legislation will also help
colleges improve their facilities and educational materials for these
students. Further, it will establish a national center to provide
support services and best practices to colleges to best serve students
with disabilities and their families.
The legislation also responds to the tragedy at Virginia Tech by
helping colleges to develop and implement state-of-the-art emergency
systems and campus safety plans. Following a recommendation from
college campus safety directors, the bill creates a National Center for
Campus Safety to work in collaboration with the COPS program.
The bill also contains provisions, which I wrote into the measure, to
strengthen our workforce and our Nation's competitiveness.
The bill would implement my initiative to provide loan forgiveness
for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math) employees who work
in those fields. My initiative also establishes a loan forgiveness
program for foreign language specialists who work as teachers or
Government employees.
The legislation creates a Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International and Foreign Language Education in the Department of
Education. Based on legislation that I wrote, the executive-level
officer would provide leadership in directing efforts aimed at
international and foreign language education.
The measure establishes a program that I championed, the Science and
Technology Advanced Foreign Language Grants program, to award funding
to institutions of higher education to create programs that encourage
students to develop foreign language proficiency as well as science and
technological knowledge.
Based on my work, the bill develops the Mathematics & Science
Scholars Program to grants and loan forgiveness to math and science
students who commit to 5 consecutive years of service in a math or
science field after graduation.
Included in the bill is my legislation to establish a National STEM
Database to provide students with information on financial assistance
for postsecondary and graduate programs in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. This important database will help capable
students who are interested in STEM careers find scholarships to
support their studies.
I am pleased that the measure includes the ``Preparing Teachers for
Digital Age Learners'' program to help teacher candidates effectively
integrate technology in the classroom. The program, which I advocated
for, would work with teaching candidates on how they can bring modern
digital tools in the classroom.
Additionally, the bill incorporates my legislation, the Nursing
School Capacity Act, which requires the Institute of Medicine to
explore the constraints that the Nation's schools of nursing face and
propose short and long term solutions to address the nursing crisis.
Finally, based on my efforts the bill improves The ``Child Care
Access Means Parents in Schools'' Program to empower small and
community colleges to provide child care to working mothers so they can
attend school.
Each of these provisions and the many more contained in the final Act
will have positive impacts on our Nation and I am pleased that they
soon will be implemented into law.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting the conference report will be followed by 5-
minute votes on approving the Journal, if ordered; ordering the
previous question on H. Res. 1388; adopting H. Res. 1388, if ordered;
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1384; and adopting H. Res.
1384, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 380,
nays 49, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 544]

YEAS--380

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
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
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

[[Page 17462]]

NAYS--49

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Paul
Pence
Poe
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Tancredo
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland

NOT VOTING--5

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Hulshof
Lipinski
Young (AK)

{time} 1452

Messrs. AKIN, LINDER and WESTMORELAND changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Messrs. BONNER, BACHUS, POMEROY and ROGERS of Alabama
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the
unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal, which the Chair will put de novo.
The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 203, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 545]

AYES--223

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--203

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Edwards (TX)
Honda
Hulshof
Lipinski
Smith (TX)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1502

So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________

QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. RANGEL. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a point of
personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been made aware of a valid
basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I promise you, this will not take anywhere
near 1 hour.
I was advised last night and assured this morning that the minority
intended to bring up a resolution recommending that I be censured or
that my conduct as reported in The New York Times would be declared
that I was a discredit to this House.
There is no one in this House that is more thick-skinned than I am in
terms of playing politics, but playing with someone's reputation,
especially someone that has felt so honored to serve in this House, I
really think goes a step beyond that.
In reading the allegations as to where my campaign headquarters was
located or what the rent should have been, I have never felt more
secure that I violated no law and no spirit of the law. But in order to
make certain, to make certain that there is no cloud

[[Page 17463]]

over my conduct in New York, I asked the Ethics Committee to look into
it, to investigate, to do whatever is necessary to bring this to the
House and to bring it to my family and friends.
In addition to that, the same newspaper reported that I was overly
aggressive in trying to raise funds in order to encourage moneys to go
to a local college that encouraged minorities and others to get
involved in public service. And even though there was no request for
money, the mere fact that there was a cloud involved in the accusation
by the newspapers, even though there have been more newspaper articles
correcting it than anything else, I referred that to the Ethics
Committee.
Showing that I do want this to be sincerely investigated, I am asking
the minority to allow me to join in with them in this resolution to say
this matter should be cleared up. But there is no need, even for mean-
spirited people in the minority, to say that I am a discredit to the
United States Congress, based on a newspaper story, and, worse than
that, there is no reason why Republicans or Democrats should do this to
each other based on any newspaper story.
So, I don't know the parliamentary inquiry, and, as most of you
suspected, most of my friends say, Rangel, the less you say the better,
get out of the headlines, and do all of these things. And this is
normally what I recommend to newer Members: just leave it alone, it
will go away. But my reputation won't, and I could not really
appreciate if this body was to resolve that I bring dishonor to this
wonderful House and this wonderful country, or that I be censured.
So I make an appeal to the minority; let me join in with you with the
request. Let me say if there is any doubt about anything, I would feel
better if it went to the Ethics Committee. I have requested that it go
to the Ethics Committee. Let us join in. But with not one scintilla of
any evidence, other than a newspaper story, I think fairness would say,
for God's sake, don't make politics out of a person's reputation.
Strike out ``discredit,'' strike out ``censure,'' and put in there
whatever the heck the Ethics Committee recommends. I join with them. I
ask you to consider that.
I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 1396

Whereas the representative from New York, Charles B.
Rangel, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, a position of considerable power and influence
within the House of Representatives;
Whereas clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides that ``A Member, Delegate, Resident
Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct
himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect
creditably on the House.'';
Whereas the New York Times reported on July 11, 2008 that,
``While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-
stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B.
Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent
units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a
building owned by one of New York's premier real estate
developers.'';
Whereas the New York Times newspaper reported on July 11,
2008, that Rep. Rangel, ``paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly
in 2007 for four apartments at Lennox Terrace, a 1,700-unit
luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is
described in real estate publications as Harlem's most
prestigious address.'';
Whereas the New York Times newspaper reported on July 11,
2008, that ``The current market-rate rent for similar
apartments in Mr. Rangel's building would total $7,465 to
$8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the
Olnick Organization.'';
Whereas clause 5(a)(2)(A) of rule XXV of the Rules of the
House defines a gift as, ``a gratuity, favor, discount,
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item
having monetary value.'';
Whereas clause 5 of rule XXV provides that a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of
the House may not knowingly accept a gift in violation of
that clause;
Whereas the New York Times newspaper reported on July 18,
2008, ``Mr. Rangel acknowledged that his use of one of the
apartments as a campaign office `presents an issue,' given
that city and state guidelines require rentstabilized
apartments to be used as a primary residence. ;
Whereas section 2520.11(k) of the Rent Stabilization Code
of the State of New York prohibits the application of rent
stabilization to ``housing accommodations which are not
occupied by the tenant, not including subtenants or
occupants, as his or her primary residence as determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction.'';
Whereas in each of the years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, the
campaign committee of the representative from New York,
Representative Rangel, known as ``Rangel for Congress'' and
by Federal Election Commission Identification Number
C00302422, made disbursements to the Lennox Terrace
Development Association for payment of office rent;
Whereas Olnick Organization, Inc. owns the Lennox Terrace
Development;
Whereas according to the State of New York, Department of
State, Division of Corporations, the Olnick Organization,
Inc., owner of Representative Rangel's apartments, is an
active domestic business corporation;
Whereas section 441b(a) of title 2, United States Code,
states that ``it is unlawful for any national bank, or any
corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to
make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any
election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to
select candidates for any political office, or for any
corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a
contribution or expenditure in connection with any election
at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a
Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in
connection with any primary election or political convention
or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing
offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other
person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution
prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of
any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any
labor organization to consent to any contribution or
expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor
organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this
section.'';
Whereas Federal Election Commission records confirm that in
2004 Representative Rangel received $2,000 in campaign
contributions from Sylvia Olnick, an owner of Olnick
Organization, Inc. the company that owns his apartment
building, and that Representative Rangel's separate political
action committee also received $2,500 donations from Ms.
Olnick in 2004 and 2006;
Whereas the New York Times newspaper reported on July 11,
2008, ``City records show that in 2005, a lobbyist for the
Olnick Organization met with Mr. Rangel and Mr. Paterson, who
was then the State Senate minority leader, as the company set
out to win government approvals of a plan to expand Lenox
Terrace and build another apartment complex in the Bronx.'';
Whereas Representative Rangel's acceptance of more than one
rent-controlled apartment for his personal use is a violation
of the House gift ban;
Whereas Representative Rangel's failure to disclose the
aforementioned gifts on his annual Personal Financial
Disclosure statements is a violation of House rules;
Whereas the acceptance by Representative Rangel's campaign
of illegal corporate contributions from the Olnick
Organization, Inc. violates Federal law;
Whereas the failure by Representative Rangel's campaign to
disclose certain contributions from the Olnick Organization,
Inc. violates Federal law: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That----
(1) by the conduct giving rise to this resolution the
representative from New York, Representative Charles B.
Rangel, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the
House and merits the censure of the House for same; and,
(2) the representative from New York, Mr. Rangel, is hereby
so censured.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of
privilege.

Motion to Table

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on
the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes
on ordering the previous question on H.

[[Page 17464]]

Res. 1388; adopting H. Res. 1388, if ordered; ordering the previous
question on H. Res. 1384; and adopting H. Res. 1384, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254,
noes 138, answered ``present'' 34, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 546]

AYES--254

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--138

Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--34

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bonner
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Doyle
Emerson
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Kline (MN)
Lewis (KY)
McCaul (TX)
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Roybal-Allard
Smith (NJ)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cubin
Hulshof
Kilpatrick
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Saxton
Young (AK)

{time} 1534

Mr. McKEON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. POE, BURTON of Indiana, ROGERS of Kentucky, AKIN, ADERHOLT,
WELDON of Florida, LEWIS of Kentucky, CAMP of Michigan and Mrs. EMERSON
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1338, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1388, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 191, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 547]

YEAS--232

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher

[[Page 17465]]

Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--191

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cleaver
Cubin
Hulshof
Johnson, E. B.
Lipinski
Rush
Weldon (FL)
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

{time} 1545

Messrs. SMITH of New Jersey and SAXTON changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 194, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 548]

YEAS--229

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Childers
Cubin
Edwards (TX)
Hulshof
Lipinski
Rush
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.

{time} 1553

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 17466]]

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6599, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1384, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 549]

YEAS--243

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--181

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cubin
Hulshof
Johnson (IL)
Lipinski
Rush
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Young (AK)

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} 1602

Messrs. DONNELLY and CHILDERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 186, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 550]

YEAS--230

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)

[[Page 17467]]

Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--186

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf

NOT VOTING--18

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cleaver
Cramer
Cubin
Delahunt
Hulshof
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Moore (WI)
Payne
Royce
Rush
Scott (VA)
Speier
Weldon (FL)
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

{time} 1609

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative
days for Members to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous materials on H.R. 1338.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1338.

{time} 1610

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1338) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide
more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of
wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, with Mr. Capuano in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
read the first time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963 this Nation passed the
Equal Pay Act, and it was passed to end discriminatory practices in
paying men and women differently for performing the same job. The law's
principle is that men and women should be paid based upon their merits,
not upon an employer's prejudices.
Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace were paid 59 cents
on the dollar compared to their male counterparts for performing the
same jobs. Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed
since the Equal Pay Act was passed, gender-based pay wage
discrimination remains a very significant problem for women.
According to the Census Bureau, women make 77 cents for every dollar
earned by a man. Just as disturbing is that African American women only
earn 60 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55
cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.
Those figures do not just tell us what they lose in their wages on a
daily basis, on a weekly basis, and on a monthly basis. But we must
also understand that this wage disparity costs a woman anywhere from
$400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages and will follow
her into retirement with lower retirement benefits, and will follow her
into the Social Security system with lower Social Security benefits.
These women pay a great price because the law still allows employers
to pay these individuals on a discriminatory basis for the jobs that
they produce. But today this House has an opportunity to take a
critical step to ensure that the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise:
equal work for equal pay, equal pay for equal work.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close
many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid
responsibility of engaging in discriminatory pay practices. Currently,
an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he proves that the
difference in pay is based upon any factor other than sex. They can
pull any defense out of the air that they want, even if the factors are
not related to the job. What we say is that they must provide a real
business justification for not paying that equal wage. It must be
related to the work.
They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is
job-related, not based on or derived from sex-based differentials, and
is consistent with the business necessity.
H.R. 1338 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against
employees who discuss their pay. We all remember the Lilly Ledbetter
case. She did not know that she was being discriminated on every pay
period because her fellow employees were unable to discuss their
paychecks with her because that's the way the corporation kept the
discriminatory practice secret and hidden from Lilly Ledbetter. We
would not allow that to continue to happen.
The bill would also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on
equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to
sue for punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, just as
business and workers may do under section 1981 for race or national
origin discrimination. If we are serious about closing the gender pay
gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise
scoff at the current weak sanctions under the current law.

{time} 1615

The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to
continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates
a program designed to help strengthen the negotiating skills of girls
and women.
Any wage gap based upon gender is unacceptable, especially in these
tough economic times. For families living near or under the poverty
line, equal

[[Page 17468]]

pay for women will make a significant difference in that family's well-
being.
By allowing wage discrimination to continue, we hold down women,
their families, and harm the American economy as a whole. Today, we
have a chance to rectify those practices. Today, we have a chance to
ensure that, in fact, women will receive equal pay for equal work as
they do not now receive in the workplace because of the barriers that
have been erected to their being able to prosecute those individuals
who engage in a discriminatory practice.
Today, we are taking up this bill. And no one is more responsible for
the House consideration of this legislation than Congresswoman Rosa
DeLauro. I thank her for her tireless leadership on this bill, and the
230 cosponsors who are taking a strong stand against unequal pay.
Congresswoman DeLauro has worked over a decade trying to get the
Congress to pay attention to this problem that women face in the
workplace, to this economic devastation that takes place against women
in the workplace, the discriminatory practices that women face in the
workplace, but there was no response in this body to her pleas. There
was no response to the practices against these women in this body.
Today there is. Today, this Congress, this House has an opportunity to
finally enforce the Equal Pay Act and to make sure that women no longer
have to suffer the discrimination of unequal pay.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Discrimination in the workplace is wrong. Paying women lower wages
for the same work is wrong. It's also illegal. Congress enacted
protections to ensure equal pay for equal work in 1963 when the Equal
Pay Act was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress acted again
to protect women and all Americans from workplace discrimination with
enactment of title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Together, these laws
offer women protections against workplace discrimination, and strong
remedies should they be subject to illegal employment practices.
Yet we're here today debating a bill that has been touted as
necessary to protect women from being underpaid. Supporters of the bill
would have you believe that unless this legislation is enacted,
employers are free to pay women less money for doing the same job as
their male counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth.
H.R. 1338 isn't needed to protect women from wage discrimination;
such protections are already included in the law. No, this bill is
about something entirely different. Rather than addressing the real
concerns of working families, issues like health care, a lack of
workplace flexibility, and yes, the high price of gasoline, this bill
invites more and costlier lawsuits.
The bill opens EPA claims to unlimited compensatory damages, even in
cases where there was clearly no intentional discrimination. The
majority will offer an amendment today that attempts to mask this trial
lawyer boondoggle. But make no mistake about it, at the end of the day
this bill will invite more lawyers to bring more law suits because it
offers them the promise of a bigger payday. H.R. 1338 will breed
litigation in other ways as well, from encouraging class action
lawsuits to expanding liability.
I'm also concerned that this bill has been put forward using
misleading claims to justify its dangerous consequences. Supporters
will repeat over and over the statistic that women earn just 77 cents
on the dollar. Mr. Chairman, if a woman earned 77 cents on the dollar
doing the same job as a man, it would be a travesty--and it would be
illegal.
What supporters of this bill won't tell you is that the 77 percent
figure does not compare one man and one woman doing the same job. To
argue that a woman only makes 70 cents on the dollar doing the same
work as her male counterpart is to distort reality. The 77 percent
figure is based on 2005 Census data looking at median earnings of all
women and men who work at least 35 hours per week.
Interestingly, if you look at 2006 data from the U.S. Department of
Labor comparing men and women who work 40 hours per week, women
actually earn 88 cents on the dollar. The wage gap is much narrower,
but the existence of a gap is still troubling.
However, last year the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony
that cited an article published in The American Economic Review which
found that when data on demographics, education, scores on the Armed
Forces Qualification Test, and work experience are added, the wage
ratio rises to 91.4 percent. The addition of variables measuring
workplace and occupational characteristics, as well as child-related
factors, causes the wage ratio to rise to 95.1 percent. When the
percentage female in the occupation is added, the wage ratio becomes
97.5 percent, a far less significant difference.
In another study, researchers from the University of Chicago and
Cornell University found almost no difference in the pay of male and
female top corporate executives when accounting for size of firm,
position in the company, age, seniority, and experience.
So before we use the 77 percent figure to justify new legal
``gotchas,'' I think we need a better understanding of the scope of any
actual pay disparity and why such a disparity exists.
Luckily, there are steps we could take right now, right here, that
would ease the strain on working women. Republicans have proposed a
bill, the American Energy Act, that embraces our ``all of the above''
approach to the energy reform. It would unlock America's vast energy
resources, increasing the production of American-made energy and
reducing foreign nations' stranglehold on our economic and national
security.
Republicans recognize that we need comprehensive solutions to solve
our energy crisis and ease the strain on working families brought by
high energy costs. Unfortunately, the majority has refused to allow a
vote on commonsense energy reform. Now we're poised to go home for a
month without voting on real energy reforms. We're about to pass a bill
that will bring a major payday to trial lawyers, but will do nothing to
ease the pocketbook concerns of hardworking American families.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 1338; it's the wrong bill
at the wrong time. We shouldn't be here giving handouts to trial
lawyers; we should be voting on energy solutions for American families.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. At this time, I am pleased to
yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I must say to my friend on the other side of the aisle, I believe
it's never the wrong time to do the right thing, and this is the right
thing.
My friend mentions trial lawyers. Trial lawyers are in the business
of redressing grievances. Juries and judges are in the business of
deciding whether the grievance deserves redress, not trial lawyers.
Trial lawyers raise the issue. Judgments are not given by trial
lawyers, but by judges and juries.
Equal pay for equal work. When we put the principle as bluntly as
that, I doubt that anyone in America would disagree. It's a basic ideal
of fairness. Is there a woman on this floor that believes they ought to
be paid less than the men that do exactly the same kind of work? And I
would suggest the answer to that is no, whether they're staffers or
Members. I hope there is not a female page who watches these
proceedings that believes that they are less valuable than the male
pages that serve this House. They are equally valued, irrespective of
gender.
The value of work lies in a job well done, not in the gender of the
worker; but within my lifetime, it was a radical notion. For decades,
it was perfectly acceptable for women to earn less simply because they
were women.
We celebrated the 60th anniversary of the integration of the Armed
Forces just a few days ago. Colin Powell

[[Page 17469]]

spoke, and he indicated that he was too small to really remember the
ramifications of that executive order, but he said to himself, how
strange it would seem today to think that men and women would be
segregated by unit and by housing because of the color of their skin.
It is equally wrong to make distinctions of gender in payment for
services.
Thanks to the hard work of generations of women advocates, we've
closed that gap from 61 cents back in 1963 to 77 cents on the dollar
today. Being 77 percent right is not enough, we need to be 100 percent
right. We need to pay dollar for dollar for work performed.
In fact, it depends on staying hidden, it depends on keeping women in
the dark. Because, of course, it's against the law not to pay equally,
but if you don't know that you're being discriminated against, how can
your grievances be redressed? In fact, the Constitution of the United
States says, as all of us know, that Americans are guaranteed the right
to petition the Congress of the United States for redress of
grievances, and yet we keep people in the dark as to whether or not, in
fact, they are aggrieved.
By now, we have all heard about the Lilly Ledbetter case. Ms.
Ledbetter was a supervisor at a tire plant in Alabama, and for years
she was paid less than her male coworker. I would be interested if any
Member of this House is prepared to come to this well or stand at one
of these microphones and say it was right to pay a supervisor that was
a woman less than a supervisor who was a man. And if you do come to
this well and say that, I look forward to debating you on that issue.
But Lilly Ledbetter had no way of knowing that she was being paid
differently. She didn't know the truth. And by the time she found out,
years after the discrimination began, the court said it was too late,
time had run, statute of limitations gone, insurance run out. She
didn't have the right to redress her justifiable grievance.
Her case is hardly unique. Justice Ginsburg has written that
``comparative pay information is often hidden from the employee's
view.'' In many workplaces, merely asking a coworker about his or her
pay is a firing offense. Far from protecting privacy, rules like that
can protect an employer's power to discriminate.
And should we say, well, I know the employer discriminated, but we
don't want to have a lawyer take that case because, after all, we don't
like lawyers, they bring to our attention wrongdoing, they ask for
redress of grievances, they petition the jury and the court; this is
wrong. You know, a famous individual from my State, Justice Thurgood
Marshall, did that. He was a trial lawyer. And he petitioned the court
and said, it is wrong to segregate blacks and whites, it is wrong to
give secondary education to African Americans, just as lawyers come and
say it's wrong to discriminate on gender as opposed to quality of work.
In many workplaces, as I've said, merely asking a coworker about his
or her pay is a firing offense. That's why this bill, the Paycheck
Fairness Act, is so necessary. It is time to do the right thing. It may
be too late for some, but it's the right time for many.
It amends the Equal Pay Act to bar retaliation against employees who
share or inquire about pay information. It strengthens sanctions
against discriminatory employers--which have not been adjusted for 17
years. It clarifies acceptable reasons for differences in pay related
to factors other than gender. And it authorizes additional training for
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and
handle wage disputes.

{time} 1630

I want to recognize my colleague Congresswoman DeLauro for working so
hard for so long and so passionately to bring this bill to the floor.
I urge all of my colleagues to support it. It's the right time. It's
the right place. It's the right time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My good friend the majority leader mentioned trial lawyers. I'm not a
lawyer. I know we have a lot of them here in the House, and I am not
particularly against lawyers. I think they perform a good service.
One of the things that we did in subcommittee is we thought maybe we
should be able to limit trial lawyers' pay when they take some of these
claims, and we even had an amendment that we presented that we would
limit the trial lawyers to $2,000 an hour. We thought maybe that would
be reasonable. Every Democrat voted against that. And when we took it
to the Rules Committee to bring it here to the floor, we were denied
the opportunity of discussing that here on the floor. So maybe that's
why the other side feels that we are against trial lawyers, because we
wanted to limit their pay to $2,000 an hour. Anyway, we were not able
to discuss that here and we won't be able to have that amendment here
today.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes at this time to the
ranking member on the subcommittee over this issue, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this
opportunity to speak on H.R. 1338.
I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, Representative
Buck McKeon of California, for his leadership here today.
I know we can all agree that discrimination in the workplace is
unacceptable. That is why employment discrimination, including pay
discrimination, based on gender is already prohibited by law. As an
attorney myself, I believe there are already considerable legal
ramifications for discrimination in our Federal laws, which makes the
legislation we are considering here today unnecessary and redundant.
Additionally, it seems the premise for bringing this bill to the
floor today is in response to potential wage gaps between men and women
in the workforce. I would remind my colleagues that research into this
issue, including a report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO,
concluded that the ``wage gap'' was not simply derived from sex
discrimination or pay discrimination. In fact, the reasons for such a
gap can be numerous.
But to the bill itself, I am concerned that this legislation will not
strengthen current laws or improve workplace protections but rather
create additional and greater potential for individuals, well-meaning
or otherwise, to abuse these protections in our courts.
This bill does two very damaging things to current law. It allows for
unlimited compensatory and punitive damages for claims brought under
the Equal Pay Act, and it does not require proof of intent to
discriminate in those claims. These two components could have
unintended consequences for employers and employees, and they make it
more attractive for unsubstantiated claims before the courts.
I welcome a healthy debate on employee and employer protections in
the workplace. In fact, I would hope that before going forward, the
debate on these issues would be more open where both the minority and
majority might have greater opportunity to offer amendments to
strengthen legislation and address the real concern of America's
hardworking families.
I want to thank Ranking Member Buck McKeon for his leadership, and I
encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation. American workers
deserve reasonable protections that are enforced. This bill would
undermine those efforts in America's workforce.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the
Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Woolsey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Capuano, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1338) to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective
remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the
basis of sex, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

[[Page 17470]]

____________________

PERMISSION TO REDUCE TIME FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING DURING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS TODAY

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that, during further proceedings today in the House and in a
Committee of the Whole, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise
could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or
under clause 6 of rule XVIII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.

____________________

PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1338.

{time} 1636

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1338) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Capuano in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
43\1/2\ minutes remain in general debate. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) has 23 minutes remaining. And the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, at this time I
would like to recognize a true champion of women in the House and the
author of the Paycheck Fairness Act, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. Rosa DeLauro), for 6 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I want to thank Chairman George Miller for his dedication to this
cause. We never could have come this far without his tenacious
leadership.
We are grateful, Chairman Miller.
Mr. Chairman, the Paycheck Fairness Act is about valuing the work
that women do in our society. One of our Nation's most enduring
principles, one of our greatest aspirations, has been ensuring equality
of opportunity for all. There is no more important American promise
that allows us to be a country of dreams and of success, and today we
can take another important step toward finally honoring that promise.
I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, whose leadership today continues to
build on the legacy of those who preceded us, those pioneers at Seneca
Falls as well as the women who blazed a path in the House of
Representatives, Jeanette Rankin, Mary Norton. Even President Kennedy's
Equal Pay Act grew out of the Commission on the Status of Women led by
Eleanor Roosevelt. Forty-five years later our Speaker has celebrated
that history by making this movement an absolute priority. Her message
has been clear: It is time to stand up for working women and their
families.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we can do that today by supporting the Paycheck
Fairness Act, reasserting the principle that women and men should be
paid the same when doing the same work and making it real by allowing
female employees to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. It does
so without imposing the arbitrary caps women face under title VII. It
protects employees from retaliation for sharing information with their
coworkers about their salary, with some exceptions. And it establishes
a grant initiative to provide negotiation skills training programs for
girls and women.
Some will have you believe that the wage gap for women is a myth,
that we already have laws in place to make discrimination on the basis
of gender illegal. But just because something is illegal does not mean
that it does not continue to happen. According to the Department of
Labor, women still earn only 77 percent of what men earn.
Opponents insist that this figure does not take into account
education and experience. But the truth is the gap barely closes among
women with college degrees. Recent research by the American Association
of University Women found that just one year after college graduation,
women earn only 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Ten
years after college graduation, women fall further behind, earning only
69 percent of what men earn. So what is the message? No matter how
advanced their degree or how hard they work, women will not be
compensated fairly.
The marketplace alone will not correct this injustice. We need a
solution in law, just as our country has done in the past to bring down
discriminatory barriers. Others will insist that we cannot open the
door for increased litigation, but in the light of day, it is clear
that the current system is rife with loopholes that have allowed
employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay scales.
We all know Lilly Ledbetter's story. For so many years she was
shortchanged by her employer. And years later she was shortchanged
again by the Supreme Court ruling of 5-4 against her discrimination
claim, drastically limiting women's access to seek justice for pay
discrimination based on gender.
We have an obligation to ensure that this does not go on any longer,
and we must begin today by toughening remedies in the Equal Pay Act to
give America's working women the opportunity to fight against wage
discrimination and receive the paycheck they have earned. No one should
be forced to consider a trade-off between a full wage, a family life,
and a good job.
My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are so fortunate to come
to work every day in this extraordinary institution. We are blessed.
Different regions of the country we come from, different backgrounds,
and different experiences. We are men and we are women and we are paid
equally. Every woman in this country deserves the same. Every family
deserves to know that this institution will act today to make it real.
It is about ensuring that women who work hard and productively and
carry a full range of family responsibilities are paid at a rate they
are entitled.
I urge my colleagues to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. We should
not underestimate the power of a big idea whose time has come.
So many employers and companies do the right thing as a matter of
course, but passing this bill today says that this is now a matter of
right and wrong, that discrimination is unacceptable anywhere, and we
are all diminished when we fall short. But today we have a chance to
make all men and women whole and contribute to the richness of America.
In 1963 President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, saying that it
would ``add to our laws another structure basic to democracy'' and
``affirm our determination that when women enter the labor force, they
will find equality in their pay envelope.''
Today we have another opportunity to make good on that promise. Those
days come only few times in our tenure in the United States Congress.
I have always been proud to serve in this institution, and I revere
those lawmakers before us who on previous days took a stand for health
care for the elderly or the Civil Rights Act or Family and Medical
Leave and made such an impact on people's lives. They changed people's
lives. That is the whole reason why we serve in this institution.
It is my hope today that the House of Representatives passes this law
and makes history for our country.

{time} 1645

Mr. McKEON. I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank Ranking Member McKeon for his work on this

[[Page 17471]]

bill. I find it very interesting that our colleagues have such hubris
that they think we are going to solve all of the problems of the world
here in the Congress. I wish that it were so.
I worked all my life for equal rights for women, and I don't take a
back seat to anyone on this floor or in this body for that. But I want
to say that this bill is not going to solve the problem that we face in
terms of equal pay for equal work.
My colleagues have reviewed very well the existing law. They have
stated well why this bill is not needed. But I have to say that the
Democrats have been very clever in the way that they have named bills
here this year. The Free Choice Act, which takes away the choice of a
secret ballot for voting for unions, does exactly the opposite.
This bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, will not do what the Democrats
purport that it will do. It will help trial lawyers. Those in charge of
the House of Representatives, I believe, are being controlled by trial
lawyers, union leaders, and radical environmentalists.
I think this bill will make it easier for trial lawyers to cash in.
It includes several steps that will make it more lucrative for trial
lawyers to pursue sex discrimination claims under the EPA. This may be
good for lawyers, but it will be costly for businesses and their
workers.
I agree, discrimination against anyone is wrong. No one who serves in
this House or who lives in this country wants to see that. But I want
to quote from an article by Carrie Lukas, and I will put the entire
article in the Record. The subtitle is: The Paycheck Fairness Act, and
the title is: Feminists Meddle with the Market. It's in National
Review.
``Today is a rare moment when Congress has the potential to
meaningfully address a real economic problem, rising energy prices,
with sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase energy
supplies. So what has Congress slated for consideration this week? The
Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand
into the wheels of our economic machine.''
She goes on to say, ``Of course, no congressional legislation would
be complete without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck
Fairness Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program to
instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require the Department
of Labor to train employers in strategies for eliminating pay
disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, but where in the
Constitution is Congress granted the power to engage in this type of
activity? Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being put to
such use.''
If we are really concerned about working women and wanting to see
them treated fairly, the Democrats in charge would bring up the
American Energy Act and let us vote to create more sources of energy,
thereby bringing down the cost of oil and gas and other forms of
energy. This would do a lot more to help working women than this bill
is going to do.

[From NRO Contributor July 30, 2008]

Feminists Meddle With the Market--the Paycheck Fairness Act

(By Carrie Lukas)

When an economic issue makes headlines, you can usually
count on Congress to respond, more often than not with an
over-reach that creates more problems than it solves (think
Sarbanes-Oxley or the recent housing bailout bill). Today is
a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully
address a real economic problem--rising energy prices--with
sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase
energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for
consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill
that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of
our economic machine.
Underlying the bill are the assumptions that our workplace
is systematically hostile to women and that existing laws
don't provide enough protection for women. As committee
chairman George Miller (D., Calif.) said when celebrating the
passage of the bill out of his committee: ``This is a
historic day in the fight for equal rights for women. If we
are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get
serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at
the weak sanctions under current law.''
The committee's press release, like essentially every
public statement supporting expanded ``equal pay'' laws,
cites the statistic that women earn just 77 percent of men's
earnings. This ``wage gap'' is considered proof that the work
world's deck is still stacked against women and government
needs to do more to make sure that everyone plays fair.
Yet a statistic that simply compares the wages of the
median full-time working man and the full-time working woman
tells us nothing about the existence (or lack thereof) of
systematic wage discrimination. Many factors contribute to
how much one earns, from occupation and area of specialty to
education and years of experience. Not surprisingly, once
those factors are taken into account, the wage gap shrinks.
Men tend to take jobs that are dirtier, more dangerous, and
distasteful than those performed by women. Overwhelmingly,
men are the ones working in our sewers, guarding our prisons,
laying concrete in the scorching sun, and catching and
gutting our fish. They work more graveyard shifts and longer
hours, in fact, the Department of Labor estimates that even
full-time working women spend about a half an hour less each
day on the job than men do. Women disproportionately work
indoors, in safe, climate controlled buildings, with regular,
or even flexible, hours. More people are interested in
working in libraries and school buildings than on the fishing
boats featured in Deadliest Catch, which is why physically
strenuous, dangerous jobs pay higher salaries.
Feminist activists tend to be frustrated with this
analysis, and the explanation that the market (not nefarious
men) is primarily responsible for women earning less. They
don't think it's fair that jobs that require an education,
like social work or teaching, are less valued in the
marketplace than positions in trucking and sanitation work
that require only characteristics like stamina and a high
tolerance for filth.
They've long championed policies, dubbed as ``comparable
worth,'' that would give government officials the power to
supersede the market to make sure that women's contributions
aren't undervalued. The Paycheck Fairness Act takes steps in
that direction. The Department of Labor would issue
``guidelines'' that compare the wages of different jobs to
give employers a sense of what is considered ``fair.'' The
guidelines may not have the force of law (yet) but certainly
would be a powerful specter hanging over employers seeking to
avoid costly litigation.
And employers would have additional reason to fear that
they would be targets for litigation if the Paycheck Fairness
Act becomes law. This bill would subject employers to
unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even for
unintentional pay disparities, creating potential paydays
certain to inspire trial lawyers to action. The bill would
also strip employers of the ability to defend differences in
pay as based on factors other than sex, such as experience
and performance, leaving courts to dictate what constitutes a
legitimate pay structure.
Of course, no congressional legislation would be complete
without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness
Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program
to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require
the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for
eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask,
but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power
to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be
outraged that their money is being put to such use.
Federal law already outlaws sex discrimination. This
legislation would afford women few new protections against
actual sex discrimination, but would raise the cost of
employment and discourage workplace flexibility. It is
exactly what women--and the economy--don't need. If this is
what we can expect from the rest of this Congress, Americans
should hope for an early recess.

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I would yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished Member of this body, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. As some of you may know, at one time I was a single
mother raising three small children. I was working full time, but I
still wasn't able to put food on the table, pay for doctors' visits,
and care for the other needs of my children all on my own because my
paycheck was for a 40-hour week but it did not cover our necessities.
To make ends meet, I was forced to turn to public assistance.
That was more than 35 years ago, but today there are still millions
of single mothers in our country who are struggling to provide for
their families, many while balancing full-time jobs. In fact, single
mothers are twice as likely as fathers to raise their children in
poverty.
Unfortunately, so long as women continue to receive pennies on the
dollar compared to their male counterparts, this statistic is unlikely
to change any time soon.
I want to thank my friend, Congresswoman DeLauro, for her work on
this issue, and I would like to remind all of

[[Page 17472]]

you that the Paycheck Fairness Act is about a lot more than fixing a
couple of loopholes. It's about strengthening families, combating
poverty, and finally recognizing that equal work deserves equal pay.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which will provide
the additional tools that we need to stamp out gender-based wage
discrimination once and for all.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. It gives me great pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to a champion of the working class and the Chair of the
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pension Subcommittee of Education and
Labor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend from California for
yielding. This bill is for the woman who runs the office, who makes all
the important decisions, without whom the place couldn't function; who
one day comes in and discovers that a man, usually a man younger than
her, has been brought in and given a higher title, a higher pay, and
fewer responsibilities. And she goes to work and says, this isn't fair.
I'm doing a job that is actually more important than this other person
and getting paid less for it.
Now it's true that the statutes presently say you have to get equal
pay for equal work. But it's also true that the remedies are so limited
under existing law that many women can't get an attorney to represent
them in their case so it never gets brought.
The best idea in this bill is for the first time it gives robust and
full remedies to help that woman so that if she is able to prove her
claim that she is underpaid relative to the work that she is doing, she
will be fully and fairly compensated, and out of that compensation will
come the funds to get her the competent representation that she
deserves. The woman who's the office manager who doesn't make as much
as the executive vice president for administration.
Well, I will tell you, in my life, Mr. Chairman, I benefited from a
lot of women who are office managers that don't have fancy titles but
without whom institutions could not run. This bill is for that woman
and for her daughters so that they do not have the situation where they
are devalued, debased, degraded, and disrespected in the workplace.
It is long overdue that we vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I would
urge colleagues on both sides to do that.
Mr. McKEON. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. I want to continue with what I was
saying before. Republicans are deeply concerned about working families.
Every day we come to this Congress and we do everything that we can to
help those working families. We believe that if any worker is subject
to discrimination in the workplace because of their sex, or for any
other reason, that that discrimination should be rooted out and
punished accordingly. That is why current law protections are so
important. Again, we have outlined why those laws are adequate
currently.
We are also concerned about other workplace policies and proposals
that threaten workers' wages, flexibility, and freedom. However,
unfortunately, Democrats have once again stifled debate in the House
and blocked the minority from offering amendments that address the real
concerns of working women and families.
They have done the exact opposite of what they promised to do in
2006, make this the most open Congress ever, make this the most ethical
Congress ever, make this the fairest Congress ever. It has been just
the opposite of that.
Again, what we should be doing today is we should be debating how we
can bring down the price of gasoline and heating oil and all of those
things that are harming working Americans every day, but instead we are
dealing with bills that are going to do nothing but line the pockets of
trial lawyers and create what I call high-priced welfare, which are
high-priced bureaucratic jobs which don't really do anything to help
working men and women in this country, especially working women,
increase their pay.
We will be stifling businesses. It seems as though they hate business
and industry, and want to do everything that they can to shut it down
in this country. This bill will certainly help do that.
So I say we vote ``no'' on this bill because this bill doesn't do
what the title pretends it does, and in fact harms working women. What
we need to do is be doing something to bring down the price of energy.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes
to a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I rise today in strong support of
the Paycheck Fairness Act, to protect the right of all Americans to
equal pay for equal work. I want to begin by thanking my colleague,
Representative DeLauro, for introducing this bill, and Chairman Miller
for steering it through committee and onto the floor. It is long
overdue.
After years of neglect under the former majority, this House has
boldly taken on the challenge of trying to solve longstanding economic
problems so that hardworking families can really achieve the American
Dream instead of just dreaming about the American Dream.
Women across America are still only paid 77 percent of what men are
paid. Does this mean that women are only 77 percent as valuable as
their male counterparts? Certainly not. It means there are,
unfortunately, still lingering remnants of an earlier time in our
history when women didn't have the same rights as men.
Though we have made great strides toward fair and equal treatment for
women in the workplace, our work is still not done. This bill continues
our progress by creating more opportunities for women and their
families. Nearly 7\1/2\ million of America's poverty-stricken children
live in female-headed households. This bill will help those families
rise out of poverty by ensuring the hard work of female-headed
households is rewarded equally and fairly.
Much has been said about this bill lining the pockets of trial
lawyers. Let's not lose focus of what this bill is about. It is saying
to women that if you have been wronged, if you have been discriminated
against, you will have a fair day in court.
So, for yourselves, your wives, your sisters, your daughters, and the
children of America, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote ``yes'' on this important piece of legislation.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do we have left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 15
minutes. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 11\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. I thank our chairman from the Labor Committee. I want to
urge our Members here today to vote on this very important bill, H.R.
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Our colleagues, Rosa DeLauro, and
others, have championed this bill for many years. But Rosa has really
dedicated herself to this movement. I am happy to be a cosponsor of
this bill. She understands, as we know and many woman know, that we
have to recognize that there are inequities that exist in our
communities, and especially among women and women of color.
Some of you may know that while women overall only receive 77 cents
on the dollar, Latinas only average 57 cents on that dollar, and
African American women only get 68 cents on the dollar.
Indeed, there are disparities that exist and continue. We have an
obligation here in this House to do the right thing.
Just today, this morning, Arnold Schwarzenegger, our Governor, cut
the

[[Page 17473]]

payroll for many State employees. Many of them are women. They are the
earners for their households. They have to put food on the table. Now
they are going to be making Federal minimum wage, which is less than
what the State of California's minimum wage is. What an atrocity.
I am not going off message, I am just trying to strike home a point
that it's important to take care of all those that work in our society,
but particularly women because they are the ones that are mostly
discriminated against, and we have to cut that out.
Again, I want to wholeheartedly offer my support and have my
colleagues know that I stand first and foremost for pay equity for all
of us. I ask you to vote for H.R. 1338.

{time} 1700

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to put it on the record that I like women. I have been married
almost 46 years, and we have three daughters and we have three sons,
and I would not want the daughters to be discriminated against, I would
not want my sons to be discriminated against.
I wish we could do something here that would end for all time all
discrimination. Unfortunately, I guess when there are people involved
in different things, some of them will tend to discriminate. That is
why the law was passed in 1963, to level all pay. I want to just on the
record make sure that everybody understands when we throw everybody
into a pot and then add up all of their salaries, we are not talking
about equal pay for equal jobs.
One of the things that we learned when we had the hearing last year,
when we are talking about actual people and actual jobs, is that many
women ended up going into, after graduating from college, many of them
go into teaching, many of them go into social work. Many men go into
jobs, some of them go into teaching. If they go into teaching, they are
hired, they make the same exact wage. If the men go into social work
and women go into social work, they make the same wage. But if a person
goes into banking at a level that pays higher or into law at a level
that pays higher, again, a woman going into law will make the same as a
man. But when they throw all of these jobs into the same pile, that is
where you get some differentiation in the pay.
Again, if we could just hold to equal pay, same job, same pay, I am
totally supportive of that. That is what the law says, and that is what
we should enforce. And the numbers that I quoted earlier, the pay is
almost exactly the same. Where there is some discrimination, we should
go after it, we should enforce the law. That is what I would encourage
us to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman for recognizing me.
First I want to pay tribute to a great, great Member of the House and
someone that we are so, so proud and grateful to, and that is
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Your mother is proud, Rosa. We are all
proud. You have really paid for your keep here by making such a
contribution. And also to the great George Miller, who saw this
legislation through.
I want to make a couple of observations. My friend from California
just went through a whole discussion that really is not a part of this
bill, and it is all about comparable worth. That is not what is in this
bill.
I also want to make another observation. There are very few on the
other side that are coming to defend the case that is being made over
there.
Mr. McKEON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. No, because I don't have that much time.
Mr. McKEON. I would yield you more time.
Ms. ESHOO. My other observation is that the case being made by our
friends on the Republican side really states very fully that you are on
the wrong side of history. What this bill does is to give women the
tools that they need legally so that an employer can no longer
discriminate against them.
Have any of you heard of Lilly Ledbetter, of that case and what
happened to that woman?
Mr. McKEON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. No, I am not yielding. I told you, I don't have enough
time. I would like to be able to say everything that I want to say.
Mr. McKEON. I said I would be happy to yield you more time.
Ms. ESHOO. What this bill does is it says to employers today that you
cannot punish employees any longer who discuss or disclose salary
information with their coworkers. I think that is a pretty important
thing. This bill also says today that employers will have to give a
satisfactory explanation for paying a man more than a woman for the
same job, and that they are going to have to demonstrate that the
disparity is not sex-based, but job related.
So, today we are trying to even out the playing field. I think if my
mother were sitting up there, she would be applauding. I think that
mothers and daughters and fathers and grandparents and legislators and
people across the country today, the last day of the month, are saying
that the last now are going to come first, and we know in our society
that women have not come first. Today we are talking about the
waitress. We are talking about what Mr. Andrews talked about, and that
is the woman that heads up the office. We are talking about the Lilly
Ledbetters.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. ESHOO. So today I think that we are making the Union stronger and
better by recognizing that there have been disparities and by
recognizing the way we fix the disparities, and I salute those who have
been on this effort for a long, long time.
America, it is a good day, July 31st, 2008, in the House of
Representatives, thanks to Rosa DeLauro rewriting history, Chairman
Miller for pushing it the way he has, and thank God for the Speaker
that makes all of this possible, Nancy Pelosi.
I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1338, the Paycheck
Fairness Act and I salute Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Miller for
their important leadership to bring us to this day.
With the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act the Congress will make
the Equal Pay Act a more effective tool in combating gender-based pay
discrimination.
Today, if an employer can name any factor that has determined an
employee's pay other than gender, they can defend unequal pay in pay
discrimination cases. The employer's reason doesn't even need to be
related to the job in question. Under H.R. 1338 employers will have to
give a satisfactory explanation for paying a man more than a woman for
the same job and they will have to demonstrate that the disparity is
not sex-based, but job related.
Employers will also now be barred from punishing employees who
discuss or disclose salary information with their co-workers.
Under current law women who have been discriminated against may only
recover back pay or in some cases double back pay. The Paycheck
Fairness Act will finally put gender-based discrimination on the same
level as other forms of wage discrimination by giving women the
opportunity to sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
The wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of
the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, but according to the U.S. Census
Bureau, women still only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a
man. it's time to close the gap and pass this law.
I'm very proud to support this bill and I urge a yes vote on the
underlying legislation.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me thank Chairman Miller for his leadership and for being
such a strong supporter of pay equity and women's rights, not only
today or last year, but throughout his life. Thank you, Chairman
Miller.

[[Page 17474]]

Also, I just have to say to my colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro,
sometimes, oftentimes a lone voice in the wilderness, but today we pay
tribute to the women of America, thanks to Rosa DeLauro. Thank you so
much, Congresswoman DeLauro. You have been a champion for women and
working families since before your career here in Congress began. So we
salute you.
In 1963, and I know these statistics have been repeated earlier, but
I have to say them again because it is so important to remember where
we were, where we are and where we need to go, and that is what today
is about. In 1963, women who worked full time made about 59 cents on
average for every dollar earned by men. For every dollar earned by men
in 2006, women earned about 77 cents. The wage gap has narrowed by less
than half a cent per year. Clearly we have a long way to go.
The wage gap is most severe for women of color. It is absolutely
inexcusable that women, and especially minority women, earn a fraction
of what men earn from the same job. African American women earn just 63
cents on the dollar, and Latinos earn far worse at 57 cents. In my own
State of California, black women working full time year-round earn only
61 percent and Latinos 42 percent of the wages of white men. This is
outrageous.
The wide disparity begins at the start of a woman's work life and
grows wider as women age. In the long term, combined with a decrease in
pension income and Social Security benefits, which is what happens,
many women are at risk of falling into poverty as they get older,
because this disparity began when they first started working.
H.R. 1338 takes immediate steps to close the wage gap for all women
by amending and strengthening the Equal Pay Act so that it will be a
more effective tool in combating gender-based discrimination.
So let's help close that gap today. Let's stand up by making the
Paycheck Fairness Act the law of the land. This should have been the
law of the land many years ago. Many of us remember when we first
started working and how that male counterpart in our job was making
twice as much as we were making. I remember those days, and, as result
of that, many women now will have less in their Social Security and
their pensions.
Thank you, Congresswoman DeLauro; thank you, Chairman Miller, for
today.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman that spoke earlier, a good friend of
mine from California, said that I gave a long description of equal pay
for equal job, and I thought that that is kind of what the debate was
about. People keep talking about wanting equal pay for equal job. They
want to have the same pay for the woman as for the man for the same
job.
Now, if we are just talking about we want just women paid the same as
men for whatever job, then that is kind of the figures being used. But
I think most of us know, we fly a lot, the pilot usually makes more
than the flight attendant. Whether the flight attendant is male or
female, they are paid the same. The pilot, whether he is male or
female, they are paid the same. But the pilot is not paid the same as
the flight attendant. We understand that, and I think that is probably
not what we are arguing about here, but it seems like that is the way
the debate is going.
I support equal pay for the same job, men, women. With this bill,
apparently the debate is equal pay for men and women, and I thought
that is what we were talking about, because that is what the debate is.
But as the gentlewoman said, that is not what this bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of our
committee.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Paycheck Fairness Act. I also want to applaud Congresswoman DeLauro
and Chairman Miller.
When I was growing up, women only had a few career options. You could
either be a teacher, a nurse, a secretary or a social worker, all very
noble and difficult professions, but which don't pay nearly enough,
mostly because a disproportionate number of women still do these jobs.
But when my granddaughter enters the workforce, she will be able to
work in any field she wants. So we have come a long way. But we still
have, as many have said, a long way to go.
The tragedy is that our daughters and granddaughters will do the same
jobs as men on a number of occasions in a number of fields, but will
only earn something like 77 percent of what their male colleagues earn
for the same work. So despite the progress that we have made over the
past four decades, many employers continue to overlook and occasionally
even intentionally ignore the contributions of their female employees.
It is about transparency. That is what we are talking about today, to
give women who traditionally have stood by and been hesitant about
taking full credit for their hard work the tools that they need to be
certain that they are recognized in the workforce for what they are
actually accomplishing.
Employers must recognize all of their employees for this important
work that they do and reward them with fair compensation.
Unfortunately, despite what we are hearing, it is not happening on its
own. Our daughters and our granddaughters need this legislation. I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, it sounds like we are talking equal pay for
equal work, and, again, I support that. I oppose discrimination. I
support equal pay for equal job.
If we are saying that nurses should make the same as doctors, if the
doctor is a female and the nurse is a male, should they make the some
money? Or if the doctor is a male and the nurse is a female, should
they make the same money? No. I think all nurses should make the same
money. Doctors should make the same money if they are doing the same
work. Not even all doctors make the same. Some surgeons make more than
others, depending on their specialty, depending on what they do.
We understand that in our economy what the work does decides on what
the pay is. I think if you take everybody working and divide up all of
their pay, and you have more women that are serving in occupations that
pay less, as my good friend just pointed out, women didn't have I guess
the same opportunities in the past as they do now, and so if you took
those figures and you had more women working in lower-paid fields, that
is how you get the 77 percent discrepancy.
But if you took all of the same jobs, added up what they are paid,
maybe 40 years ago, 50 years ago there was a lot more discrimination
than now, but I think now if you look across the field and equal pay
for equal job, you would find there is, if anything, very little
difference.

{time} 1715

Should it be no difference? You bet. And I think you would probably
find in some occupations you have women making more than men. And I
guess men should probably claim discrimination in that case, but I
don't think they should. I think the reason women are paid more is they
are probably worth more.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Could the Chair apprise how much
time I have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman for the priority consideration given
this bill throughout, and Rosa DeLauro for her indefatigable
perseverance on this bill.
This bill has not been updated for 45 years, and yet we have seen the
transformation of the American workforce.

[[Page 17475]]

It needs a 21st century makeover. I wasn't there at the birth, but I
was there when I chaired the EEOC and worked with President Carter to
bring the Equal Pay Act to the EEOC. The whole point of doing that was
to bring this, the first of the great civil rights statutes, into line
with title VII, which was passed thereafter. We have never done that.
This is the first time we have done that, Mr. Chairman. That makes this
an historic bill.
Seventy-five percent of women in the work force today have small
children. Women are backsliding now. They are stuck on 76 cents for
every male dollar. With the economy in the worst condition in a
generation, women need every tool, and it is not too much to ask that
they have the tool of equal rights.
Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee, such time as he may
consume.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I will offer to this piece of
legislation. I was going to attempt to refrain from further comment on
the legislation, but I think that some light needs to be shed on the
discussion that has been going on here.
Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land. It is the law of the
land. It has been for 45 years. What our friends on the other side want
to do, and some of them have been very candid in coming down to the
well and commenting about it, and that is to open up a huge opportunity
for one of their grand friends, group of friends, the trial lawyers.
Now, let's be honest about this. I have here the bill that we are
going to vote on, H.R. 1338, and you could go to any page but I will
just pick a couple.
Page 10, lines 17 and 18. Be liable for such compensatory damages or
punitive damages as may be appropriate.
Page 11, line 3. Except with respect to class actions.
Page 11, line 7. Any action brought to enforce.
Page 11, lines 13 and 14. In any action brought to recover the
liability prescribed.
Page 11, line 17. Including expert fees.
Page 11, line 23. Additional compensatory or punitive damages.
Page 12, lines 2 and 3. Or such compensatory or punitive damages as
appropriate.
Page 12, lines 6 and 7. Additional compensatory damages or punitive
damages.
Page 12, lines 18 and 19. In the case of a class action suit brought
to enforce section 60.
And it goes on and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, this issue isn't about equal pay for equal work. Equal
pay for equal work is the law of the land. There isn't a single
American Representative in this Chamber--I was going to say there
probably isn't a single American, but I won't speak for them. But there
is not a single Representative in this Chamber who believes that there
ought to be unequal pay for equal work. Nobody. That is not what we are
debating here.
We are debating whether this majority party, whether this Democrat
majority party is once again going to bring a bill to the floor and
reward their cronies in the trial bar. That is what it is. That is what
it is. Take a peek at the bill. Line after line and line. That is what
it is all about.
So for those of us who love our mothers and love our daughters and
love our sisters, and have grandmothers and great-grandmothers who were
remarkably successful in the work that they did, please don't be
misunderstood; we believe strongly in equal pay for equal work. We
believe strongly that this Nation stands on the principle of equal pay
for equal work.
What we don't believe is that the trial bar ought to be the ones
deciding what the pay ought to be in a private business. What we don't
believe is that the Federal Government ought to insert itself into
every single aspect of every single life of every single contract in
this Nation. Should we do that, then we will destroy the greatest
nation on the face of the earth.
Mr. Chairman, this bill isn't about equal pay for equal work. Equal
pay for equal work is the law of the land. We all support equal pay for
equal work.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, we talk about family values.
And the most important way that we can show that we value families is
to ensure that a woman earns a fair day's pay.
Most women work outside the home, including over 70 percent of all
mothers. Yet among full-time workers, women earn only 77 percent
compared to men. Unequal pay practices hurt not only women but their
entire families. The typical wife brings home about one-third of her
family's income.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will help prevent, regulate, and reduce
discrimination against women. It will prohibit employers from
retaliating against employees who share salary information with their
coworkers, as we saw in the Lilly Ledbetter case.
Women's work should be valued equally. This bill is an important step
towards gender equality. And I thank my colleagues, Rosa, George, and
many others, for their hard work on it.
Most women are in the labor force, including over 70 percent of all
mothers. Yet, women continue to earn less than men even if they have
similar educational levels and work in similar kinds of jobs.
A 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that I
commissioned showed that when occupation, marital status, job tenure,
industry, and race are accounted for, women still earn 80 cents for
every dollar men earn.
Research has found that women's choices cannot explain about 40
percent of the wage gap between men and women.
Pay discrimination hurts not only a working woman, but her entire
family--especially in the face of rising prices for basics, like food
and gasoline.
The typical wife brings home about a third of her family's total
income. Over the past three decades, only those families who have a
working wife have seen real increases in family income: Families
without a working wife have real incomes today that are nearly
identical to what they were over 35 years ago.
Congress passed the Equal Pay Act nearly half a century ago, yet
women still experience pay discrimination.
According to the National Committee on Pay Equity, working women
stand to lose $250,000 over the course of their career because of
unequal pay practices.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will prevent, regulate and reduce pay
discrimination for working women nationwide. It will help women become
better negotiators, enforce equal pay laws for federal contractors, and
require the Department of Labor to work with employers to eliminate pay
disparities.
As we saw in the Lilly Ledbetter case, if a woman doesn't know how
much her male colleagues earn, she cannot know that she is being
discriminated against.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will prohibit employers from retaliating
against employees who share salary information with their co-workers.
Women need to know the true value of the jobs that they do and this
is an important step towards gender parity.
I strongly urge you to vote yes on this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Someone on the other side said this bill isn't about equal pay for
equal work, but I know others have said it is about equal pay for equal
work. I have Mr. Hoyer's statement here, the majority leader, and he
began his statement saying equal pay for equal work. That is the
principle that we are talking about.
The Paycheck Fairness Act is a clever name. Who doesn't support
paycheck fairness? Unfortunately, that is not what this bill is
offering.
No, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law, it will make the system
fundamentally unfair by putting the interests of the trial lawyers
above the interests of the workers.
As I mentioned earlier, we did try to offer an amendment. I don't
think it was totally out of line to think that we should maybe limit
the trial lawyers working on these cases to $2,000 an hour. But every
Democrat voted against that. And then they didn't let that amendment be
placed in order to discuss here on the floor. I am sorry that we
weren't able to do that.
This bill will expose family businesses to unlimited liability even
if

[[Page 17476]]

there is no intentional discrimination. The Democrats' fig leaf
amendment doesn't change the fact that trial lawyers stand to receive a
big payday by lowering the bar on costly jury awards.
This bill will encourage class-action lawsuits, treating the EPA as a
litigation factory. This bill will make it harder for businesses to
defend against legal challenges, inviting unscrupulous trial lawyers. I
say unscrupulous; I have many good friends who are trial lawyers, and I
exclude them from that definition. But the unscrupulous ones will
pursue baseless claims.
Now we know what the bill would do. But what about what it fails to
do? It doesn't prohibit discrimination under the law. We did that 45
years ago, as Mr. Price so eloquently explained. It doesn't offer
working women new flexibility so that they can balance work and home.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers had a bill earlier that she wanted to present
that she has never been given the chance to do so. But it would give
women the opportunity to take compensatory time, the same as government
workers can do now. If you work overtime, you can be paid time-and-a-
half in cash; but if you want to take that time in compensatory time,
we do not give people the opportunity to do that. We should do that.
It certainly doesn't do anything to bring down the price of gasoline,
which is the number one issue many working families are struggling with
today.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to
oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Paycheck Fairness Act.
Forty-five years ago, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to end wage
discrimination against women, who on average earned only 60 cents to
every dollar earned by men.
Since then, women have made extraordinary achievements, contributing
to the illusion women have indeed reached parity in the workplace.
That illusion is created by such events as the historic election of
the first woman Speaker of the House, and by increased numbers of women
heading Fortune 500 companies.
The reality is, however, that in spite of these achievements women
have not reached wage parity.
Pay inequality is perhaps the most glaring example of how women
continue to be discriminated against.
Despite enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, today women doing the
same work earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by their male
counterparts.
This unfairness often has devastating economic consequences to a
woman, especially upon retirement, when pensions and Social Security
benefits are based on her life earnings.
This disparity often costs a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2
million in lifetime earnings, contributing to the disturbing fact that
today women make up 70 percent of older adults living in poverty.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Paycheck Fairness Act
because it will close loopholes that often destroy the economic
security of women.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have come to the
end of a long debate, but let's get something very clear. This is all
about equal pay, and this is all about whether or not women are going
to receive equal pay. What this legislation does is recognize the
barriers that have been put up in front of women trying to enforce the
existing law.
It is rather interesting that the Secretary of Labor sent us a
letter, and in her random audits of businesses working with government
contractors she found systematic discrimination and she collected $51
million, and this is a record year, and it is the third record year in
a row because of systematic discrimination.
Now, everybody has come to the floor and said they are all against
this discrimination. Yes, we all are against that. Nobody is suggesting
that anybody isn't. But if you can't enforce your rights, then you
suffer the discrimination. Random audits, $51 million was denied to
these individuals. And these are just people working with government
contractors. Think what it is nationwide, and the people don't get a
random audit, they don't get the Secretary of Labor, they don't get the
Department of Labor. What they get is discrimination in their pay. That
is what they get.
Today, we are going to decide whether or not these women are going to
be able to collect the pay that is owed them, whether they are going to
be able to enforce the law that requires as a matter of national policy
and law the equal pay for women. That is the issue here. It is not
complicated. It is not complicated.
Study after study has determined that pay discrimination exists
whether you are in the workforce 10 years, whether you are starting out
in the workforce, no matter what your life experiences are. When they
control for all of that, there still is discriminatory pay against
women in the American workforce, and today this House is going to
change that.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, the
Paycheck Fairness Act.
In 1963, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in order
to promote workplace equality for women. Since then, women have made
great gains in workforce participation, compensation, and advancement,
but a significant wage gap still exists between women and men. Women
working full-time year-round earn on average 77 cents for every dollar
earned by a man. The wage gap is even wider in Michigan: On average,
women in Michigan are paid only 67 cents for every dollar earned by a
man.
Wage discrimination is not just a women's issue--it is a family
issue. With a majority of American households depending on two incomes
to make ends meet, the wage gap is more relevant than ever. The current
pay disparity may cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million in
lifetime earnings relative to a man performing equivalent work. The
cost is often borne not just by an individual, but by all the members
of the household who rely on that income. Congress must respond to this
injustice.
The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act
in light of more than 45 years of real-world experience. Courts have
interpreted the Equal Pay Act more narrowly than other employment
discrimination laws, counter to the intent of Congress. The Paycheck
Fairness Act clarifies that the factors used by employers to justify
wage disparities must be related to the employee's work or to the
business. The bill also redefines the standard for comparing employees'
compensation, reducing a frequently prohibitive burden of proof for
plaintiffs.
Data collection is key to tracking women's relative compensation in
the workplace, but the federal agencies charged with enforcing
employment discrimination laws have little information about wage
disparities. The Bush administration, furthermore, has halted or tried
to halt many efforts to collect data. The Paycheck Fairness Act ensures
that the Bureau of Labor Statistics will collect data on wage
disparities, and it requires the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to offer guidance in order to enhance enforcement of federal
law. These measures will help shed light on wage discrimination that
would otherwise go unseen.
This legislation takes vital steps toward realizing the goals
established 45 years ago in the Equal Pay Act. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting the bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT). H.R. 1338 amends the Equal Pay
Act, one of the primary laws addressing pay discrimination. Since
becoming law, loopholes and weak remedies have made the Equal Pay Act
less effective in combating wage discrimination. The Paycheck Fairness
Act, strengthens and improves the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act.
There should be little doubt that such improvements are necessary.
More than four decades after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, women
still make only 77 cents for every dollar made by their male
counterparts, a wage disparity that cannot be explained by differences
in qualifications, education, skills, training, responsibility, or life
choices. Rather, in many cases, the pay differential has resulted from
unlawful sex discrimination.
The consequences of this discrimination are severe and predictable.
The pay disparity forces single-mother households and families
dependent on two wage earners to live on

[[Page 17477]]

less than they rightfully deserve, while simultaneously reducing
women's retirement earnings. In short, unfair pay disparities
perpetuate women's economic dependence and deprive them of economic
opportunity and equal protection of the laws.
The Paycheck Fairness Act provides for compensatory and punitive
damages only ``as appropriate,'' with no further limitation or
arbitrary cap being necessary. The modest provisions for compensatory
and punitive damages in the Paycheck Fairness Act bring remedies for
victims of sex-based wage discrimination in line with those available
for victims of wage discrimination based on race and national origin.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Miller, and
Subcommittee Chairwoman Woolsey and Congresswoman DeLauro for
championing this important wage discrimination legislation.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Paycheck Fairness Act is an important
step in eliminating the gap that exists between the compensation of men
and women, a gap that has existed for decades and persists to this day
despite the gains made by women.
Among other things, the bill will close a loophole that some
employers exploit to avoid compensation discrimination lawsuits, and
will put gender discrimination on a par with other types of
discrimination.
Men and women are equally important to the health and vitality of the
American economy, and it is high time that compensation reflect this
fact.
Women who work full time continue to make roughly 25 percent less for
equal work and with equal qualifications to their male counterparts.
This means that a woman makes significantly less money based on one
single factor: Her sex. This is sexist, unconscionable and
discriminatory.
This discrimination impacts women in their struggle for economic
independence, and their ability to care for their families and
themselves. It continues to promote the backward thinking that
undervalues and devalues women in the United States and around the
world.
I support H.R. 1338 because I believe it moves us in a direction that
closes the discriminatory wage gap. It is long overdue.
I look forward to the day when everyone in the labor force is treated
equally.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I am an original cosponsor of this
bill because I believe it is time that we end gender discrimination in
the workplace.
The Paycheck Fairness Act addresses one of the most evident and
detrimental aspects of gender discrimination: Wage disparity. As we
know from the U.S. Census Bureau, women across the country earn, on
average, only 77 cents for every dollar a man receives for the same
work. That 23-cent difference can add up to between $400,000 and $2
million over a working lifetime. In Illinois, where the average working
woman earns 75 cents for every dollar earned by a man, the wage gap and
the cost to women are even larger.
In today's economy, wage discrimination hits women particularly hard,
whether they are the heads of households or the second or even third
wage earner in a family. With higher food, energy, health care,
transportation and housing costs, women are struggling to stretch every
dollar in order to meet their family's needs. Wage discrimination
unfairly shrinks those dollars, especially for women of color and self-
employed women who suffer from a higher-than-average wage gap. It
deprives women of dollars that they have earned but, because of the
paycheck gap, do not get.
While there are many economic arguments for H.R. 1338, there are
other considerations as well. I urge my colleagues to consider the
views of the American Psychological Association, which argues that wage
discrepancies create economic disadvantages that ``affect the
psychological and physical health of women and their families.'' As the
APA says, ``The link between depression and low-income women can be
attributed to increased stress caused by living in poverty, as well as
minimal social support. Additionally, low-income pregnant women receive
less prenatal care, and are more likely to deliver low-birth weight
babies.''
We should pass H.R. 1338 to ensure that women are fairly paid for
their work, not economically disadvantaged because of their gender. We
should pass H.R. 1338 because it will help families deal with the
current economic crisis. We should pass H.R. 1338 because it will have
positive health impacts for women and families. It is the right thing
to do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, there is no excuse for the wage gap that
still exists between men and women in today's workforce. Equalizing
wages will provide women with equal pay for equal work and improve the
standard of living for millions of American families. That is why I
rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
The need for the reform of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) is obvious. More
than four decades after Congress enacted it, hard-working women still
earn only 77 cents for every dollar made by men. This is certainly an
improvement over the 58 cents women earned when the EPA was passed in
1963, but it is hardly enough. And it still will not be enough when the
day comes that women earn 99 cents for every dollar that a man earns.
``Equal'' is not a word that allows room for negotiation, and nothing
short of women being paid the same wages as men should be acceptable.
We are here today to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act for the
fourth time since it was first introduced in 2005. That is three times
too many. We took jobs as Representatives of the House with the promise
to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. I don't see
how it is possible to do that when we neglect to ensure that something
as basic and fundamentally important as fair pay is granted to the
working women of our districts.
The Paycheck Fairness Act contains the tools necessary to achieve
EPA's goal. It will increase penalties for employers who pay different
wages to men and women for equal work, require employers to prove that
payment disparities among men and women are job related and consistent
with business necessity, and protect employees from retaliation after
sharing salary information.
In a country that prides itself on equality for all, it is
unconscionable that women who do the same work as men receive less pay.
I urge my colleagues to bring the ``fairness'' back into the workplace
by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1338,
``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' This legislation will help our Nation
take the final steps in its long journey towards ensuring that men and
women receive equal pay for equal work. The Congress first committed
itself to remedying the scourge of pay discrimination in 1963, when it
passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time, full-time working women were
paid on average 59 cents on the dollar earned by their male
counterparts. In the ensuring 43 years, the wage gap between men and
women has narrowed. In 2008, women earn about 77 percent of what men
earn. While this is a dramatic improvement, the 23 cent gap that exists
still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a real and contemporary
problem in our labor market.
H.R. 1338 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It
builds on many of the innovative policies found in the original EPA and
adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st
century offices. H.R. 1338 will:
Strengthen the EPA by making it unlawful for an employer to pay
unequal wages to men and women who have substantially similar jobs that
are performed under similar working conditions within the same physical
location of business. Under the original EPA, employers can justify
unequal pay if it is based on: Seniority; merit; quality or quantity of
production; or ``any factor other than sex.'' This legislation
clarifies the ``any factor other than sex'' defense, so that an
employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same
job must show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job related, and
is necessary for the business;
Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or
disclose salary information with their co-workers. However, employees
such as HR personnel who have access to payroll information as part of
their job would not be protected if they disclose the salaries of other
workers;
Strengthen the remedies available to include punitive and
compensatory damages. Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only
recover back pay and in some cases double back pay. The damages would
not be capped;
Require the Department of Labor to improve outreach and training
efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;
Enhance the collection of information on women's and men's wages in
order to more fully explore the reasons for gender-based wage gap and
to assist employers in their efforts to rectify pay disparities; and
Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills
of girls and women.
Mr. Chairman, I was shocked when I heard last year about the case of
Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay
discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been
victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal

[[Page 17478]]

Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against Goodyear.
Unfortunately, a majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme
Court denied her claim, ruling that employees can only file a wage-
discrimination complaint within 180 days of a discriminatory payroll
decision. Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left
without recourse in a country founded on a respect for the rule of law.
For this, we should be ashamed.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense
when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our
Constitution and in our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and
court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a
legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of
fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American
workplace. To this end, I urge my colleagues to step up for ``equal pay
for equal work'' and pass H.R. 1388.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
It has been 45 years since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act
of 1963, and while pay disparities have narrowed, a strong wage
disparity still exists. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau
women still make only 77 cents on the dollar to their male
counterparts.
We cannot deny that this gender disparity exists, and it is essential
that we close the loopholes that allow it to continue. The Paycheck
Fairness Act helps close these loopholes by increasing enforcement and
accountability in cases of discrimination. This bill provides relief
for women who face retaliation for standing up for equal pay, and it
requires the Department of Labor to increase their effort to end pay
disparities.
This is not only a bill for women, but a bill for children and
families. For the millions of working mothers in America--many of whom
are heads of households--it offers financial stability. This wage
disparity is costing women between $400,000 and $2 million over a
lifetime.
Lower wages factor into long-term financial planning. Retirement and
Social Security is based on income. Retirement aged women today are far
less likely to receive a pension, and rely on Social Security benefits
to survive. The wage discrimination women are facing today will
continue to follow them well into retirement.
We cannot continue to simply accept this disparity, and the Paycheck
Fairness Act is a strong statement that this type of discrimination
will not be tolerated. I would like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for
offering this important piece of legislation, and commend Chairman
Miller and the Democratic leadership for bringing this bill to the
floor.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. My dear friend and colleague,
Representative Rosa DeLauro, has worked for more than ten years on this
legislation to close the disparate pay gap between men and women. I
thank her for her tireless efforts.
President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act 45 years ago. I, like many
others, am left scratching my head, wondering why the wage gap has
narrowed by less than half a cent a year. Today, women earn only 77
cents for every dollar earned by men, compared with 59 cents on the
dollar in 1963. At this rate, it would take another 50 years to reach
parity between men and women. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R.
1338, which builds on the progress of the Equal Pay Act by improving
legal recourses for women who are being discriminated against in the
workplace, providing more effective remedies for claiming punitive and
compensatory damages--bringing them in line with those for race or
national origin discrimination, demanding from employers a business
justification for a gender-based pay difference, and prohibiting
employers from retaliating against employees who share salary
information with their co-workers.
As a husband, father of daughters and grandfather of granddaughters,
closing the pay gap is an issue I care deeply about. After cosponsoring
the Paycheck Fairness Act for nearly a decade, I am pleased to be
finally able to vote in favor of it here on the House Floor.
Over the years, I have studied the pay gap in depth. Representative
Carolyn Maloney and I have commissioned two Government Accountability
Office studies on the matter. The conclusion we have come to is sad and
disappointing, that even when controlling for all factors, women simply
lag behind men. This is most certainly not because women work less hard
than men--we know nothing could be further from the truth. Yet,
something is keeping women behind. This is why I am also a cosponsor of
the Equal Rights Amendment, which is a long overdue amendment to the
Constitution to finally give women the standing necessary to address
their grievances.
The pay gap is too often seen as a ``women's issue.'' In fact, this
is not a women's issue, it is a family issue. The simple fact of the
matter is that it often takes two incomes to make it in this country.
This is especially true during an economic downturn like we face today.
When women are not paid fairly, our families suffer.
I am proud to be here today voting in favor of the Paycheck Fairness
Act and sincerely hope this critically important legislation is signed
into law this year.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338,
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
I would like to acknowledge our colleague, Representative Rosa
DeLauro (D-CT), for her leadership on this issue and for bringing this
bill to the Floor.
Kofi Anan once said ``When women thrive, all of society benefits, and
succeeding generations are given a better start in life.'' In a period
of tough economic times, this bill and this quote could not be timelier
or more relevant. Despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963
women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. In a
society where women are increasingly the heads of households, pay
inequity harms not only the individual woman but her children and other
family members as well.
H.R. 1338 increases the penalties for gender discrimination, and puts
gender discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of
wage discrimination, including those based on race, disability, or age.
The bill prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who
share salary information with their co-workers. The fact of the matter
is that, for every woman who comes forward and speaks out against pay
discrimination, there are scores of other woman who remain silent for
fear of retaliation. This legislation sends a strong message to women
that their elected officials recognize the discrepancy in pay and are
doing everything in their power to remedy pay discrimination.
In closing, I would like to quote Betty Friedan, world renowned
feminist and author of the book The Feminine Mystique: ``A girl should
not expect special privileges because of her sex but neither should she
adjust to prejudice and discrimination.'' There is no room in this
society for gender discrimination, which harms the greater community
because when we uplift one segment of society, we uplift our entire
society.
For all the single mothers, working mothers, and young women entering
the workforce, I lend my full support to H.R. 1338, the Paycheck
Fairness Act.
This is a sound piece of legislation, a critical piece of
legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1338,
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Paycheck Fairness Act--for the basic promise of equality it upholds for
America's women and the faith it keeps with the best of who we are as a
nation.
The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 to enshrine into law the basic
principle of equal pay for equal work.
Forty-five years later, we are here today because American women
still only make $.77 cents for every dollar a male counterpart earns
when performing equal work. Worse, African-American women earn only
$.66 on the dollar, and Hispanic women a mere $.55.
This continued and persistent wage gap between men and women cannot
be explained by differences in education, qualifications or experience.
It is both unacceptable and un-American. And it must stop.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will move us towards our ultimate goal of
eliminating wage disparity in the United States by clarifying that any
employer's decision to pay a male employee more than a female employee
must not be based on gender, must be job-related and must be consistent
with business necessity. To avoid a repeat of the facts presented to
the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber case,
this legislation also prohibits employers from retaliating against
employees who discuss or disclose salary information with co-workers.
And it strengthens the remedies made available to women who have been
subjected to gender-based wage discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to recognize my good friend and
colleague Rosa DeLauro for her tireless leadership on this legislation.
We owe it to our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to pass it
without delay.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338,
the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would narrow the wage gap between men
and women. As a cosponsor of this bill, as well as a cosponsor in
previous Congressional sessions, I am pleased to

[[Page 17479]]

see this legislation finally debated on the House floor.
H.R. 1338 would strengthen the Equal Pay Act, which makes it unlawful
for an employer to pay unequal wages to men and women that have similar
jobs within the same establishment. The Paycheck Fairness Act would
allow women to sue for punitive damages, as well as compensatory
damages. Currently, women who seek compensation for unequal pay can
only recover back pay, or in some cases, double back pay. While this
bill would increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to
men and women for equal work, it also provides incentives such as
training programs for employers to eliminate pay disparities and grant
programs to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.
Some may argue that these changes are not necessary, but the numbers
speak for themselves. Despite greatly increased commitment to the labor
force over the past 45 years, women working full time make 77 cents for
every dollar earned by a man--less than a 20 percent increase since the
Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963. Even more troublesome,
African-American women earn 66 cents to the dollar and Latina women
earn 55 cents to the dollar. According to a Census Bureau study, male
high school graduates earned $13,000 more than female high school
graduates in 2006. Women with a bachelor's degree employed year-round
earned $53,201, while similarly educated men earned an average of
$76,749. This same study also noted that the pay difference between men
and women grows wider as they age.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that women
like Lilly Ledbetter do not have to argue their case for equal pay all
the way to the Supreme Court, so that single mothers do not have to
worry whether or not they are being treated fairly by their employers
while they provide for their children, and so that daughters entering
college can reach their full potential when they graduate.
Finally, I would like to thank my friend Congresswoman DeLauro for
her many years of leadership on this issue, as well as inspiring women
of all ages across our country.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in very strong support
of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was
a critical step forward in the ongoing struggle for equal rights for
women. The time has come to make common sense adjustments to the act in
order to make it more effective in fighting gender-based employment and
pay discrimination.
The American dream is undermined daily as women are denied equal pay
for their work. Improvement has come too slowly over the past 45 years,
with women's wages rising from 59 cents for every dollar earned by a
man in 1963 to 77 cents per every dollar earned by a man in 2008. This
gap is even worse for minority women, with Latinas earning 52 cents to
every dollar--the least of all racial and ethnic minorities as compared
to white men. The Paycheck Fairness Act will facilitate the achievement
of equal pay between the sexes.
A 2003 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that
when all the key factors that influence earnings are controlled for--
demographic factors such as marital status, race, number and age of
children, and income, as well as work patterns such as years of work,
hours worked, and job tenure--there is a 23 percent pay gap between
women and men that cannot be explained or justified.
Women now comprise 59 percent of the work force, compared to about
one-third when the Equal Pay Act was first passed. All working people
deserve the same opportunities to succeed professionally and
personally. The Paycheck Fairness Act will solidify our commitment to
this equality and bring us closer to achieving the ideals put forth in
so long ago in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes in the
law that have allowed employers to evade liability, providing tools to
improve outreach and training efforts to work with employers,
strengthening the negotiation skills of girls and women, and enhancing
the collection of information on women's and men's wages.
It is simply unacceptable that in the past 40 years the wage gap has
narrowed by less than 20 percent. We have the opportunity to aid
millions of American workers to achieve the American Dream, and so I am
proud to support H.R. 1338.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as cosponsor of this
legislation for multiple Congresses, I rise in strong support and urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.
This legislation would take meaningful steps to empower women to
negotiate for equal pay, to create strong incentives for employers to
follow the law, and to strengthen federal outreach and lenforcement
efforts.
According to the 2006 Census Bureau, women still earned only about 77
percent as much as men did. Women of color were worse off--African
American women made 66 cents on the dollar compared to the highest
earners, white men, while Hispanic women made only 55 cents. As a
result, according to the Institute of Women's Policy Research, working
women stand to lose anywhere between $400,000 and $2 million dollars
over the course of their career because of unequal pay practices. While
women's wages and educational attainment hve been rising, there is
still a sizeable gender wage gap. Only a portion of the difference in
pay can be explained by experience, education, or qualifications.
Using data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census
Bureau between 2004-2006, my own state of Texas ranked 7th in the
nation in gender based wage equity, with women earning on average 80.7
percent of what their male counterparts earned. Although this is
slightly better than the national average, it is obvious that there is
still work to be done. At the current rate of wage growth for men and
women in Texas, the National Committee on Pay Equity estimates that it
will take another 38 years before this wage gap is closed.
It is well past time for something be done to close the gender wage
gap so that men and women have the same opportunity to a decent working
wage. The original Equal Pay Act signed by President Kennedy 45 years
ago called for ``equal pay for equal work''. Although it has come a
long way, the fight for equal pay and treatment is still an ongoing
struggle.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would help address these conditions by
amending and strengthening the EPA, so that it will be a more effective
tool in combating gender-based pay discrimination. H.R. 1338 will close
numerous loopholes in the 45-year-old law that has enabled employers to
evade liability. It will also create a new grant program to help
strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.
Congress must pass this legislation to help ensure that this goal
becomes a reality, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.R. 1338.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338,
the Paycheck Fairness Act of which I am a proud cosponsor.
Every April I participate in ``Equal Pay Day'' with my friend,
Representative Rosa DeLauro, and other colleagues. This is the time of
year when wages paid to American women ``catch up'' to the wages paid
to men from the previous year. In other words, because the average
woman earns less, she must work longer for the same amount of pay. The
legislation before us today addresses this unacceptable reality.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 77 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. This wage disparity will end up costing
women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost
wages. Making matters worse, the wage gap grows wider as women age and
move through their careers, creating serious economic security
concerns.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen pay equity laws by closing
the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for
discriminatory pay, and help build economic and retirement security for
women.
It is in the best interest of all Americans to ensure that every
worker is treated fairly and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I commend Ms. DeLauro for introducing the legislation and for her
leadership on this issue over the past decade.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, the
Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation is needed to strengthen the
Equal Pay Act of 1963. I thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for
sponsoring this bill and fighting for its passage year after year and
Chairman George Miller for championing this bill through the committee
and on the House floor.
The Paycheck Fairness Act has garnered tremendous support from 230
cosponsors and over 200 national, state, and Iocal organizations. While
the Equal Pay Act was intended to prevent pay discrimination in the
workplace, 45 years after it was signed by President Kennedy, women,
and especially women of color, continue to take home significantly less
pay than men for the same work. Single women and female heads of
households fare the worst in the current system. These women earn less
than their male colleagues during their careers, which in turn
adversely affects their ability to save and accrue retirement benefits.
As a representative of the second Congressional district of Hawaii, I
have the great honor and responsibility of continuing the important
work of my predecessor, Patsy Takemoto Mink. Congresswoman Mink's
personal struggles as a woman in a culture dominated by men inspired
her to work tirelessly for equal

[[Page 17480]]

rights for women and girls. She faced obstacles in pursuing her
education and career, but she was not deterred--instead, she broke down
barriers, becoming the first Japanese-American woman admitted to the
bar in Hawaii and the first woman of color elected to national office
in this country when she was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1964. Today, women continue to break down barriers
in the workplace, but they still receive only a fraction of the pay men
receive for the same work.
Although the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was passed to prevent pay
discrimination based on sex, the law clearly has not had the intended
result, even after 45 years. Women still make only 77 cents for every
dollar earned by men for equal work. This bill will strengthen
enforcement of the law, thereby fulfilling its intended purpose.
I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for the right of women to
receive equal pay and support the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1338 and I want to
thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her leadership on this important bill.
She has fought for paycheck fairness for women during every Congress
for the past decade and should be commended for her tenacity.
We are a nation with a constitution and bill of rights.
It is sad to admit that in a country as prosperous as ours, women
only earn 77 cents to every dollar that men earn.
It's even worse for minority women: with African American women
earning 66 cents to the dollar of Latinas earning 55 cents to the
dollar.
This bill corrects this injustice by making it illegal for employers
to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform equal work.
In 1923, women's suffragist Alice Paul, wrote the Equal Rights
Amendment which would guarantee ``equal justice under law'' to all
citizens. I was proud to sponsor a bill that would honor Alice Paul
with a congressional Gold Medal for her heroic leadership in fighting
for the ERA and in working to achieve women's right to vote. My bill,
H.R. 406 passed the house with 406 cosponsors, a historic record of
support! While the ERA was never ratified, the Paycheck Fairness Act
brings us closer to achieving its intent.
Wage discrimination keeps women down and harms the overall economy.
It also represents the worst of America. We must confront
discrimination head on and ensure that all Americans, regardless of
gender, receive equal pay for equal work.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, in 2008, a year in which women have
made unprecedented gains in public and private leadership--Speaker of
the U.S. House of Representatives; chairwomen of powerful committees
and subcommittees; chief executive officers and chairwomen of Fortune
500 Companies, among many others--it is simply unforgivable and
unacceptable that women, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, continue
to make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Over a
lifetime, this is anywhere from $400,000 to more than $2 million
dollars that cannot be spent by a woman on food for her children,
clothing for her grandparents, for decent housing for her and her
family. In an era in heightened economic challenges, we should not, we
cannot undervalue, underappreciate and marginalize the hard work that
women do each and every day.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
As its name suggests, this bill is about fairness. As a nation, we
have made great strides in promoting fairness in the workplace since
the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. Unfortunately, I do not think the
language of that bill adequately addresses the problem of gender-based
wage discrimination. In particular, the language of the Equal Pay Act
offers little remedy for women who are not being paid equal wages for
doing equal work.
The statistics describe precisely why this legislation is needed.
Despite representing nearly half of the American workforce, and despite
countless examples of professional women who have ascended to the
highest levels of any given field, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates
women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
This bill would require that employers, in justifying unequal pay,
provide evidence-based reasoning that such pay discrepancies are job-
related and necessary for their business. It would help end the secret
discrimination of unequal pay by prohibiting employers from retaliating
against employees who share salary information with their coworkers.
And this bill would dissuade employers from practicing gender-based pay
discrimination by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive
damages--the same sanctions that already apply to discrimination based
on race, disability or age.
There are also some amendments that I think are important to prevent
unscrupulous people from unfairly taking advantage of the provisions in
this bill. As I said, this bill is about fairness, so I support the
amendment from the gentle lady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords, which would
clarify that a plaintiff would have to show intent to recover any
punitive damages. I also support the amendment of another good friend
from Arizona and a fellow supporter of earmark reform, Mr. Flake, which
would prohibit any funds authorized under this bill from being used for
Congressional earmarks.
Women have long proven their equal measure of talent and capacity in
every corner of the professional world. It's long overdue that they be
compensated equally as well, so I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a co-sponsor of H.R. 1338,
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Last week, I had the honor of participating in a portrait unveiling
ceremony for former New Jersey Representative Mary Norton, who was the
chair of the Labor Committee 70 years ago and a tireless advocate for
equal pay. Under her leadership Congress passed 1938 Fair Labor
Standards Act that established the 40-hour workweek, outlawed child
labor and established a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour. I think of
her today when I say that while we have made significant progress since
the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the fight for equality in the workplace is
far from over. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women still earn
only 77 percent as much as men on average. These statistics are worse
for women of color; African-American women earn only 71.7 cents and
Latinas only 58.5 cents for every dollar earned by their male
counterparts.
Unfortunately, this wage gap only increases over time and has lasting
effects on the lives of our working women. While women 1 year out of
college earn 80 percent of what their male peers make, by the time
women are 10 years out of college they are making only 69 percent of
what men do. Furthermore, after a lifetime of receiving lower wages,
older women are less likely than older men to receive pension income,
and when they do they receive only half of the benefits that men
receive. It is then sad, but unsurprising, that women represent 70
percent of older adults living in poverty.
Mary Norton understood that the wage gap is not just a women's
issue--it is a family issue. When women earn less for equal work,
families are forced to do more with less. Affording all of life's
expenses is challenging enough--it shouldn't be made harder as a result
of women being shortchanged on payday.
I believe that there is more that can and should be done to level the
playing field and provide fair opportunities for women in education and
the workplace. I would like to commend my colleague from Connecticut,
Representative Rosa DeLauro, for introducing H.R. 1338, the Paycheck
Fairness Act. This bill would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close
loopholes that allow employers to avoid responsibility for
discriminatory pay and prohibit employers from retaliating against
employees who discuss salary information with their co-workers. It
would also create a training program to strengthen women's negotiation
skills and establish additional avenues for women to seek equal pay in
the workplace.
This legislation is long overdue and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338). This is a historic
day in the fight for equal rights for women, and I would like to thank
Speaker Pelosi, Congresswoman DeLauro, and Chairman Miller for their
leadership in this issue.
Women have made great strides in the American workplace during the
last quarter century. Women are now more likely to have advanced
degrees, own businesses, and make up nearly half the workforce. When
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, women
and young girls were inspired to know that there is no job a woman in
this country cannot do. As we send our young female graduates into the
workforce we must ensure that they receive equal pay for equal work.
Although the wage gap has narrowed since the passage of the landmark
Equal Pay Act in 1963, gender-based wage discrimination remains a
problem for women in the workforce. It is unacceptable that women
continue to earn just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and pay
disparity can be even worse for minority women. This wage disparity
will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in
lost wages. Furthermore, the wage disparity grows wider as women age

[[Page 17481]]

and threatens their economic security, retirement, and quality of life.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will make commonsense reforms to strengthen
the Equal Pay Act and close the loopholes that have allowed employers
to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay. It would require
employers seeking to justify unequal pay to bear the burden of proving
that their actions are justified, and allow women to sue for punitive
damages. This bill would also prohibit employers from retaliating
against employees who share salary information with their co-workers.
Finally, it would create a training program to help women strengthen
their negotiation skills, and require the Department of Labor to work
with employers to eliminate pay disparities by enhancing outreach and
training efforts.
The Paycheck Fairness Act recognizes that equal pay is not only an
issue of fairness for women, but also one of fairness for working
families. In these tough economic times, this bill could make all the
difference for working families to make ends meet in their everyday
lives. Through these efforts we can help give families the resources
they need to give their children a better future. Pay equity should not
be a benefit that needs to be bargained for, it is a promise that the
Government must ensure.
I urge my colleagues to rise in support of this bill to ensure
economic security for women and their families. Through this
legislation we can ensure a better future for our daughters,
granddaughters, and generations to come.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my enthusiastic
support for H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and thank Chairman
Miller of the Education and Labor Committee and Congresswoman DeLauro,
the sponsor of this legislation for their tireless work and leadership
on this Issue.
To paraphrase James Madison, ``If men [and women] were angels, no
government would be necessary.'' And in an ideal world, we wouldn't
need legislation to reinforce the concept of equal pay for equal work.
But even today in 2008, when women make on average only 77 cents for
every one dollar made by their male counterparts, the importance of the
Paycheck Fairness Act is clear.
Gender-based wage discrimination has been illegal in this country
since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed into law. Yet, the pay
disparity between women and men that still persists today highlights
the need to take another look at our wage discrimination laws. This
disparity, by the way, is estimated to cost a working woman between
$400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime.
I am a proud cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is about
equal pay for equal work--and it is about time!
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

H.R. 1338

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 ``Paycheck Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over
the past 50 years.
(2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963,
many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men
for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the
private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay
disparities can only be due to continued intentional
discrimination or the lingering effects of past
discrimination.
(3) The existence of such pay disparities--
(A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the
wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
(B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often
based on earnings while in the workforce;
(C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor
resources;
(D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and
the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the
workers of the several States;
(E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in
commerce;
(F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in
commerce;
(G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods
in commerce; and
(I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal
protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and
14th amendments.
(4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of
discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex
continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
(B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part,
because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress
originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the
law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective
protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the
basis of their sex.
(C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive
effects, including--
(i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created
by unfair pay disparities;
(ii) substantially reducing the number of working women
earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence
on public assistance;
(iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family
members to earn a fair rate of pay;
(iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the
basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are
afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
(v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress' power
to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments.
(5) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission have important and unique
responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay
for equal work.
(6) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
(A) collecting and making publicly available information
about women's pay;
(B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts
comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action
requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal
employment opportunity);
(C) disseminating information about women's rights in the
workplace;
(D) helping women who have been victims of pay
discrimination obtain a remedy; and
(E) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal
pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in
enforcing all of its mandates.
(7) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the
primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal
Pay Act, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate
interpretations of the law.
(8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their
responsibilities, increased information about the provisions
added by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more
effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize
and enforce their rights.
(9) Certain employers have already made great strides in
eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their
achievements should be recognized.

SEC. 3. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Bona-Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same
Establishment Requirement.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No employer having'' and inserting ``(A)
No employer having'';
(2) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and
inserting ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as
education, training, or experience''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(B) The bona fide factor defense described in
subparagraph (A)(v) shall apply only if the employer
demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or
derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii)
is job-related with respect to the position in question; and
(iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense
shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an
alternative employment practice exists that would serve the
same business purpose without producing such differential and
that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative
practice.
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be
deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees
work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same
county or similar political subdivision of a State. The
preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader
applications of the term `establishment' consistent with
rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity
Employment Commission.''.
(b) Application of Provisions.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is further
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The provisions
of this subsection shall apply to applicants for employment
if such applicants, upon employment by the employer, would be
subject to any provisions of this section.''.
(c) Nonretaliation Provision.--Section 15 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``employee has
filed'' and all that follows and inserting ``employee--
``(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or
instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act,
including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has
testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or
participated in any manner in any such investigation,
proceeding, hearing or action or in an

[[Page 17482]]

investigation conducted by the employer, or has served or is
planning to serve on an industry Committee; or
``(B) has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages
of the employee or another employee.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in
which an employee who has access to the wage information of
other employees as a part of such employee's essential job
functions discloses the wages of such other employees to
individuals who do not otherwise have access to such
information, unless such disclosure is in response to a
complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d) or an
investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an
employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
(d) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally
be liable for such compensatory damages or punitive damages
as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall
not be liable for punitive damages.'';
(2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking
``either of the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection'';
(3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees shall'', by
striking ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect
to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no
employee'';
(4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in
paragraph (3), the following: ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce
section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''; and
(5) in the sentence beginning ``The court in''--
(A) by striking ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any
action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``,
including expert fees''.
(e) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of
section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages,''
before ``and the agreement''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of section
6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages'';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first
sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence'';
and
(4) in the last sentence--
(A) by striking ``commenced in the case'' and inserting
``commenced--
``(1) in the case'';
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce
section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a
party plaintiff to the class action.''.

SEC. 4. TRAINING.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the
availability of funds appropriated under section 11, shall
provide training to Commission employees and affected
individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination
in the payment of wages.

SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.

(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, after consultation
with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish
and carry out a grant program.
(2) Grants.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary of
Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible
entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs
for girls and women.
(3) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency,
such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan
statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational
agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-
based organization.
(4) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may
require.
(5) Use of funds.--An entity that receives a grant under
this subsection shall use the funds made available through
the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills
training program that empowers girls and women. The training
provided through the program shall help girls and women
strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and
women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation
that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male
employees.
(b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue
regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating
the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable,
into programs authorized under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other
programs carried out by the Department of Education that the
Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other
programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the
Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and
submit to Congress a report describing the activities
conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness
of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 6. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.

The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide
information to employers, labor organizations, and the
general public concerning the means available to eliminate
pay disparities between men and women, including--
(1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means
to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay
disparities;
(2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers,
labor organizations, professional associations, educational
institutions, the media, and the general public the findings
resulting from studies and other materials, relating to
eliminating the pay disparities;
(3) sponsoring and assisting State and community
informational and educational programs;
(4) providing information to employers, labor
organizations, professional associations, and other
interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay
disparities;
(5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of
employers, labor organizations, and professional associations
that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
(6) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider
approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN
THE WORKPLACE.

(a) In General.--There is established the Secretary of
Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which
shall be awarded, as appropriate, to encourage proactive
efforts to comply with this Act.
(b) Criteria for Qualification.--The Secretary of Labor
shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a
requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to
eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves
special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The
secretary shall establish procedures for the application and
presentation of the award.
(c) Business.--In this section, the term ``employer''
includes--
(1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
(B) a partnership;
(C) a professional association;
(D) a labor organization; and
(E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any
of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
(2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a
training program, such as an apprenticeship or management
training program, or a similar program; and
(3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a
combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or
(2).

SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
``(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently
available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay
information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with
other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data
collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws;
and
``(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations
under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the
collection of pay information data from employers as
described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
``(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Commission shall
have as its primary consideration the most effective and
efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the
Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of
burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports
(including which employers should be required to prepare
reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data
confidentiality, and the most effective format for the data
collection reports.''.

SEC. 9. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY
DATA COLLECTION.

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection.--The
Commissioner of Labor Statistics

[[Page 17483]]

shall continue to collect data on women workers in the
Current Employment Statistics survey.
(b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Initiatives.--The Director of the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the
Office--
(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at
the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
(B) in considering evidence of possible compensation
discrimination--
(i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of
types of evidence; and
(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a
small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
(C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or
anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and
enforcement activities, shall define ``similarly situated
employees'' in a way that is consistent with and not more
stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of
subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall
consider only factors that the Office's investigation reveals
were used in making compensation decisions; and
(3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey, as
required by section 60-2.18 of title 41, Code of Federal
Regulations, designating not less than half of all
nonconstruction contractor establishments each year to
prepare and file such survey, and shall review and utilize
the responses to such survey to identify contractor
establishments for further evaluation and for other
enforcement purposes as appropriate.
(c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination
Information.--The Secretary of Labor shall make readily
available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and
through any other forum that the Department may use to
distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate
information on compensation discrimination, including
statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical
analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers
on compliance, and any other information that will assist the
public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to
carry out this Act.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 110-807. Each amendment shall be
considered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member
designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Bean

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-807.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Bean:
Page 8, line 23, strike ``(b) Application of Provisions''
and all that follows through page 9, line 4.
Page 9, line 5, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Page 10, line 12, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 11, line 18, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Bean) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Congresswoman
Rosa DeLauro, Chairman Miller, and so many others in our Congress who
worked long and hard to address the issue of pay equity. Having worked
20 years in the private sector before coming to Congress, where I am
now uniquely guaranteed equal pay, along with all Members who are
Representatives, I understand the significance of this legislation
before us today.
The amendment I am offering would strike section 3(b) titled
Application of Provisions from the Underlying Bill. In doing so, this
amendment would prevent the expansion of the Equal Pay Act to include
job applicants.

{time} 1730

Under the current Equal Pay Act, only employees can raise a claim on
pay discrimination. However, the underlying bill, in its current form,
would, for the first time, allow job applicants to file suit, even if
they do not accept a position for pay discrimination under the act.
This is a significant expansion of the act, especially in the context
of a bill that is otherwise focused on strengthening existing rights
already provided to employees under the Equal Pay Act.
While in principle I oppose expanding the Equal Pay Act rights to
applicants, the very nature of extending these rights to applicants
leads to several practical complications. The bill is unclear on how to
deal with those complications.
For example, H.R. 1338 fails to clarify for employers how long they
would be liable to an applicant who is offered lower wages than an
individual subsequently hired. First, there is no certainty that that
initial offer is representative of what a negotiated final offer might
have been.
In addition, if an employer originally offers a job at, say, $10 an
hour, but raises the offer to $12 a few months later because she was
unable to find a qualified applicant, is the employer potentially
liable to every prior applicant of the opposite sex? How far back would
that liability extend?
Even more concerning is that without better defined rules for how
applicants would be covered under this act, employers might be
deterred, out of an abundance of caution, from raising the salary
offered for a job opening when they are unable to initially fill a
position.
For these reasons, and others, I believe this bill should be narrowed
to provide protections to employees, not applicants, in keeping with
the original structure of the Equal Pay Act.
It is important to note, if this provision is struck, applicants
would continue to have protections under title VII, which also protects
against discrimination. And if job applicants who are offered lower pay
than a male counterpart were to accept a job, they would be protected
by the underlying bill and eligible to file a claim for any pay
discrimination as an employee.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and if my
amendment is adopted, I urge them to support final passage of the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not oppose the gentlelady's amendment, but I wish to make
clear, as with the other Democratic amendments to this bill that we are
likely to debate today, this amendment makes the most minor of
improvements to a fundamentally flawed bill. I will not oppose the
amendment, but its adoption does not change my strong opposition to the
underlying bill.
As I understand the gentlelady's amendment, it would strike from the
underlying bill a provision which would extend the Equal Pay Act to
cover not only employees, but even applicants for employment. I agree
that striking this provision is the right thing to do.
Under current law, and since 1963, the Equal Pay Act has required
that employers pay equal wages earned for equal work performed. It is
hard to imagine how the law was ever meant to cover the payment of
wages which have not yet been earned for work that has not yet been
done. Frankly, the provision should not have been included in the bill
in the first place, and I support its deletion.
That said, I stress again that this change is, at best, cosmetic and
too little too late to address the fundamental flaws in the underlying
bill. Put more simply, this amendment is the equivalent of putting
lipstick on a pig. At the end of the day, it doesn't change things
much.
You know where I got that from.
I will not oppose the amendment, but I remain opposed to the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

[[Page 17484]]

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 110-807.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order
by the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 12, after line 20, insert the following:
(f) Conditional Implementation.--
(1) Conditional effective date.--Subject to subparagraph
(3), this section and the amendments made by this section
shall become effective on the date that is 90 days after the
Secretary transmits to Congress the report required under
subparagraph (2).
(2) Study on recruitment and hiring of employees.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the effect of
the requirements of this section and the amendments made
under this section on the ability of employers to recruit and
hire employees irrespective of gender, and not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, shall transmit
to Congress a report containing the findings of such study.
(3) Determination by secretary.--This section and the
amendments made by this section shall not take effect if the
Secretary finds that the requirements of this section may
significantly hinder employers' recruitment and hiring of
employees irrespective of gender.''

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes
implementation of the new wage discrimination provisions in this bill
contingent upon a study that demonstrates that these provisions do not
hinder recruiting and hiring.
Equal pay for equal work, as has been mentioned multiple times today,
is the law of the land. It is now and it has been since the passage of
the Equal Pay Act in 1963. And generally, businesses do a tremendous
job paying employees fairly, regardless of gender.
But the plan before the House today treats wage discrimination as
systemic. Consequently, the conclusion of the majority party is to take
this measure and turn power over to bureaucrats and to trial lawyers to
interject, distort and oversee how wages are determined through
lawsuits and regulations. If this happens, employment opportunities may
actually become more limited, and flexible job structures may become
more scarce or a thing of the past. In short, the very real problem
that this legislation attempts to correct may, in fact, exacerbate
others, very real challenges, already facing American workers.
With these reforms, there would be less incentive for employers to
offer a variety of working situations like flex time or more limited
travel if doing so puts an employer at risk of being sued, and this
bill would do that.
Such rigidity and limitations means increased expenses for employers.
Current and prospective workers then suffer through lower wages and
slower job creation, or simply fewer opportunities to meet individual
workers needs. Overall, it may prove to be a drag on the economy by
adding additional friction to labor markets.
This amendment calls on the Secretary of Labor to study the impact of
these new wage discrimination provisions on the ability of employers to
recruit and hire employees, regardless of gender.
A strong contention, I believe, can be made that these changes will
have a detrimental effect on labor markets, increased lawsuits,
unlimited damages may discourage hiring and perhaps further segregate
employment preferences for one gender in favor of another.
In order to determine this, the Secretary should have time to
quantify and evaluate the bill's impact on recruitment and hiring
decisions. This is information that everyone should want, I believe, in
this House, prior to voting on an implementation of this bill. If there
is no harm to job creation, then these provisions would go forward.
All that this amendment is asking is 90 days for the Secretary to
undertake an informed review. The impetus for this bill's passage
shouldn't rest on faulty comparisons of male and female median annual
earnings that do not take into account all sorts of things, such as
education or experience or occupation.
Mr. Chairman, equal pay for equal work is already the law of the
land. The revisions before us today are a departure from this standard,
and may radically alter how labor markets work through increased
litigation and regulation. If that happens, it is best for all of us to
have a clear understanding of its impact beforehand.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because I
believe it gives veto power over this legislation to the Secretary of
Labor.
The premise of this amendment is we need to study more and let the
Secretary of Labor decide whether we need stronger legal protections
for women to earn equal pay for equal work. I don't think we need to
study it at all. I think the fact that women are earning 77 cents for
every dollar that a man earns is evidence of why we need this law.
I think the fact that 10 years out of college, when you adjust for
different family factors such as child rearing, that women are earning,
on the average, 12 percent less than men in similar professions shows
that we need this law.
I think the fact that studies have shown that women are shorted
millions of dollars, anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a
lifetime because of inadequate enforcement of the law for equal pay for
equal work, I think it makes it crystal clear that the idea of
subordinating our responsibility and giving the Secretary of Labor the
opportunity to subvert what we are doing here today is unjustified and
unwarranted.
So I would urge the defeat of this amendment because I believe it is
unnecessary, and I think it substitutes the judgment of the Secretary
of Labor for the judgment of the elected representatives of the people.
We should defeat this amendment, support this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and rise
to oppose the amendment and in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Today, this House moves America's working women into the 21st
century. And, in so doing, I believe it is important to place on the
record the story of our mother, Anastasia, who when she began work back
in the middle of the last century as a counter waitress as Liberty
Lunch on Broadway in Toledo, Ohio did not even earn the minimum wage.
That was made possible only by the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in
1938. But even when that Act passed, her boss would then cash her check
and deduct the increase from her, and pocket it himself.
I am privileged that I now, as a Congresswoman, came from a family
that did not spare its children the story of hardship and struggle that
still characterizes the lives of millions of women in our country
today. In passing this act, I do so in memory of our mother and
millions and millions of American women who ask only to be treated
fairly in the workplace and earn equal pay for equal work and get that
check.
It is a commentary on the struggle of working people everywhere that
it takes a Nation centuries to enact into law what is decent and right
on the merits. Today we do what is morally right and economically just.
Today we give America's working women a real dose of liberty.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding me time today, oppose this
amendment but strongly support this measure.

[[Page 17485]]

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes. The gentleman
from California has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I will reserve.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just join in what my
colleagues have already said, that I don't think this needs further
study. And I think, certainly, the idea of basing whether or not this
law will be enacted on a single study by this Secretary of Labor within
90 days, when we have a decade of studies, very few that have been
challenged for their accuracy, that continues to tell us that, while
the situation has improved, we still have this huge disparity between
the pay of men and women for the same jobs, for the same
responsibilities.
And this legislation is designed to rid us of that disparity. It is
designed to rid us of that discrimination, and it is designed to give
women the tools that they need to go in and to enforce their rights.
And I would hope that we would support this legislation, that we would
reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would just say to my friend from Ohio, who I
see is off the floor, but the egregious example that she gave, all of
us agree is wrong, and it is already illegal. It is not addressed with
this act. Equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land.
This amendment asks for a 90-day study by the Secretary to determine
whether there are adverse effects on hiring and recruitment of
employees. It is a simple amendment, commonsense amendment.
With that, I am pleased to yield to my friend from California for
such time as he may consume.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think that we have heard in this debate today, 70 percent, 77
percent, over and over and over and over. And when we had a hearing
last year, we had a lot of different figures that were given. It seems
to me that it is important to have an outside source look at this, and
I think the Secretary of Labor should do this study so that we don't do
more harm than good.
I think this is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering
it, and I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would
just say in closing that, in fact, there is evidence that, in fact, 70
cents on the dollar may not be an accurate figure. I don't know what
the accurate figure is. But I do know that there is disagreement about
what it is.
I would like to put into the Record an article from Independent
Women's forum talking about just that.
As such, I believe that a study is indeed appropriate. That is all
that the amendment does, requests a study, 90-day study, and then
report back and move forward if there is no evidence of difficulty in
hiring and recruitment.

A Bargain at 77 Cents to a Dollar

[From Independent Women's Forum, April 3, 2007]

(By Carrie L. Lukas)

Why are politicians again championing the Equal Rights
Amendment--newly minted as the Women's Equality Amendment--
when the speaker of the House, secretary of state and the
Democratic presidential front-runner are women, and when
women are making gains in education and the workforce? One
reason is that many claim women are systematically
discriminated against at work, as the existence of the so-
called wage gap proves.
Talking about wage discrimination against women is a
political mainstay. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton
expressed consternation that women continue to make ``just 77
cents for every dollar that a man makes'' and reintroduced
legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, that would give the
government more power to make ``an equal paycheck for equal
work'' a reality.
This statistic--probably the most frequently cited of the
Labor Department's data--is also its most misused.
Yes, the Labor Department regularly issues new data
comparing the median wage of women who work full time with
the median wage of men who work full-time, and women's
earnings bob at around three-quarters those of men. But this
statistic says little about women's compensation and the
influence of discrimination on men's and women's earnings.
All the relevant factors that affect pay--occupation,
experience, seniority, education and hours worked--are
ignored. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account
the different roles that work tends to play in men's and
women's lives.
In truth, I'm the cause of the wage gap--I and hundreds of
thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have
worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I've
made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in
the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought
out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to
balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I
took time off and then opted to stay home full time and
telecommute. I'm not making as much money as I could, but I'm
compensated by having the best working arrangement I could
hope for.
Women make similar trade-offs all the time. Surveys have
shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on
flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus
more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or
relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours
in the office than men do. Men disproportionately take on the
dirtiest, most dangerous and depressing jobs.
When these kinds of differences are taken into account and
the comparison is truly between men and women in equivalent
roles, the wage gap shrinks. In his book ``Why Men Earn
More,'' Warren Farrell--a former board member of the National
Organization for Women in New York--identifies more than
three dozen professions in which women out-earn men
(including engineering management, aerospace engineering,
radiation therapy and speech-language pathology). Farrell
seeks to empower women with this information. Discrimination
certainly plays a role in some workplaces, but individual
preferences are the real root of the wage gap.
When women realize that it isn't systemic bias but the
choices they make that determine their earnings, they can
make better-informed decisions. Many women may not want to
follow the path toward higher pay--which often requires more
time on the road, more hours in the office or less
comfortable and less interesting work--but they're better off
not feeling like victims.
Government attempts to ``solve'' the problem of the wage
gap may in fact exacerbate some of the challenges women face,
particularly in balancing work and family. Clinton's
legislation would give Washington bureaucrats more power to
oversee how wages are determined, which might prompt
businesses to make employment options more rigid. Flexible
job structures such as the one I enjoy today would probably
become scarcer. Why would companies offer employees a variety
of work situations and compensation packages if doing so puts
them at risk of being sued?
Women hearing Clinton's pledge to solve their problems and
increase their pay should think hard about the choices they
have made. They should think about the women they know and
about their career paths. I bet they'll find that maximizing
pay hasn't always been the top priority. Eliminating the wage
gap may sound like a good campaign promise, but since the
wage gap mostly reflects individual differences in
priorities, it's a promise that we should hope a President
Hillary Clinton wouldn't try to keep.
Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at
the Independent Women's Forum and the author of ``The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.''
This article was first published in The Washington Post.

I encourage adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Altmire

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 110-807.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Altmire:
Page 21, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.

(a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act
(b) Technical Assistance Materials.--The Secretary of Labor
and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance
material to assist small

[[Page 17486]]

businesses in complying with the requirements of this Act and
the amendments made by this Act.
(c) Small Businesses.--A small business shall be exempt
from the provisions of this Act to the same extent that such
business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act pursuant to section 3(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of
such Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution, 1388, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment serves to assist small businesses in implementing the
changes made by this bill. Small businesses are the backbone of our
economy, and we must ensure that this legislation does not place
additional undue burdens on the very entrepreneurs who continue to be
the main source of job growth in our communities.

{time} 1745

My amendment provides an additional 6 months for the implementation
of this Act for those small businesses, and the Department of Labor
will be responsible for educating small businesses about the law and
assisting them with compliance.
The goals of this bill are laudable, and my amendment only seeks to
guarantee that small businesses are not put at an unfair disadvantage
when complying with this law.
Through this amendment, we will give small businesses the time and
resources they need to adjust to the changes brought on by this bill.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment. As I
understand it, the gentleman's amendment does two things: First, it
provides a 6-month delay in the effective date of the bill; and second,
it directs the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to develop materials to assist small businesses in complying
with the law's new requirements.
I do not object to either of these provisions. Indeed, I have always
believed that we should do all we can, all that we should to assist
small businesses which are the backbone of our economy and the leading
source of job growth in our Nation.
Frankly, I would say that the gentleman's approach is a decidedly
second-best option. As we just heard in debate on the prior amendment,
I would support delaying implementation of the key provisions of this
bill until we have a full understanding of its impact on jobs and on
the recruiting and hiring of employees. If Members genuinely want to
make sure the businesses, particularly small businesses, are not
unfairly penalized by this legislation, they will, I hope, support the
amendment previously offered by my colleague, Mr. Price, which will do
just that.
I will also say there is a certain irony here. While the gentleman's
amendment purports to help small businesses, what it fails to do is
address fundamental flaws in the underlying bill, core issues which
leave me to strongly oppose this legislation today. As I have said
before and I expect I will say again before debate is concluded, the
underlying bill offers little to benefit working women and families
while threatening to wreck havoc on workers and employers by expanding
liability and encouraging costly lawsuits. Nothing in the gentleman's
amendment changes that simple fact.
I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I would advise
Members to not kid themselves into thinking that compliance assistance
for small business in any real way addresses core failings in the
underlying bill. Whether this amendment is adopted or not, I remain
opposed to H.R. 1338 and urge my colleague to join me in voting ``no''
on final passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ALTIMRE. I yield the distinguished chairman of the committee as
much time as he may consume.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I won't take that long.
I just want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We've
discussed it for some time, and your persistence has won out. And I
think it's a good amendment, and I would hope that the committee would
adopt it.
Mr. ALTIMRE. I thank the gentleman from California.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altimre).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ALTIMRE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Giffords

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 110-807.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Giffords:
Page 10, beginning on line 17, strike ``damages or'' and
insert ``damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that
the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference,''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Giffords) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the President and CEO of my family's small tire
business, I know the challenges that small businesses face in America,
not just to thrive but truly to survive in a rapidly increasingly
global economy. Small businesses are truly the backbone of a strong and
vibrant community, and women are major economic contributors since we
constitute over 45 percent of small business employees.
That is why I strongly support H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act,
because it recognizes women's valuable role in the workplace.
It is also important, though, to make sure this legislation is fair.
So today I'm offering an amendment that will clarify the legal standard
for punitive damages as requiring malice or reckless indifference. This
commonsense amendment means that businesses will not be subject to
punitive damages unless they act with malice or reckless intent. This
standard mirrors the burden that applies in other civil rights laws.
Today, as we close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act that have allowed
women to continue to be underpaid for equal work, we must do so fairly.
It is unacceptable for society to undervalue the work that women do and
underpay us for equal work. According to the United States Department
of Labor, American women are earning 74 cents for every dollar earned
by a man, taking women 16 months to earn what men earn in 1 calendar
year. This disparity is not just unfair, but it is also a major
economic concern for millions of hardworking American families.
Closing the wage gap will also have a long-term impact on women's
economic security especially during their retirement years. Women, of
course, are living longer. Men are living longer, too, but women longer
than men. Over time, lower wages translate into less income that counts
for calculating pension and Social Security benefits. Older women are
less likely than older men to receive pension income. And when they do,
they only receive one-half of the benefits that men do.
As a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, I am proud to join with
229 of my colleagues in showing strong support for this legislation.
I urge the House to pass this amendment that has been endorsed by the

[[Page 17487]]

United States Chamber of Commerce. It is time that America, the land of
equal opportunity, recognize equal pay between men and women. I am
proud to be part of this historic effort.
I'm particularly proud that my mother is here in the gallery today to
witness this historic act of Congress.
So thank you, Congresswoman DeLauro, for your tireless effort over so
many years, and Chairman Miller as well, for continuing to fight for
the people that are truly underrepresented in so many ways.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not oppose this amendment. I do want to make clear that as the
gentlelady spoke, the Chamber of Commerce supports her amendment, not
the bill. They are opposed, as I am, to the underlying bill. I want to
be clear that adoption or defeat will not change my position on the
underlying bill. The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, which we're
debating today, has nothing to do with making paychecks fairer and
everything to do with lining the pockets of trial lawyers.
The gentlelady's amendment tinkers at the margins of just one of the
bill's fundamental flaws. Whether adopted or not, it does not change my
strong opposition or the Chamber of Commerce's strong opposition to the
underlying bill.
The gentlelady's amendment would appear to limit the circumstances in
which a plaintiff can recover punitive damages under the bill to those
situations where he or she can show that an employer acted with malice
or reckless indifference. First, let me point out that nowhere in the
Fair Labor Standards Act or Equal Pay Act is this standard of proof,
malice, or reckless indifference used. It's an entirely new concept to
this statute and one which will no doubt and to no one's great surprise
encourage extended litigation to determine its meaning in the context
of the Equal Pay Act.
Even more telling is what the gentlelady's amendment does not do. It
does not limit compensatory or punitive damages but still puts
employers at risk for unlimited punitive and compensatory damage
awards, remedies far beyond those contained in title VII, nor does it
require that the plaintiff show the employer engaged in intentional
discrimination. Presumably now an employer can be slapped with a
multimillion-dollar punitive fine if a jury finds that he or she was
indifferent, whatever that means.
When all is said and done, the amendment does little, if anything, to
address the radical expansion of liability and the payback to trial
lawyers contained in the bill. I'm excited to see what lawyers will do
with that in front of a judge discussing indifference and how that
pertains to the law. The gentlelady's amendment provides the most
modest limitations of the bill's dramatic expansion of liability that
one could imagine.
Now some limitation may be better than none at all, but this fig leaf
does not come close to addressing core problems in the bill.
I will not oppose the amendment, but I remain strongly opposed to the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I'm really proud that
one of my experiences that I bring to the United States Congress is
running a family tire and automotive company. There are not that many
Members of Congress that know what it's like to make a payroll, to know
what it's like to have laws imposed on them at the local, at the State,
at the Federal levels, and I think that that background is really
critical. That's one of the reasons that I am pleased that the United
States Chamber of Commerce has endorsed this amendment.
With that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join
with me in passing this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Berry). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cazayoux

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 110-807.
Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Cazayoux:
Page 21, after line 3, insert the following:

SEC. 11. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act,
shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to
fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including
any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the House Resolution 1388, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for this thoughtful
legislation that is long overdue. It is imperative that hardworking
women be fairly compensated and that they are not being shortchanged by
longstanding practices. Far too long in this country many American
women have suffered pay inequities that have denied them the earnings
they deserve. In America, this is unacceptable, and this bill aims to
rectify those inequities.
However, as we seek to protect the legal rights of American workers,
we must also protect their rights from being abused by those who work
here illegally. The amendment I bring to the floor today serves to
ensure that nothing in this legislation or in any amendments to this
legislation will affect the obligations of employers and employees to
comply with immigration laws. That means that anyone found to be in
violation of our immigration laws, whether they are employers or
employees, will be subject to all fines and penalties imposed by those
laws regardless of the protections for all workers, male or female,
contained within this Act.
Again, I thank Chairwoman DeLauro as well as Chairman Miller for this
meaningful legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not oppose this amendment. I don't know that any Member of the
House would or could. It is simply a restatement of current law. I
strongly believe that every employer and every worker should comply
with our Nation's immigration laws. Indeed, I have long argued that our
immigration laws need to be strengthened, that we need to get serious
about reasserting control of our borders, enforcing the laws that are
on the books and enhancing those laws which are failing if we truly
want to secure our borders.

{time} 1800

No one is as committed to those goals as I am.
That said, that is a debate for another day, and not the issue
presented to us in this bill. We are not debating the question of
immigration reform, but rather, whether we should adopt a trial lawyer
bonanza under the guise of ``paycheck fairness.'' As I have said
before, this bill does nothing to promote fairness in pay, and
everything to invite costly, and often frivolous, litigation.

[[Page 17488]]

Whether the gentleman's amendment is adopted today or not, that fact
will not change. This is an ill-conceived bill, based on flawed and
demonstrably false economic theories, and sure to lead to unintended
consequences for workers and employers.
The gentleman's amendment is inoffensive, but it is not particularly
meaningful. I will not oppose the amendment, but it does not change my
strong opposition to the underlying bill, nor my intention to vote
``no'' on final passage.
I would like to address the gentlelady that spoke on the amendment
just before. When she concluded her statement, she commented on her
fact of having been a small businesswoman and running a family
business. I had the same experience for many years before I came here
to Congress. It's good to see other small businesspeople come to
Congress, and I appreciate her amendment that she presented.
And I also want to restate again the fact that, even though the
Chamber did support her amendment, that we're strongly opposed to the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 110-807.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 21, line 2, strike ``There are'' and insert ``(a)
Authorization of Appropriations.--There are''.
Page 21, after line 3 insert the following:
(b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the
grant program in section 5 of this Act may be used for a
Congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial. I assume
it will be accepted by the other side. It's similar to an amendment
that was offered earlier this year on an unrelated bill.
The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the competitive grant
program established and authorized by this bill does not become a
vehicle to be earmarked later. I am not alleging that there are any
earmarks in this bill; there are not. There's simply a competitive
grant program established.
My fear is that later on that this grant--that is a competitive grant
and it was based on merit for those who apply--will be later earmarked,
as has happened in other legislation.
My amendment to H.R. 1338, The Paycheck Fairness Act is a common
sense amendment that would simply prohibit the earmarking of funds
authorized by this bill for a new grant program.
In section five of the legislation, a new grant program is created to
carry out programs to train girls and women in negotiating tactics.
This new grant program is explicitly authorized in the legislation to
make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities. I offer this
amendment simply as a precaution in order to avoid future earmarking.
Earlier this year, a similar amendment was approved by the House of
Representatives during consideration of the Beach Act of 2007 by a vote
of 263 to 117.
When it comes to earmarking, the message is clear: just because
Congress hasn't earmarked an account or a grant program before doesn't
mean we won't in the future. My amendment makes no substantive change
to the grant program included in the legislation and is simply offered
as a safeguard against future earmarking.
Judging by the nearly four and a half billion dollars worth of
earmarks that have been reported out of the Committee on Appropriations
this summer, it appears that, even with all the talk of earmark reform
this year, it's business as usual.
Unfortunately, when it comes to earmarking, business as usual means
Congressional earmarks showing up in programs and accounts that never
used to have them.
The worst example of this is the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill.
Kept relatively earmark-free from its inception in order to keep
politics out of spending decisions, the earmarking truce was broken
when the 2008 omnibus spending bill contained 128 earmarks worth more
than $400 million in Homeland Security funding.
Included were 95 earmarks for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, a
competitive grant program with a 70-page guidance document for grant
applicants that had not previously been earmarked.
If the Fiscal Year 2009 Homeland Security appropriations bill
approved by committee becomes law, then the earmarking of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program will continue with nearly 25 million
dollars, or one third of the program funds, already having been spent
by Members earmarking funds for their own districts.
Emergency Operations Centers funding is another example of earmarks
encroaching into a previously non-earmarked program.
Created last year by Congress, fifteen million earmark-free dollars
were appropriated, to be awarded through a formula-based grant program
for the ``equipping, upgrading, and constructing of Emergency
Operations Centers.''
This year's Homeland Security appropriations bill proposes increasing
Emergency Operations Center funding to 35 million dollars--but also
would earmark nearly sixty percent of this funding by including 34
earmarks worth more than 21 million dollars.
Unfortunately, these examples of earmarking competitive programs are
not lone cases. Another example is a program funded through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development called the Economic
Development Initiative.
This program started in 1994 as a competitive program with strict
selection-based criteria to assist with low-income housing and
neighborhood development. Over time, the program became a prime target
for earmarkers and, by 2000, the competitive program was not funded and
the program was entirely made up of earmarks.
A similar story can be told about the Byrne Discretionary Grant
program. This program was established in 2006 as a competitive grant
program where awards are to be evaluated by a peer review system and
other review processes. Allegedly, the program has remained that way,
however, the agency that administers the program still calls it a
competitive program but the account was heavily earmarked last year and
it appears that earmarking has been adopted as the standard operating
practice.
In fact, should the Commerce Justice and Science Committee Report
approved by the Appropriations become law, there will be 280 earmarks
for the Byrne Discretionary Grant account, alone.
The message is clear: just because we haven't earmarked an account or
a grant program before doesn't mean we won't in the future.
With few opportunity this session to deal directly with the broken
earmarking process, the least we can do is explicitly prohibit earmarks
in programs or accounts that provide funding on a formula or
competitive basis.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
With that, I would like to ask if this amendment will be accepted by
the other side and reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no problem with this
amendment. We agree with the gentleman. We think that these grants to
increase the negotiating skills of young women and girls, all women,
are very important. We would hope and we expect that they would be
given on merit by the Secretary under the provisions of the law. We
don't expect that they would be earmarked.
Mr. Flake has offered this language so that hopefully it would not be
earmarked, and that language hopefully

[[Page 17489]]

will be respected by other committees of the Congress, and we would
accept the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me just comment and thank the majority for accepting
this and also thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in
order. I've offered this same amendment on a number of authorization
bills over the past couple of months, and it has not been made in
order. So I appreciate the fact, and whatever influence the gentleman
from California had on the Rules Committee to make this important
amendment in order, I appreciate.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-807 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Giffords of Arizona.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Cazayoux of Louisiana.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 2-minute votes.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 240, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 551]

AYES--188

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--240

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cubin
Culberson
Diaz-Balart, L.
Fortuno
Hulshof
Rush
Turner
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

{time} 1835

Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, HALL of New York, LYNCH, Ms. MOORE of
Wisconsin, Mrs. CAPPS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York,
Ms. HARMAN, Messrs. SIRES, FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. CASTOR, Messrs.
WATT, MARSHALL, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. KANJORSKI, Ms. RICHARDSON, Ms.
SCHWARTZ, Messrs. SESTAK, PASTOR, ABERCROMBIE, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr.
MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WALBERG, Mrs. EMERSON, and Messrs. TIAHRT, SMITH of Texas, and
TANCREDO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Altmire

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page 17490]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426,
noes 1, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 552]

AYES--426

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--1

Johnson (GA)

NOT VOTING--12

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Fortuno
Harman
Hulshof
Rangel
Rush
Turner
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1839

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Giffords

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona
(Ms. Giffords) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 397,
noes 29, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 553]

AYES--397

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
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 (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh

[[Page 17491]]

McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--29

Abercrombie
Clay
Clyburn
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Filner
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Honda
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McGovern
Moore (WI)
Napolitano
Norton
Pastor
Payne
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Velazquez
Waters

NOT VOTING--13

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Castor
Cubin
Fattah
Fortuno
Hulshof
LaTourette
Rush
Turner
Wamp
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1844

Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. WATERS and Ms. NORTON changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cazayoux

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Cazayoux) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 554]

AYES--410

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
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 (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--16

Baldwin
Clarke
Clyburn
Davis (IL)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hirono
Honda
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
Moore (WI)
Napolitano
Serrano
Solis
Stark

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Edwards (MD)

NOT VOTING--12

Barrow
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Castor
Cubin
Fortuno
Hulshof
Peterson (PA)
Rush
Turner
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is less than 1 minute
remaining in this vote.

[[Page 17492]]

{time} 1849

Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1338) to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective
remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the
basis of sex, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
1388, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1338,
to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to
report the bill back to the House promptly with the following
amendment:

Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 4, after line 24, insert the following:

(J) are exacerbated by the increase in the price of
gasoline to unprecedented levels since January 3, 2007, and
the failure of the Congress to enact meaningful reforms to
lower the price of gasoline at the pump, which has a greater
impact on the household budgets of those who earn less.

Page 11, line 15, strike ``and'';
Page 11, after line 15, insert the following:

(B) by inserting ``in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per
hour'' after ``a reasonable attorney's fee''; and

Page 11, line 16, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, equal pay for equal work is
currently the law of the land, and it has been since the passage of the
Equal Pay Act of 1963. Generally, businesses do a tremendous job paying
employees fairly, regardless of gender. But the bill before the House
today treats wage discrimination as systemic, and is a boon for trial
lawyers. It also fails to address the very real challenges affecting
Americans' wages and the purchasing power of their paychecks. That is
why we Republicans are offering this motion to recommit, in order to
expose the errors of this Democrat majority.
The first half of this motion points out the simple fact wages are
being stretched thin by the price of gasoline, and this Democrat
majority has repeatedly failed to take action. The high price of
gasoline is squeezing family budgets, and no one is being hit harder
than working women and families. Yet, this Congress has yet to cast a
vote during this energy emergency to expand exploration and production
of American-made energy.
Republicans have a plan to increase production and open up access, to
provide tax credits to promote clean and reliable sources of energy,
and encourage conservation to ease the demand for gasoline. With this
productive plan, a positive plan to open up access, provide tax
credits, to promote clean and reliable sources of energy, and encourage
conservation to ease demand, roadblock after roadblock has been erected
in this Congress.
Exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf, deep sea
exploration. Rejected. New refining capacity on closed military bases.
Denied. Facilitating clean coal-to-liquid technologies. Absolutely not.
Reduce regulations in the number of boutique fuels. Not a chance. And
producing oil and gas resources in ANWR. Forget about it.
Of course, this doesn't come as a surprise to the American people or
this Congress. Most of our friends across the aisle have repeatedly
rejected efforts to expand domestic energy capacity. All you have to do
is take a look at the record, the facts.
Exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf, 83
percent of House Democrats have routinely opposed it. Facilitating
coal-to-liquid technologies, 78 percent of them rejected it. And
producing oil and gas resources in ANWR, 86 of percent of House
Democrats have fought the proposal time and time again.
But maybe, just maybe, if we naively believe long enough that
drilling it not necessary because all Americans need to do is inflate
our tires and get a tune-up, all of these problems will go away. But
they won't. And it's why the American people and Republicans are asking
for one vote up or down to increase the supply of American-made energy.
That is all our constituents ask and that is all we ask this Congress
before we adjourn. A vote.
If the Congress is not being responsible by addressing rising energy
prices, what are we doing today? Well, we are rewarding one of the
majority's favorite special interests, trial lawyers.
Mr. Speaker how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As some have correctly described this bill, it's a boondoggle for
trial lawyers. They will be able to collect unlimited, unlimited
compensatory and punitive damages. This serves no legitimate purpose
and turns the Equal Pay Act into a lottery.
It's why the second half of this motion is a simple, commonsense
change that caps ``reasonable,'' as described in the bill, attorneys'
fees at $1,000 an hour. With a cap on attorneys' fees, it's the intent
that lawyers would take cases based on actual discrimination and
prevent lawsuit abuse.
Today's litigation system, unfortunately, does little to restrain the
filing of lawsuits. It's why lawsuits can result in millions of dollars
in lawyers' fees, yet plaintiffs end up with pennies on the dollar.
It's why tort costs consume approximately 2 percent, 2 percent of our
entire gross domestic product, and why 10 cents of every single dollar
spent on health care is attributed to the costs of liability and
defensive medicine. Over $200 billion a year.
A cap on attorneys' fees can ensure that victims of discrimination
are protected, yet not without financial gain. Without a cap, trial
lawyers will be able to interject, distort, and oversee how wages are
determined through litigation, and all this will end up doing is
increasing expenses for employers and harm current and prospective
workers through lower wages and slower job creation.
Let's adopt this motion to recommit. If it's not adopted, the record
will reflect that while this Congress stood by and did nothing to
address the price of gasoline at the pump, we had ample time to reward
trial lawyers.
I yield back.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You gotta love these guys. They've
argued all day that pay disparity doesn't exist in this country, in
spite of all the studies by governmental agencies, by

[[Page 17493]]

their own governmental agencies, the Department of Labor, the EEOC, and
all the rest, that a woman today can still make 77 cents on the dollar
for every dollar that a man earns. They've argued all day.
Now they've introduced a motion to recommit that accepts the fact of
the existence of these pay disparities. They want to argue that they're
exacerbated by high energy costs. We grant you that argument.
But then what do they want to do in their last act as they leave for
August break? They want to suggest that a woman who has been
discriminated against intentionally, unintentionally, discriminated
against in pay, paid 77 cents for every dollar, or 20 cents for every,
we don't know, that woman is going to have a cap on her attorneys'
fees.
They put it at $1,000 to get your blood rushing. But you know who
doesn't have a cap? The employer who discriminated against that woman
doesn't have a cap on their attorneys' fees. That employer doesn't have
a cap of $1,000. Is it $1,000 if it's a complicated case and that woman
needs two attorneys or three attorneys or four or five experts to prove
this discrimination?

{time} 1900

She has a cap on those. The employer needs five experts, no cap; five
attorneys, no cap.
Your last act of discrimination in denying discrimination is to make
sure that they can't recover the wages that are due them, and you ought
not to be able to do this. You ought not to be able to do that on the
floor of this House. You simply should not be able to do that.
This is about whether or not women will have the tools necessary to
get rid of the wage discrimination that costs them money every hour,
every week, every month and every year, and it follows them into their
retirement. You've heard it here today. It can cost them as much as $2
million in lost Social Security, in lost retirement benefits, in lost
wages. And now they want to suggest that those women who may lose $2
million have a cap on their ability to recover.
I hope Ms. Lilly Ledbetter is watching you guys, because now she
understands what your problem was.

Point of Order

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I know the gentleman is not interested in
talking about the substance of the motion to recommit. Should not the
comments be addressed----
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the subject of the
amendment is discrimination against women.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will suspend.
The gentleman from Georgia, for what purpose do you rise?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman's comments should be addressed to
the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. The purpose of this amendment is to kill this bill. It
says to the woman who makes 77 cents to drive a truck when a man makes
a dollar, wait your turn. It says to a woman who shortly out of college
makes 90 cents for every dollar a man who majored in the same thing
makes, wait your turn. It says to women who have lost $2 million
throughout the course of their working careers, wait your turn.
If you want our sisters and our mothers and our daughters to wait
their turn, vote for this motion to recommit. But if you believe, as we
do, that the time is now, vote down this motion to recommit, vote for
this bill, and vote for justice for the working women of this country.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no more time.
Time has run out. We have seen this discrimination documented time and
again in all different kinds of businesses, all different kinds of
occupations. It doesn't matter your education or your experience, this
discrimination exists, and we have the opportunity with this vote
tonight to put an end to it, to allow these women to enforce existing
law.
We don't change the law. We give them the right to enforce the law.
And if they don't have that right, they have no justice and the law
means nothing. That is why we continue to see tens of thousands of
cases of wage discrimination where women can't afford to go in and
recover the wages.
I ask my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit and with
great pride vote for final passage of this legislation to end wage
discrimination, and with that vote to recognize the phenomenal work of
Rosa DeLauro in seeking out justice for women all across this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Should this motion pass, it could be recommitted
back to the committee from which it came and brought forth on the next
legislative day?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has reaffirmed on November 15,
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report back
the bill to the House.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to
suspend on H.R. 6633.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 555]

AYES--189

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton

[[Page 17494]]

Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--236

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cubin
Hulshof
Kilpatrick
Rush
Turner
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded that
they have less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

{time} 1922

Messrs. HOYER and COHEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)

Legislative Program

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I know that all of you
are concerned about the schedule. There was some hope that we would be
able to get out late tonight. We have been unable to reach an accord on
unanimous consent on the adjournment resolution. As you know, the
Senate has not passed an adjournment resolution. As a result of that,
we will be here tomorrow. So we are going to proceed in the following
way: We will have no further votes tonight. I have discussed that with
the minority, and they are not going to be asking for votes on
amendments, and so we will be having no further votes tonight.
We will meet tomorrow at 9. We will be considering whatever
amendments and the Military Construction and Veterans bill, we will
vote on that. We will then have a rule on the adjournment resolution,
and that will be the balance of our business.
It is my hope, again, not knowing what might transpire during the
course of the day, that we would be able to complete the business that
will be before us before 1 o'clock tomorrow, perhaps earlier, again,
depending upon how many votes we have and what action is taken on the
floor. I wanted all the Members to know that.
Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the Republican Whip.
Mr. BLUNT. If I heard the gentleman correctly; you said that there
would be no more votes tonight. But there will be one more vote
tonight.
Mr. HOYER. Exactly.
Mr. BLUNT. We will finish up this bill.
Mr. HOYER. There are two votes apparently left.
Mr. BLUNT. Two more votes tonight. And then we go to debate the
Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill and all the amendments,
with no votes anticipated tonight.
Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
Mr. FRANK. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. I have a minor correction to the leader. There will be no
more votes on the floor, but there will be five more votes in the
Committee of Financial Services so we can get it done. So please come
back.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, not only for his announcement, but
for the hard work of he and his committee.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
resume.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 178, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 556]

AYES--247

[[Page 17495]]

Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--178

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cubin
Hulshof
Kilpatrick
Rush
Turner
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

{time} 1933

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Slaughter). On this vote--we're making
history here--the yeas are 247, the nays are 178. The bill is passed
and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

____________________

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, is the Speaker not supposed to
be an impartial presiding officer in this body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You are right, Mr. Price. I was a bit
exuberant. But after 30 years of working on this--
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). Without objection,
5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.

____________________

EMPLOYEE VERIFICATION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6633, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6633.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 2, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 557]

YEAS--407

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)

[[Page 17496]]

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
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--2

Filner
Paul

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4

Grijalva
Pastor
Roybal-Allard
Velazquez

NOT VOTING--21

Bachus
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Carter
Cubin
Dicks
Graves
Hulshof
Kilpatrick
LaTourette
Marshall
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murphy, Tim
Peterson (PA)
Rush
Sessions
Turner
Weldon (FL)
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

{time} 1944

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

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in the 13th
Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to attend several
rollcall votes. Had I been present, on rollcall number 555 I would have
voted ``no''; on rollcall number 556 I would have voted ``aye'' and on
rollcall number 557 I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to let the Record reflect
my intent when I voted on rollcall vote No. 552. On that vote I meant
to vote ``yes'' and I voted ``no.'' The reason why was because I was
out in the hallway speaking with an intern doing an exit interview and
we were in the midst of 2-minute votes at that point.

____________________

AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 1338,
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be
authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R.
1338, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and
title, numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table
of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate
headings.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.

____________________

LIBYAN CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3370) to resolve pending claims
against Libya by United States nationals, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

S. 3370

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 ``Libyan Claims Resolution
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives;
(2) the term ``claims agreement'' means an international
agreement between the United States and Libya, binding under
international law, that provides for the settlement of
terrorism-related claims of nationals of the United States
against Libya through fair compensation;
(3) the term ``national of the United States'' has the
meaning given that term in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
(4) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of State;
and
(5) the term ``state sponsor of terrorism'' means a country
the government of which the Secretary has determined, for
purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of
1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), section 40 of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), or any other
provision of law, is a government that has repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

Congress supports the President in his efforts to provide
fair compensation to all nationals of the United States who
have terrorism-related claims against Libya through a
comprehensive settlement of claims by such nationals against
Libya pursuant to an international agreement between the
United States and Libya as a part of the process of restoring
normal relations between Libya and the United States.

SEC. 4. ENTITY TO ASSIST IN IMPLEMENTATION OF CLAIMS
AGREEMENT.

(a) Designation of Entity.--
(1) Designation.--The Secretary, by publication in the
Federal Register, may, after consultation with the
appropriate congressional committees, designate 1 or more
entities to assist in providing compensation to nationals of
the United States, pursuant to a claims agreement.
(2) Authority of the secretary.--The designation of an
entity under paragraph (1) is within the sole discretion of
the Secretary, and may not be delegated. The designation
shall not be subject to judicial review.
(b) Immunity.--
(1) Property.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if the Secretary designates any entity under subsection
(a)(1), any property described in subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph shall be immune from attachment or any other
judicial process. Such immunity shall be in addition to any
other applicable immunity.
(B) Property described.--The property described in this
subparagraph is any property that--
(i) relates to the claims agreement; and
(ii) for the purpose of implementing the claims agreement,
is--

(I) held by an entity designated by the Secretary under
subsection (a)(1);
(II) transferred to the entity; or
(III) transferred from the entity.

(2) Other acts.--An entity designated by the Secretary
under subsection (a)(1), and any person acting through or on
behalf of such entity, shall not be liable in any Federal or
State court for any action taken to implement a claims
agreement.
(c) Nonapplicability of the Government Corporation Control
Act.--An entity designated by the Secretary under subsection
(a)(1) shall not be subject to chapter 91 of title 31, United
States Code (commonly known as the ``Government Corporation
Control Act'').

SEC. 5. RECEIPT OF ADEQUATE FUNDS; IMMUNITIES OF LIBYA.

(a) Immunity.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon submission of a certification described in
paragraph (2)--
(A) Libya, an agency or instrumentality of Libya, and the
property of Libya or an agency or instrumentality of Libya,
shall not be subject to the exceptions to immunity from
jurisdiction, liens, attachment, and execution contained in
section 1605A, 1605(a)(7), or 1610 (insofar as section 1610
relates to a judgment under such section 1605A or 1605(a)(7))
of title 28, United States Code;
(B) section 1605A(c) of title 28, United States Code,
section 1083(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 342; 28
U.S.C. 1605A note), section 589 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1997 (28 U.S.C. 1605 note), and any other private right of
action relating to acts by a state sponsor of terrorism
arising under Federal, State, or foreign law shall not apply
with respect to claims against Libya, or any of its agencies,
instrumentalities, officials, employees, or agents in any
action in a Federal or State court; and
(C) any attachment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment,
or other judicial process brought against property of Libya,
or property of any agency, instrumentality, official,
employee, or agent of Libya, in connection with an action
that would be precluded by subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be
void.

[[Page 17497]]

(2) Certification.--A certification described in this
paragraph is a certification--
(A) by the Secretary to the appropriate congressional
committees; and
(B) stating that the United States Government has received
funds pursuant to the claims agreement that are sufficient to
ensure--
(i) payment of the settlements referred to in section
654(b) of division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2342); and
(ii) fair compensation of claims of nationals of the United
States for wrongful death or physical injury in cases pending
on the date of enactment of this Act against Libya arising
under section 1605A of title 28, United States Code
(including any action brought under section 1605(a)(7) of
title 28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1997 (28 U.S.C. 1605 note), that has been
given effect as if the action had originally been filed under
1605A(c) of title 28, United States Code, pursuant to section
1083(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 342; 28 U.S.C. 1605A
note)).
(b) Temporal Scope.--Subsection (a) shall apply only with
respect to any conduct or event occurring before June 30,
2006, regardless of whether, or the extent to which,
application of that subsection affects any action filed
before, on, or after that date.
(c) Authority of the Secretary.--The certification by the
Secretary referred to in subsection (a)(2) may not be
delegated, and shall not be subject to judicial review.

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. 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. 6599, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order: H.R. 6309, H. Res. 1143,
H.R. 6208, H.R. 6437, H. Res. 1357, H.R. 6083, S. 3295, H. Res. 1324,
S. 3294, H.R. 4255, H.R. 6225, H.R. 6221, H.R. 674, H. Res. 1288, H.
Res. 1151, H. Res. 1332, in each case de novo.

____________________

LEAD-SAFE HOUSING FOR KIDS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6309, as amended.
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. Ellison) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6309, 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
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 to define
environmental intervention blood lead level, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE APPLE CRUNCH AND THE NATION'S
DOMESTIC APPLE INDUSTRY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1143.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
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. 1143.
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.

____________________

LANCE CORPORAL MATTHEW P. PATHENOS POST OFFICE BUILDING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6208.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
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. 6208.
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.

____________________

CORPORAL ALFRED MAC WILSON POST OFFICE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6437.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
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. 6437.
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.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1357, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1357, 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 of the resolution was amended so as to read: ``Recognizing
the significance of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Civil
Liberties Act of 1988 and the greatness of America in her ability to
admit and remedy past mistakes and to recognize that there are other
communities who may have suffered the mistakes of our government but
have not received an apology and reparations.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6083, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6083, 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 authorize funding to
conduct a national training program for State and local prosecutors.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR PATENT AND TRADEMARK JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on

[[Page 17498]]

suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 3295.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 3295.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

SUPPORTING NATIONAL NIGHT OUT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1324.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1324.
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.

____________________

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION EXTENSION ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 3294.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 3294.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE PARALYMPIC PROGRAM ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 4255, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4255, 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.

____________________

IMPROVING SCRA AND USERRA PROTECTIONS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6225, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6225, 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 title 38,
United States Code, relating to equitable relief with respect to a
State or private employer, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

IMPROVING VETERANS' OPPORTUNITY IN EDUCATION AND BUSINESS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6221, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6221, 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.

____________________

EXTENDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MINORITY VETERANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 674.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 674.
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.

____________________

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CAMPUS SAFETY AWARENESS
MONTH

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1288, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1288, 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.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE WOMEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM FOR
WINNING THE 2008 NCAA BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1151.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1151.
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 CONNECTING FOSTER YOUTH TO THE WORKFORCE
THROUGH INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1332.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1332.
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.

____________________

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1384 and rule

[[Page 17499]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6599.

{time} 1958

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 6599) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Pomeroy in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this funding bill sends a clear message to America's
veterans, servicemembers, and their families that Congress recognizes
and appreciates their service to this country and the sacrifices they
have made on its behalf.
Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars stated just 6 days ago.
The Disabled American Veterans said this bill ``provides the means to
serve and care for sick and disabled veterans, to provide housing
facilities for military families, and to fund the activities of several
other agencies that affect veterans, a most generous and necessary
act.''
The American Legion said this bill effectively addresses every aspect
of the VA budget. H.R. 6599 addresses improvement and increased funding
for medical care, mental health care, medical research, long-term care,
rural health care options, both construction, major and minor,
nonrecurring maintenance, and claims adjudication.

{time} 2000

Mr. Chairman, the words expressed by these respected veterans
organizations, which represent millions of men and women who have
honorably served our Nation in uniform, are more important than any
words I could express on this floor tonight. I want to salute the
members of these organizations and the many other veterans and military
family groups for the key role they have played in shaping this bill.
Even more importantly, I want to salute our servicemen and -women, our
veterans and their families for having defended our Nation in time of
war and in time of peace and for ensuring that our Nation never forgets
the sacrifices of those who have served past, present and future.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is about a lot more than just programs and
budgets. It's about respect, respect for those who have answered our
Nation's call to duty--everyday fathers and mothers, brothers and
sisters, sons and daughters from every generation, from every race and
from every religion. Because of their service and sacrifice, we live in
a safer, better world.
This bill is about the moral responsibility of keeping our promises
to those who have kept their promises to serve. It's about honoring the
unsung heroes and heroines in our Nation's defense and the spouses and
children of our servicemen and -women. These great Americans might not
ever put on a military uniform, but they serve our Nation every day
through their personal sacrifice. When one's loved one has been
deployed overseas, there are no makeup days for missed births,
birthdays and graduation ceremonies. No price tag could measure the
value of missed baseball games, school events and the simple, everyday
joys of a family's being together.
This bill is about the young father I met just 2 weeks ago at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center. He lost both of his legs in combat in Iraq.
As he sat there, talking to me with his young son in his lap, I could
not help but be overwhelmed by the lifelong sacrifice this father had
made to try to make the world a safer place for my two young sons and
for all children. This bill is about seeing that that loving father
does not have to give up the dreams he has for his child.
The humility of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is our knowing that we could
never fully repay the debt of gratitude we owe this soldier and all who
have served our Nation in uniform. Yet we know it is the right thing to
do to honor these great Americans, not just with our words on Veterans'
Day but with our deeds every day--with better health care, housing,
education, and daycare. That is what this bill is all about. Let me be
specific.
Overall, this bill totals $72.7 billion in discretionary spending.
That is $3.4 billion more than the President's request and $8.8 billion
more than the last fiscal year in 2008. Especially given our Nation is
at war, I believe our troops, our veterans and their families have
earned every single dime of this funding. I'm disappointed that the
administration has said that its lower budget request is adequate. It
is not.
Just today, the DAV, the AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
and the VFW have said this: ``We concluded the President's budget
request for 2009 was about $3 billion short of the actual and equitable
needs of veterans. We are shocked to learn the administration is
insisting that the VA has been given sufficient funding for next year
in its original budget submission.''
The bill provides $47.7 billion in discretionary funding to the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This is $2.9 billion more than the
President's request and $4.6 billion more than fiscal year 2008.
What does this mean to millions of veterans who need the VA health
care system?
First, based on a Bush administration policy adopted in 2003,
veterans have been told in some parts of the country that making
$28,430 a year makes them too wealthy to qualify for VA health care. I
think that policy is wrong and unfair to many veterans who cannot
simply afford health insurance with an income level so far below the
national average. That is why this bill raises the number priority 8
veterans eligible for VA care by 10 percent.
Second, with $4 a gallon gasoline, we increase the mileage
reimbursement rate for veterans driving long distances to VA hospitals
and clinics from 28\1/2\ cents to 41\1/2\ cents. Until this Congress
acted last year, that rate had been locked in at 11\1/2\ cents since
1979 when gasoline prices were less than $1 a gallon.
Mr. Chairman, this increase in gas mileage reimbursement to our
veterans may not seem like a big deal to some, but to many veterans,
that is the difference between their being able to afford to drive to a
VA hospital to get the care they desperately need or not being able to
do so.
Third, for Iraq and Afghan war vets as well as for veterans from all
past conflicts, this bill ensures that a minimum of $3.8 billion, $900
million more than last year, will be spent on mental health care
services. The mental wounds of war often outlast the physical wounds of
combat, and it is past time that we adequately fund mental health
research and care so our veterans can rebuild their lives once they
return home.
Fourth, to help veterans in rural areas and members of the Guard and
Reserves living so far away from VA facilities, we provide $200 million
to increase access to local health care providers.
I thank our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for his strong leadership on
this important provision, among many others.
Fifth, no soldier, no veteran--not one--should ever again have to
live in the demeaning conditions that some saw at Walter Reed's annex
18 last year. They deserve better than that, and that is why we provide
$300 million to address the backlog and nonrecurring maintenance at our
VA hospitals. In addition, we fund $1.9 billion for much needed
construction at VA hospitals and clinics.
Sixth, none of us should rest until there is not one homeless veteran
anywhere in our country. That is why we

[[Page 17500]]

provide in this bill $40 million more in order to help these homeless
veterans receive the medical services and job training that they need.
We want them to have not only the dignity of a roof over their heads,
but we want them to have real hope for rebuilding their shattered
lives.
Seventh, the bill provides the Veterans Benefits Administration with
enough funding to hire an additional 2,100 claims processors. It's not
right. It's simply not right for veterans to have to wait on average
nearly 6 months to have their claims processed. For many veterans,
including combat wounded veterans, that wait means that they don't get
the benefits that they earned through their military service and, for
many of them, the benefits they desperately need to pay their monthly
bills.
There is much more in this bill for veterans, from better prosthetics
for amputees to research for post-traumatic stress disorder.
Two things are not in this bill--the administration's ill-advised
proposals to increase prescription drug copays for veterans by 88
percent and the idea to charge a $250 VA health care enrollment fee for
our vets. Making drugs less affordable would hurt veterans' health and
would require many of them to seek more expensive hospital care. I
believe, for one, that our veterans have already paid an enrollment fee
for VA health care. They did it when they put on our Nation's uniform.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to keeping our promises to veterans, this
bill supports important quality of life and training improvements for
our servicemen and -women and their families. It provides $24.8 billion
for military construction, family housing and the Base Realignment and
Closing program, known as BRAC. This is $400 million above the
President's request.
This will mean better housing and improved health care and modernized
hospitals for our military families. For single moms and dads at home
with their children while their spouses are in harm's way overseas,
this bill will provide quality, affordable daycare for their children.
For thousands of our single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, it
will mean the end of old, outdated barracks and a place they can be
proud to call their home. We specifically added $200 million to the
administration's budget request so they can begin to replace woefully
inadequate training barracks. This will send a clear message that our
Nation respects the decision of 18-, 19- and 20-year-old military
recruits, their decision to sign up to serve our country.
Honoring our troops, our veterans and their families is a meaningful
way that is not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to
do. In an all-volunteer military force, the best in the world, we
simply cannot expect to attract and to retain the best and brightest if
we do not provide quality housing, health care and education for
military troops and their families and if we do not keep the promises
that we have made to our veterans.
The bottom line is this: This bill is about maintaining a strong
national defense and military readiness and about respecting with word
and deed those who defend us and our freedom.
Mr. Chairman, let me end by thanking those who made this bill
possible. I would begin by thanking Speaker Pelosi, who has kept her
promise that the new Congress would truly honor our veterans and our
servicemen and -women in an historic way. Under her dedicated
leadership, we have increased veterans' funding in less than 2 years by
more than what Congress did in the previous 12 years, including a new
21st-century GI education bill that passed just a few weeks ago. In my
18 years in Congress, I've served with no Speaker of either party who
has done as much for veterans as has Speaker Pelosi. Her legacy will
benefit millions of veterans for generations to come.
I want to thank Congressman Dave Obey, the chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, and Congressman John Spratt, the chairman of
the House Budget Committee. It was their strong personal leadership
combined with the work of Speaker Pelosi that made it possible for us
to pass last year the largest increase in VA health care benefits in
the 77-year history of the VA.
As a Democrat, I'm proud that the budget resolutions passed last year
and this year made a commitment to unprecedented increases in veterans'
health care and benefits. Those resolutions authorized the funding for
our subcommittee's work.
Let me be very clear. The 2009 Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations bill is a bipartisan accomplishment.
I want to pay special tribute to our subcommittee ranking member, Mr.
Wamp of Tennessee. Through 19 hearings, his deep and genuine commitment
to our troops and to our veterans was evident to every one of us
privileged to serve with him. His ideas and input and commitment to
always putting the interests of our troops and veterans above
partisanship made this bipartisan bill possible. His leadership made
this bill a much better bill, and for that I salute him.
Let me also express my gratitude to all of the members of our
subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats alike. Each one of them made
valuable contributions to this bill. Veterans and our troops are the
beneficiaries of their hard work.
A special thanks is owed to Mr. Lewis of California and to Mr. Young
of Florida. They didn't just help shape this bill. Their dedicated,
lifelong leadership on behalf of all of those who have served in
uniform is what public service should be all about.
I thank you, sir.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to a staff that is second to none
anywhere in the Congress--to the majority staff led by subcommittee
clerk Carol Murphy, Tim Peterson, Mary Arnold, Walter Hearne, and Donna
Shahbaz and John Conger on my staff, and the minority staff led by
Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson and Kelly Shea, and Amanda Schoch from Mr.
Wamp's staff. Also, a special thanks to Mr. Rob Nabors, the clerk of
the full Appropriations Committee.
I thank you all for the professionals you are, for the hard work you
do and for reminding all of us that, when it comes to supporting our
troops and veterans, we can and we must work on a bipartisan basis.

[[Page 17501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.001

[[Page 17502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.002

[[Page 17503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.003

[[Page 17504]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.004

[[Page 17505]]

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bishop of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
6599) making appropriations for military construction, the Department
of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM
AUGUST 1, 2008, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4, 2008

Mr. McGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-816) on the resolution (H. Res. 1399) providing
for proceedings during the period from August 1, 2008, through
September 4, 2008, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered
to be printed.

____________________

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1384 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 6599.

{time} 2016

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6599) making appropriations for military construction,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Pomeroy in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) had 14\1/2\ minutes remaining and
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) had 30 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, oftentimes in life it's more important what you do with
your second chances than what you do the first time around. Neither
Chairman Edwards, who spoke so eloquently in a comprehensive way about
this bill and his commitment to our veterans, our men and women in
harm's way and their families--neither he nor I took advantage in our
younger years of serving in the uniform of our Armed Forces. However,
fate has it that we would have a second opportunity to serve by serving
those who are serving us, past and present, through this bill; making
sure that those great American patriots, past and present, have what
they need--and are entitled to and deserve because of their commitment
to this great Nation.
It is the highest compliment of my professional life to serve as the
ranking member of this subcommittee. I want to thank Chairman Lewis--
former Chairman Lewis, now Ranking Member Lewis--for this privilege
because without him and his support I wouldn't be here. I want to thank
Mr. Wicker, who was the ranking member of this subcommittee last year,
and I want to thank whoever helped him become a Senator to open up this
subcommittee opportunity for me, and for Chairman Edwards, who, as you
just saw on the House floor, is a class act, with a true commitment to
the men and women in uniform and a determination to do whatever is
necessary to honor their commitment.
And I can report today, as I did at the full committee, that when I
go home and people ask me in 2008, in my new position, are we honoring
our Nation's veterans and the men and women in uniform serving in an
asymmetrical war on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with head
trauma and IED injuries and amputations--double, triple, extraordinary
injuries--stress from unfair deployments, unsustainable deployments,
stress on the family, are we honoring our commitment to them? And I
don't think a few years ago, regardless of party, that the answer to
that question was yes. We had problems at Walter Reed, we had problems
at Fort Stewart, we had problems across the board.
We still have many challenges. The deployment ratios have got to
continue to improve. But I can tell you in this bill there is a
bipartisan commitment to honor their commitment. And I believe we are
making great progress at ensuring our men and women in uniform and
their families have what they need and deserve, and when they come home
as veterans, that we take adequate care of them--not adequate, but
responsible care of them. And I think we're making great progress.
I want to thank the majority for doing something that people in the
hinterland wouldn't even understand, but they put the Military
Construction bill back in with the Veterans bill where it belongs. When
I served on the subcommittee 10 years ago, this was not the case.
But when the Military Construction bill funds quality of life needs
and child care centers and polytrauma centers and housing needs, the
veterans piece being in with it in the same bill allows the continuum
of care to come together so that we can look at the whole picture from
today's men and women in harm's way and what their quality of life
needs are--which is number one for us--all the way through the end of
their life as a veteran with our VA system. It needs to all be
together.
That was an amazing success, bringing Military Construction and
Veteran's Care back together--my hat's off to the Speaker for doing
that, first and foremost, for Chairman Edwards for his leadership, and
for Chairman Obey for his commitment.
I do agree that over the 100 hearing hours Chairman Edwards and I had
a hands-on with these amazing Americans, we produced a work product,
this bill--at roughly $48 billion for the VA and $25 billion for the
military construction needs around the world--that is very strong, and
an encouragement to all those in harm's way today and those that have
been in harm's way in the past.
I will say that the President's budget request for veterans was a
record level. Now, the chairman said that it wasn't enough, and I agree
with that. And we did increase it by $3 billion, but it was at a record
level. So today there is an encouraging bipartisan proliferation to see
who can do more for our Nation's veterans. And that's a good thing for
our Nation's veterans, that we're in competition to see who can do more
for the men and women coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and those
that have served in the past.
But I was blown away over the last few months with the quality of the
servicemembers and veterans. First, we hear from the chiefs of the
respective services, the top enlisted personnel, the commanders from
around the world, like the Commander of CENTCOM, who is now General
Petraeus, with two wars under his command in Iraq and Afghanistan, we
hear from all these leaders about the needs on the ground and what
investments they need the Congress to make for them to do their job
successfully. And then from the military families, that talk about the
stress felt when we had a 15-month in, 1 year out deployment, now it's
back to 1-1, it's going to 2-1. We need to get to 3-1 to make it
sustainable, meaning 1 year in theater fighting, 3 years back in a
noncombat station. This is so important that we work towards these
objectives and that we honor this commitment.
Now, on the subcommittee, we've got extraordinary support. Former
chairman of the full committee, who will speak in a minute, Bill Young
from Florida, sits with us every hearing, hands on, fully engaged.
Ander Crenshaw from Jacksonville, Florida, who will also speak, John
Carter,

[[Page 17506]]

from Texas, Kay Granger from Texas on the Republican side. I want to
compliment not just Chairman Edwards, but Sam Farr, the vice chairman;
who was really engaged, and a man who understands the world; he does an
outstanding job.
You mentioned all the staff, I won't repeat their names, but both
sides of the aisle, just outstanding work. Members of the
subcommittee--Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bishop--
everyone's engaged on your side; and contributed to great bipartisan
cooperation. And the quality of these people that are serving in
uniform and their families is just extraordinary.
What we heard this year is that the value of the dollar is really
hurting us around the world. Our money that we're investing won't buy
what it used to buy all over the world, and that's a big problem. And
we've known that it was getting worse, but it's really causing a budget
pinch for our military construction around the world.
We heard, as we've continued to hear--which has held up the
appropriation process--that energy costs are unsustainable. That's a
huge burden on this budget. We're trying to help with those needs.
Most importantly, though, we heard about the stress of the
deployments from the families, that they're unsustainable, that they
put a huge burden on the servicemembers and families. That's why these
child care centers and these housing issues are so important and we
have prioritized in this bill.
I want to say one word of caution, because whether it's a $3 billion
increase in VA or $13 billion increase in VA, the Veterans
Administration is a long-standing bureaucracy. It is very large. And I
have traveled, I've been to the sites, I've worked with the VA for a
number of years, and they're not as efficient as they can be or must
be. Money is not the only issue. I'm grateful that we came together to
give them more money, but I want to make sure, and so does Chairman
Edwards, that each and every year we hold them more accountable, and
the subcommittee takes a greater hands-on role at looking for
efficiencies. We worked with Ranking Member Buyer this year on the
Authorization Committee on ways for the VA to recapture more third-
party payments that they're entitled to to help with their bottom line;
things like that we must do because the VA has to be more efficient and
more accountable because they are a government bureaucracy. So it's not
just money, it's oversight. And I believe we share that commitment.
I think Secretary Peake is doing a very good job as the Secretary.
Sometimes these positions are political; I don't think he is, I think
he's hands on. He understands the VA system from a health care
perspective, which is possibly the most important piece of it. I just
want to thank everyone. Again, the staff has really produced a great
bill.
Member projects in this bill mirror those included in the House Armed
Services Committee's bill. The projects all are authorized. We married
them up, so there's no Member-advanced initiatives here that don't meet
all the tests of authorization. That's important. So that makes this
bill special.
It is special, too; we're the only Appropriations bill that's going
to move off the House floor before we go home. I wish they all would
have. But we're closing on a positive note because this bill is
positive for our men and women in uniform. And they're out there facing
the threats that are out there. And it's like never before. It's
asymmetrical.
I don't know what's next, but I hope and pray we can bring them all
home very soon. But as long as they're in harm's way and as long as
they're willing to volunteer to serve, Chairman Edwards, you and I are
going to work together, in this second chance of ours, to serve those
who serve us. And we're going to honor their commitment fully. That's
what this bill is about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who has been a powerful
voice on our subcommittee on behalf of our veterans, our troops and
their families.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to thank Chairman Chet Edwards and Ranking Member
Zach Wamp for their incredible leadership on this legislation. And I'd
like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to particularly say what an honor
it is to serve under Chairman Edwards. And his particular leadership is
due a great deal of appreciation, especially for what he does to
champion the cause of veterans in this country. And I want to say what
an honor it is to serve under his leadership in this committee.
I want to say, as Mr. Wamp did, that it is an honor, for those of us
who never served in uniform, to be here and serving in a different
uniform, in coat and tie, to be there to serve those who did go out
there and put their lives on the line to serve our country, in a sense
that we owe it to them and can have an opportunity to serve those
veterans who have served our country so proudly. I take great pride in
that.
I feel that this is an historic place in the Congress of the United
States. I mean, this floor of the House is where Franklin Roosevelt
announced that we would be declaring war, World War II. And we all read
about the history of this country, when the country came together to
fight wars on two sides of the world. And we read about those times in
American history when all of America was joined together and
sacrificing.
And the only difference between those times and now is that there
seems to be a battle that's being fought by our men and women in
uniform, but the sacrifice seems to be borne principally by those who
are wearing the uniform, but not by the rest of America. It seems as
though there is a bubble going on here where the rest of America is
supposed to go on with their lives and the military is supposed to do
the job, and yet the two should never meet. And I don't think that's
the way America is supposed to work. I think, as a country, we're
supposed to be there every step of the way with our troops.
And what I think this bill does is it begins to acknowledge that the
rest of America needs to step up to the plate and make sure when our
troops come home, that we know that they aren't forgotten, and that
we're going to remember them long after they've come home and make sure
that they get the homecoming that they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of the Military
Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriation Bill. It has been my great
privileged to serve under the leadership of Chairman Chet Edwards and
Ranking Member Zack Wamp as we have worked in a bipartisan way to
support our military and honor America's commitment to our veterans.
I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman to honor the great
service of the Chairman of the Military Construction Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Subcommittee, Chet Edwards. There is no better champion
for the veterans of our country and no better advocate for the needs of
our service members than Chet Edwards. I applaud the Chairman for his
earnest stewardship of our subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, over the past year, I had the opportunity to travel the
country to see with my own eyes the capabilities of our VA Hospitals,
Medical Centers, Polytrauma Centers and Inpatient facilities and get a
better perspective of the needs of patients, doctors, nurses, and
hospital administrators. I met with many of our brave veterans who have
made those enormous sacrifices for our nation. Needless to say, I was
inspired by the courage of our wounded warriors.
The high degree of professionalism with which the Hospital staff
conducted patient care was quite impressive and I have great confidence
in the doctors and nurses who are doing their part in taking care of
America's veterans.
Unfortunately, many of these great public servants are performing
their jobs in antiquated facilities with substandard staffing
requirements that make life difficult for doctors, but more
importantly, diminish care for patients!
It was crystal clear to me that our VA Facilities need to do more to
adapt to a new generation of American veterans who have come home from
Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the needs of our female veterans
need immediate attention.
During my visit, I observed that our Veterans' Hospitals, many of
which were built in

[[Page 17507]]

the 1950s and 60s, were not built to accommodate the large number of
female vets expected to enter the system. They lack the most
rudimentary amenities like adequate female restrooms and hospital rooms
to meet privacy needs.
Sadly, the VA is always playing a big game of ``catchup'' with
respect to female vets. Instead of implementing a long term strategy
designed to meet the needs of these service members, the VA would
rather wait for another Walter Reed before changing the status-quo.
In mental health services, I was alarmed by the lack of full-time
mental health professional at VA Hospitals.
For example, my visit to the Hines VA in Chicago last fall revealed
that all of its psychiatrists were part-time employees. Frankly, I find
that unacceptable.
In this subcommittee, we have taken steps to bolster funding for
mental health services in the VA and built upon our great success in
last year's MILCON/VA appropriations bill which saw the greatest
increase in veterans health funding in the 77-year history of the VA.
We have also dedicated $24.8 billion for Military Construction to
fully fund BRAC and increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps.
In Military Construction, this bill also includes:
--$336 million, which was not in the President's request, will go
towards quality of life initiatives.
--$200 million for the Army and Marine Corps to improve their
barracks so that our service members have decent places to call home.
The Veterans Health Administration estimates that in 2009 more than
5.8 million patients, including 333,275 veterans of the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars. This is why we have funded the VHA at $40.8 billion,
$1.6 billion over the request of President Bush and a 9 percent
increase over 2008 levels.
According to a study by the Rand Corporation, more than 1 in 5
service men and women coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from
a stress related mental illness. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the
signature wound of this war and I applaud my colleagues on this
subcommittee for recognizing the seriousness of this issue and for
their willingness to devote significant funding towards mental health
care and research.
$3.8 billion in this bill is dedicated to specialty mental health
services and $584 million to substance abuse programs in this bill.
In a time of great need for our veterans, this subcommittee came
together to write a bipartisan bill. We solicited views from the other
side of the aisle to put together a responsible, non-partisan bill that
has only one objective: to most effectively meet the needs of our
veterans and military families.
This is why I was appalled yesterday when I heard that President Bush
announced that he would veto this legislation. The administration says
we must spare no expense for our soldiers and Marines in the field, but
when those servicemembers come home, this same President tells them
that $3 billion for health care, family housing and medical research is
too much.
To shortchange our veterans and military families, in a time of war,
is morally wrong. We have no right to put fiscal responsibility on the
backs of our Nation's veterans.
I would hope that we can quickly pass the Military Construction
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill so that the veterans I met across
America can rest assured knowing the help is on the way.

{time} 2030

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida,
who has a tremendous record with our Nation's veterans.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee presenting this
appropriations bill tonight, I rise to strongly support the bill and to
compliment and pay a special tribute to Chairman Edwards and Ranking
Member Zach Wamp, who have done such a great job in leading this good
subcommittee to present this exceptional bill.
I am particularly pleased that the Department of Veterans Affairs
Hospital at Bay Pines, which is in my district that serves the veterans
of Florida, will be able to expand the type and quality of care that it
can provide through this bill. Work will begin next year on a major
$17.4 million expansion of the Bay Pines Hospital that will provide
enhanced mental health and posttraumatic stress syndrome services with
funds included in this bill. The new facility responds to an urgent
need for additional space and resources to provide mental health and
posttraumatic stress counseling and services which are so badly needed.
So, Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of this bill. There are so
many other parts of the bill that have already been discussed and that
will be reported in the written legislation, but I just want to say
that I believe that it meets the needs of today's military, the members
of our military. It meets many of the needs of yesterday's military,
and it meets many of the needs of tomorrow's military. It's a good
bill. I hope we can expedite its passage and get it to the President,
get this bill signed so that the money can start to flow to care for
our veterans and to provide necessary facilities for the members of
today's military.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and it is needed now. While
conducting a foreign war, our military continues to realign to meet
current requirements around the globe and continues to aggressively
work the base realignment and closure plan. I am glad that it has
finally been brought to the floor of the House.
In total, this bill authorizes a total appropriation of $24.8 billion
for needed military construction efforts around the world. This total
is $400 million over the President's requested budget.
In addition, the bill appropriates a total of $3.2 billion for
military and family housing projects for the families of our service
members who are bearing the bulk of the sacrifices of this Nation's
ongoing military actions around the world. This is an increase of $300
million over the fiscal year 2008 level.
The bill authorizes $336 million to continue a quality of life
initiative that was begun in the 2008 Supplemental. This sum includes
$200 million for new trainee and recruit housing, and $136 million for
medical military construction and upgrades to certain medical treatment
facilities. The President did not request this funding in his budget.
Equally as important are the funds supplied in this bill for our
continually increasing veterans population. This bill includes a total
funding level of $47.7 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This total is $2.9 billion over the President's request. We owe our
past, our present and our future veterans the finest care possible.

bay pines

I am particularly pleased that the Department of Veterans Affairs
Hospital at Bay Pines which serves veterans in Florida will be able to
expand the type and quality of care that it can provide through this
bill.
Work will begin next year on a major $17.4 million expansion of the
Bay Pines hospital that will provide enhanced mental health and Post
Traumatic Syndrome Disorder, PTSD, services with funds included in this
bill. This new facility responds to an urgent need for additional space
and resources to provide mental health and post traumatic stress
counseling and services.
The three story, 156,00 square foot addition to the main hospital
building will include an Outpatient Mental Health Center of Excellence
and a Post Traumatic Center of Excellence on the main level and
replacement Inpatient Psychiatric and Geriatric Psychiatric bed wings
on the 2nd and 3rd levels.
The addition of new space will allow for the renovation of 189,000
square feet of existing patient care space in out years, which will be
used for medical and surgical nursing wards and a modern psychiatric
domiciliary.
The bill also includes $4.5 million for the hiring of an additional
20 inspectors for the VA Office of Inspector General, 10 of which will
go to the newly established Inspector General facility at Bay Pines.
Each dollar spent on the IG will be returned many times over as fraud,
waste and abuse are uncovered.
It was through an initiative that I sponsored that the VA opened a
major new VA IG office at Bay Pines in May 2007 to expand oversight and
investigation operations in Florida to ensure that veterans receive the
finest in care and the best use of limited tax dollars. Three years ago
I learned that the VA Inspector General had only five personnel to
monitor VA operations throughout the entire state of Florida. Soon
thereafter I provided funding to enable the Inspector General to expand
its operations in Florida to more than 50 investigators, auditors and
agents to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse within the VA system,
monitor the quality of care veterans receive, and apprehend those who
seek to violate the public trust by stealing federal funds or abusing
the trust of veterans. The Inspector General has said that the
operation at Bay Pines is a flagship for the entire VA system.

[[Page 17508]]

tampa

The legislation also includes $21 million for a new headquarters for
the special operations element of United States Central Command at
MacDill Air Force Base. The new 66,000 square foot building will
provide a secure facility for command and control, to train an
increasing number of personnel, and store operational equipment. The
unit currently operates out of a Cold War era alert bombing facility
that is too small to accommodate existing and future manpower
requirements and equipment storage.
Another $10.5 million is included in the bill for construction of a
headquarters for the United States Special Operations Command's Global
Network Control Center. The unit is currently scattered about MacDill
in trailers and temporary facilities. Construction of this 32,000
square foot building would begin in February 2009 with completion in
May 2010.
These two projects are part of a major base-wide construction program
at MacDill that I have championed since 2006.
Our men and women who serve in uniform deserve the finest possible
facilities to train and prepare for missions throughout the world. It
is time that we move these special operations units out of trailers and
50-year-old make-shift facilities and into state-of-the-art buildings.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, now it's my privilege to yield
for 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a decorated
Vietnam veteran and a valued member of this subcommittee.
Mr. BOYD of Florida. Let me thank my chairman, Mr. Edwards, for
yielding.
Ladies and gentlemen, when our men and women are committed into
combat, that has very long and costly consequences. Sometimes I think
people in this town don't recognize this. But I can tell you there are
some people in this Chamber, particularly Chairman Chet Edwards,
Ranking Member Zach Wamp, who do understand that commitment into combat
has very long and costly consequences.
Mr. Chairman, I see a lot of ``Support Our Troops'' slogans around. I
see a lot of yellow bumper stickers and those great things. I see
people going to churches and preparing care boxes to send overseas.
But that's not enough. That's not enough. We must make a commitment
to take care of the families of those who put on the uniform when those
in uniform are deployed. We must make a solemn commitment to provide
for the health care and education benefits for those who come home
after wearing the uniform. Many of them come home injured.
Mr. Chairman, there are some folks in this Chamber that understand
that. Congressman Dave Obey clearly understands that. Congressman Bill
Young, whom you just heard from. I saw Congressman Steve Buyer earlier,
Bob Filner from California. Those are the folks who were involved in
the writing of this legislation which provides the benefits and the
commitment that we have made to our men and women.
We have got a whole new generation of veterans who need our support.
Those are veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, obviously,
it's our moral duty to provide them with the care and benefits that
they need.
You've heard in detail about the details of what's in this bill. Mr.
Wamp and Mr. Edwards have explained that. But it's important that we do
this, ladies and gentlemen. This is a promise we've made, and it's
simply the right thing to do.
If not for those who answered the call of duty, we would not be the
great Nation we are today. For their service and sacrifice, we as
Americans are eternally grateful, and I encourage this Congress to
honor them by supporting this bill.
And, again, I want to thank the bipartisan work of Chairman Chet
Edwards and Ranking Member Zach Wamp, our committee leaders, for what
they have done.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from
Jacksonville, Florida, an extremely active member of the subcommittee,
Ander Crenshaw.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Wamp, for yielding the time and thank
you for your leadership on the subcommittee. And I certainly want to
commend Chairman Edwards for all the hard work that he puts in.
Mr. Chairman, I have served on this subcommittee for as long as I
have been on the Appropriations Committee, and I can tell you that
there is never a time that I am more proud than when I am working with
the young men and women in uniform.
I think we ought to note tonight that this is the first
appropriations bill that we're taking up, and I think that speaks
volumes about the priority and the commitment that we have in this
Chamber to the men and women that wear the uniform. And this bill
touches literally everyone, whether they are active duty today, as we
provide money for new barracks, new training facilities, new hangars
and airfields, and we improve our port facilities for the ships and the
planes. It touches those that have served us in the past as veterans,
building new facilities, veterans clinics, hospitals, even providing a
suicide prevention line to help those troubled veterans as they come
back and save, literally save, their lives.
And it also touches the people that are no longer with us because we
have money in this bill to maintain and construct national cemeteries
to give a final resting place for those who have served us, provide
money for the monuments around the world to pay tribute to our fallen
heroes.
But it also touches the lives of the family members of our men and
women in uniform, day care centers we have talked about, quality of
life issues.
So I would say this is a very important bill. It's a good bill. It
serves those who serve us the most, and it deserves our support. So I
urge my colleagues to join us in passing this legislation.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who has been a strong member not
only of this committee but the Defense appropriations committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in full support of the fiscal
year 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and related
agencies appropriations bill. I am extremely proud of the work of the
subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, as we have crafted a bill
that truly supports America's servicemen and -women as well as their
families.
Today I am especially pleased that we are ensuring better housing,
health care, and day care facilities for our servicemen and -women by
providing $24.8 billion for military construction, family housing, and
fully funding BRAC.
Military facilities such as Fort Benning, located in my district,
need this funding as they experience significant numbers of new
personnel as a result of BRAC and the global repositioning of our
forces around the world. In the Columbus area, we still have concerns
with respect to the impact that BRAC may have on our local school
system. But I'm encouraged by the interest and support shown by my
colleagues on the subcommittee, in particular Mr. Edwards, our
chairman; and our ranking member, Mr. Wamp.
But that's not all. Our bill includes nearly $200 million in
additional housing for Army and Marine Corps trainees, an additional
$136 million for medical facilities, $1.6 billion for Veterans Health
Administration, and $3.8 billion for specialty mental health services,
and $584 million for substance abuse programs.
But I don't think listing figures does justice to saying how
important this bill is because with those resources, we are filling
some gaping holes in veterans services and upgrading military
facilities that are currently underfunded and overextended.
We are fully meeting and addressing the very same kinds of needs that
arose at the barracks at Fort Bragg and the hospital at Walter Reed.
We're keeping our commitment to veterans and giving the VA the funds
they need to hire caseworkers to process the current backlog of claims.
We are making sure that our veterans traveling long distances for
medical care don't have to empty their wallets in order to get there.
And we are upping funding for

[[Page 17509]]

medical technology and giving our veterans access to a new generation
of prosthetics so they may live as normal a life as possible.
Mr. Chairman, in short, this is a good bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15 seconds
to the gentleman.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Thank you.
I would like to recognize and thank the staff of the subcommittee:
Carol Murphy, Mary Arnold, Walter Hearne, Tim Bishop, and Donna Shabaz
of the majority staff; and Martin Delgado and Liz Dawson of the
minority staff; and, of course, Michael Reed and Ed Larkin of my staff.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of
the Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank Mr. Wamp for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for this important
measure, and I want to commend Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp
for their good work on this most important bill. I urge the Members to
support the bill. It is so important to all of our veterans of this
country.
I only talk about this to express real frustration that I have. I
want to note that in my hand I have an amendment which I had hoped to
offer today, but because of the nature of the rule, I can't. And I
wanted to offer this amendment in the interest of people from Iowa and
throughout the Midwest who are struggling to put their lives together
in the wake of the 500-year Midwest floods.
This amendment would have provided emergency money for economic
development assistance for restoration of infrastructure, Army Corps of
Engineers money to repair levies, SBA disaster loan assistance,
Community Planning and Development funds for infrastructure, and
additional FEMA disaster relief moneys. Unfortunately, we can't, and I
don't want to delay this process. But this bill should be passed before
we leave for break.
Mr. Chairman, last week I wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House
and asked that we finally address, after 7 weeks, the flood disaster
throughout the Midwest. I have not heard a response; so obviously we're
being ignored.
I asked some folks at home to tell me some of their stories, and they
have e-mailed me and sent me their messages, and I would like to read a
couple of those.
The first one actually is a copy I received of an e-mail to Speaker
Pelosi, and it reads:
``I cannot believe that you will not bring flood relief legislation
to a vote. Now you are going on vacation. Twenty-five thousand homes
were lost in the June floods in Iowa alone, and Congress votes to
recognize the National Day of the Cowboy instead of passing legislation
to help Iowans.
``After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Congress passed emergency
supplemental bills nearly immediately, and here we are 7 weeks after
the Iowa floods and no additional help! It is no wonder Congress's
approval rating is at an all-time low.
``While you're on vacation, please remember the thousands of Iowans
who have no homes.''
An e-mail received from a resident of Cedar Rapids. She said:
``My husband volunteers on the weekends and 1 day a week (bless his
employer for letting him work 4 10-hour days so he can do flood relief)
as a flood site coordinator, which means he moves around from team to
team and are sent by our church to help the residents `muck' out their
basements, and tear out the walls, insulation, trim, carpet, and get
rid of the furnaces and water heaters (and, unfortunately, throw out
their life with every personal item that goes on the curbs) . . .
``What are the elected officials in Washington going to do to help? I
must be the most naive U.S. citizen who can hardly believe that it
takes an act of Congress to have a National Cowboy Day but can go on a
recess with clear consciences before coming up with some plan of action
for this area and the people . . .
``The Red Cross has moved on and the Salvation Army has come off the
streets. FEMA sent trailers, people settled into them, and then they
were displaced again when mold was found in the trailers . . .
``These people are not asking for more than what they had, just help
putting their lives, families, and homes back together. They need help
and support from those they have put their trust in.''
And another e-mail from a lady in Mason City. It says:
``Please continue your fight to have Congress address the disaster
needs of the Midwest! The rest of the world seems to have forgotten
about our disaster. However, for those of us still fighting it, it's as
painful today as it was the day our houses were filled with water.
``My family is just one of many here in Mason City who are homeless .
. .
``Our house is significantly damaged; so we can't move back into it.
We thought we could, and then 2 weeks ago we discovered the amount of
damage was too much.

{time} 2045

``We have to elevate it, move it, or destroy it. Our house is a
trilevel house where the floors are not on top of each other. The cost
of elevating or moving would be more than the value of our home. The
only option is to destroy it.
``The house we are currently renting is a house for sale. On any
given day, we are 30 to 45 days away from being homeless again. The
house has been shown to prospective buyers at least six times since the
flood. We are trying to find a house we can rent for a year. It's
almost impossible to find something we can afford that's in a safe area
and somewhat decent.''
I would hope that the House tomorrow, since we are going to be in
session, will finally pass disaster relief for people who are really
hurting.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I first inquire as to how
much time we have remaining on our side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak in general debate
on this bill, but in light of some of the comments made by the previous
speaker, I feel obligated to.
The gentleman said that it was the nature of the rule under which
this bill is being considered that prevented him from offering an
amendment. The fact is that the only thing this rule did was to require
that people publish their amendments 1 day ahead of time so that we
were not legislating by ambush. The rules of the House always provide
for germaneness. And, as the gentleman knows, his amendment is not
germane to this bill.
Secondly, I would point out that we put $2.65 billion in the
supplemental for Midwest disaster funding and for other disasters
around the country. And I would point out that we did that even though
the White House never sent to this Congress an official budget request
to deal with the disasters not just in Iowa, but Wisconsin as well, my
own State.
Thirdly, I would point out that the Speaker met today with a number
of Members from the Iowa delegation and we made clear that as soon as
we get official numbers from the administration that are at all
coherent, we will act, and that this Congress will not adjourn for the
year without providing needed disaster relief.
I just want to make clear there was nothing done in the rule.
Mr. LATHAM. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Yes. I'd be happy to.
Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the chairman's work. I sincerely do. We all
know that it would not be germane in this bill. That is not the issue.
I would ask, would the gentleman entertain a unanimous consent to
have this amendment considered today?

[[Page 17510]]

Mr. OBEY. As the gentleman knows, we have been criticized up and down
the river by your own leadership for trying to add what they described
as nongermane or unrelated items to these bills. As you well know, this
bill is probably not going to become law before any supplemental that
is passed in September, as the gentleman knows. So there is no rational
reason for me to accede to that request.
We have dealt with the gentleman above the table, honorably, and
fairly. You offered an amendment in the full committee to the energy
and water bill, adding money for disaster funding. We accepted the
amendment. I would suggest that the gentleman owes the Speaker of the
House an apology.
Mr. LATHAM. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Not further at this time.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2
minutes to a member of the Armed Services Committee who has worked day
and night for the troops and veterans in her district and this country,
the gentlelady from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Thank you very much to my good friend from
Texas, Mr. Chet Edwards, for yielding. We have worked quite diligently
on many of the issues going on right in Kansas at the military bases,
Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley, that I have the honor to represent.
I would just like to say that as a new Member of Congress, when I
came, I had heard many, many promises made to veterans, and I had to
wonder if they were going to be met. Many people said, Yes. Trust us.
They will be met. And you can imagine as a new Member of Congress, and
as a freshman, to have those promises to our veterans actually met
meant so much to me, for somebody who came to Washington to try to make
a difference and, in fact, for the second year in a row we are really
righting some of the real problems that we have seen with our Veterans
Administration and we are proposing record funding for the second year
in a row, and I am deeply proud and honored to be part of this
Congress.
I understand that this is a bipartisan bill, and for that I am very
grateful. We have plenty of floods in Kansas as well. There's a right
time and a wrong time to bring that up. I believe that the Members on
this side of the aisle have been very, very diligent to make sure that
that is taken care of. I would like to see this committee particularly
keep that same bipartisan air that has served this country so well.
Some of the things that are highlighting that are so important to the
good people of Kansas and our veterans across the United States, an
initial $4 billion for mental health, for TBI, for PTSD, for the drug
abuse that we see way too often, for the suicides that are hitting our
soldiers. That $4 billion of extra funding will make a huge difference
in these soldiers' lives.
Mileage reimbursement. I come from the State of Kansas. It's a huge
issue. The 41.5 cents a mile is a significant increase. I still would
love to see it come up to be the full standard, but this is a
significant increase that will mean a great deal to veterans from
Kansas who have to travel a great deal.
Thank you, and congratulations on this wonderful and bipartisan bill.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a great patriot, the
gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlemen very much for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I will vote ``yes'' on this bill, but I am really
astonished that the Democrats have gutted the European Missile Defense
site. We don't seem to understand that the coincidence of jihadist
terrorism and nuclear proliferation represents the greatest existential
threat to human peace in the world today. Unfortunately, they seem to
think that if they kill it for this year and put it in the next
administration, somehow it will be of some political benefit to them.
Barack Obama has said that he will cut missile defense spending, and he
simply does not understand the gravity of a nuclear Iran, Mr. Chairman.
Every day we are in this body, Iran enriches more uranium. They come
closer and closer to having a nuclear capability. When they gain that,
Mr. Chairman, it won't be long before al Qaeda will have that
capability as well.
It may not be long that Iran will be able to actually field a weapon
that could create an electromagnetic pulse across this country that
would be the ultimate asymmetric weapon for terrorists in the world
today. And I find it astonishing that when our first purpose in this
body is to protect the lives and constitutional rights of the American
people, that for some ridiculous political motivation that we would
strip the ability for us to be able to intercept missiles coming from
Iran that would either hit our allies in Europe or our forward-deployed
troops or people here at home, that somehow we think that we have done
our job.
I would remind us all that Osama bin Laden said these words. He said,
It is our religious duty to gain nuclear weapons.
Mr. Chairman, if they succeed, if Iran succeeds, al Qaeda will
succeed in gaining those nuclear weapons. If that happens, we will
revisit this subject on a day in the future and we will have to explain
to our children why we let such a profound threat to human peace exist
when it was in our power to change it.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me first yield myself 15 seconds, if I
could respond.
Mr. Chairman, the last speaker was simply wrong. He suggested this
bill kills the European Missile Defense plan. It does not do that. He
suggested there were political motivations. That is not correct. I hate
to see that partisanship injected in a bill that has been put together
on a bipartisan basis. We fund $140 million for that project. The
project hasn't even been authorized by the parliaments in the Czech
Republic or Poland. We allow the program to continue despite that fact.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman. I could not be more proud of this
bill that we are debating here today and that we are going to pass
tonight.
Last year, we provided $12 billion in increased funding for the VA
health care system, the largest single year increase in the 77-year
history of the VA. Today, we follow up with a $4.6 billion funding
increase, representing an 11 percent increase over that high bar that
we set last year.
We are proving once again tonight in this Congress no group will
stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to make funding
decisions.
The increased funding allows for enrollment of Priority 8 veterans.
Priority 8 veterans have not been enrolled since 2003, as part of the
Bush administration's cost-cutting efforts, and approximately 50
percent of all uninsured veterans today are Priority 8 veterans.
This bill will allow us to hire over 2,000 more claims processors to
decrease that backlog that we have, which is now almost 400,000 cases,
with 2,000 new claims processors.
In western Pennsylvania, where I'm from, there's a 6,000-case
backlog. Those claims remain unanswered. So we are going to clear that
up with this funding today.
In February, I testified before the House Budget Committee about the
importance of increasing funding for our veterans' programs. I was
pleased to vote on the floor of this House this year and last in favor
of a budget resolution that met and exceeded the commitment that we
have made to our Nation's veterans.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I congratulate
Chairman Edwards on his work on this. It's a bipartisan bill. We are
all on this together.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for
the purpose to close briefly by saying that Chairman Obey said
something at the full committee that I want to paraphrase and restate
in the context that we all know that those who do not

[[Page 17511]]

learn from history, are destined to repeat it.
One of the lessons of Vietnam is that regardless of how you feel,
especially as a policymaker, but even as a citizen, about the war in
Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, or any war, it's so important to
appreciate fully the men and women who are engaged in that war on our
behalf. Regardless of how you feel about the mission, it is so
important for our Nation to appreciate and support and fund and
resource the needs of our men and women in uniform and our veterans.
I want to say tonight I grew up a Democrat. I am a Republican today.
But we should, and are, meeting at the water's edge on this issue of
resourcing the men and women in harm's way and supporting the veterans
when they come home for the balance of their life.
This is a lesson of history, of modern history. We saw it and we are
making that right. So even though many of them do not support what we
are doing in Iraq, or maybe even Afghanistan, this bill supports those
who are fighting, and their families. And that is important.
In closing, I do want to recognize by name again the extraordinary
staff. They call these people the front office staff. Rob Nabors and
Jeff Shockey at the highest level. This committee staff is bipartisan.
There happens to be a majority staff, Carol Murphy, Donna Shahbaz,
Walter Hearne; the minority staff, Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson, and
Kelly Shea. Mr. Edwards has John Conger, I have Amanda Schoch. They
have done a remarkable job day in day in day out to bring us to this
today because this is a great work product. Not all bills that come to
this floor are, but this is. And it's right. I urge its passage.
I thank you for the time on the general debate. We have got 37
amendments. The hour is getting late. Let's get on with it.
I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6599, a bill
to fund U.S. military construction and maintenance and the operations
of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill appropriates a
total of $118.7 billion for military construction and veterans'
programs, $10.3 billion more than the current level and $3.4 billion
more than the President's request. This funding will provide
compensation payments to millions of veterans and their survivors,
pension payments and financial assistance to their widows and children,
and is the primary support for their military related medical care.
The Veterans Department oversees the largest Federal medical care
delivery system in the country, with 153 hospitals, 50 residential
rehabilitation treatment centers, 135 nursing homes, and 1,089
outpatient clinics. The almost $94 billion set aside in this bill is a
significant increase over the Administration's request and will help
fund medical administration, operations and maintenance of medical
facilities such as Walter Reed, and important medical, trauma and
mental health research. This bill also provides the funding for the
BRAC.
We all know there is a massive military base closure and realignment
underway in this country. The potential for increased traffic
congestion at these new military facilities, such as the one being
constructed in my district in Bethesda, MD, can be disruptive for the
citizens who currently live in these communities. I want to thank the
Committee for working with me to insert language in this bill directing
the Department of Defense to aggressively plan and budget for the
Defense Access Roads programs that should help alleviate some of the
pressure on the communities that are dealing with BRAC.
This nation has 23,500,000 veterans and 35,900,000 family members of
living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. That means close to
20 percent of this county's total population are potential recipients
of veterans benefits. We have a responsibility to support the past and
present servicemembers and their families who have served and
sacrificed for us. Providing quality healthcare and decent living
conditions for them and their families is the least we can do for these
brave men and women. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting
this important piece of legislation.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the Republican Leadership
standards on earmarks, I, Mark Souder, am submitting the following
information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding
earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599--The Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs FY09 Appropriations bill.
Included in H.R. 6599 is a $5,600,000 earmark that I submitted for
the construction of Aircraft Ready Shelters and Fuel Fill Stands for
the 122nd Fighter Wing located at 3005 Ferguson Road, Fort Wayne
International Airport, IN 46809.
The funding will be used to construct a two aircraft bay parking
shelter addition to the existing two aircraft bay parking shelter
providing a total of four parking spots under shelter as required for a
base A/C Readiness Shelter. Project consists of the following:
Construct reinforced concrete foundation and painted floor slab with
grounding points; masonry and metal siding walls; steel frame; and
standing seam metal roof; include a high expansion fire suppression
system and overhead infrared heating; provide hangar style doors for
drive through capability; remove existing asphalt and provide new
concrete taxiway entry and exit; provide asphalt transition to the
south apron area; construct stainless steel underground piping,
reinforced concrete for curbed access pavement, and refueler fill
stands. The base requires adequately sized, appropriately configured,
and functional aircraft readiness shelters with supporting taxiway
system to support four-ship F-16 aircraft mission requirements. Due to
previous funding restraints the current shelter facility was
constructed with two parking spots with a plan to add two more at a
later date. Readiness shelters are necessary for mission support,
operations safety, and protection of aircraft and flightline personnel
from inclement weather. The project will also provide a refueler
vehicle fill stand on the operational side of the railroad tracks to
support the flying mission.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, Fort Campbell, one of the Army's
largest posts and home to the 101st Airborne Division, is in the
seventh district of Tennessee, which I am honored to represent.
Currently, over 700 Tennessee National Guardsmen and the bulk of the
101st Airborne are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
With this in mind, I'm particularly gratified that this House is
finally discussing an appropriations bill today. Funding for Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs certainly warrants our attention.
The brave members of our military, and the families that support them
at home, are fulfilling the commitment they made to our Nation by
fighting and serving to help protect it.
The federal government must in turn fulfill its commitment to provide
top-quality equipment, facilities, and training for these heroes, and
the best possible care upon their return.
On behalf of the men and women in uniform, veterans, and military
families in Tennessee's 7th district, I urge my colleagues to support
today's measure for MILCON-VA appropriations.

{time} 2100

The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
No amendment to the bill may be offered except those printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in a
daily issue dated July 30, 2008, or earlier, and pro forma amendments
for the purpose of debate. Each amendment may be offered only by the
Member who caused it to be printed, or his designee, and shall be
considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 6599

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and
for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Military Construction, Army

(including rescissions of funds)

For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $4,801,536,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2013: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $175,823,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation

[[Page 17512]]

support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be for
the projects and activities, and in the amounts, specified
under the headings ``Army'' in the table entitled ``Military
Construction'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany
this bill: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Army'' under Public Law 110-5,
$34,720,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction, Army''
under Public Law 110-161, $16,600,000 are hereby rescinded.

Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$3,280,809,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $247,128,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be for
the projects and activities, and in the amounts, specified
under the headings ``Navy'' in the table entitled ``Military
Construction'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany
this bill.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word and engage in a colloquy with Chairman Edwards, Congressman
Rehberg and myself.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to
the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, and I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas for all his hard work in drafting this important piece of
legislation.
Beginning in 1962, the Department of Defense commenced a number of
chemical and biological tests involving nearly 6,000 American military
personnel. These tests, known as Project 112 and Project SHAD, exposed
servicemembers to toxic agents such as Vx nerve gas, sarin nerve gas
and E. Coli.
Not surprising, many of the veterans unknowingly exposed to deadly
agents are suffering from serious medical conditions. Yet for over 40
years the Department of Defense denied the existence of these tests.
All the while, these veterans continued to suffer. Finally, in 2001,
DOD admitted to conducting Project 112 and Project SHAD, but they still
refused to take responsibility for their care.
Enough is enough. As we approach the end of this Congress, we can do
our part to care for these veterans by extending an expiring provision
which allows for Project 112 and Project SHAD veterans to receive care
at VA facilities without proving service connection.
My constituent, John Olson, a veteran of Project SHAD, spent all day
Tuesday undergoing tests for a possible aneurysm. This is the latest in
a long line of medical problems since leaving the service. Yet, as my
friend from California will state, the VA is approving claims at an
embarrassingly low rate. We can and should do everything we can to care
for these veterans.
I want to thank Mr. Thompson of California for keeping this issue in
front of the press, keeping this issue in front of the Congress, and
keeping this issue in front of the American people.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all your
work on this bill and all that you have done over the years for both
veterans and those currently serving in the military. I value greatly
all the work that you have done. But as Mr. Rehberg said, 45 years ago,
the Department of Defense began more than 50 chemical and biological
weapons tests on U.S. servicemen without their knowledge. The
government called these top secret tests Project SHAD. For the next 40
years, the Department of Defense denied Project SHAD even took place.
Ten years ago, I was able to prove that in fact they did take place,
and the DOD said they only used simulants and at no time were these
veterans exposed to anything harmful. Finally, after 3 more years of
work, the DOD admitted they used live and extremely dangerous agents,
such as Vx nerve gas and sarin.
More alarming than the lies and the coverup, we are not giving these
veterans the care they need and deserve today. A recent Associated
Press article revealed that only 6 percent of claims made by Project
SHAD veterans and other veterans involved in these secret government
tests have been accepted by the VA. That is only 39 out of 641 claims.
These brave men served our country and they served it with distinction,
and in return they were unknowingly used as human guinea pigs by their
own government. Now they are denied care.
The extension of treatment authority would go a long way towards
increasing the VA's dismal record in helping our veterans exposed to
these harmful agents, a record that the veterans service associations
in this country have called shocking, disgraceful and disappointing.
I hope that the chairman can assure me that he will work together
with us to find the appropriate vehicle to extend this important
provision.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me thank Mr. Rehberg of Montana and Mr.
Thompson, a distinguished Vietnam veteran, for raising this important
issue. I am glad the House has taken action on this issue in another
measure. I am disappointed the other body has not. Given that fact, we
could not add this provision to this bill under the rules of the House,
but I will make a good faith effort to work with both of the gentleman
to address what is a serious problem.
These great Americans should be honored by our actions. I hope at the
end of the day we can look them in the eye and say we have served them,
just as they have served our country so honorably.
Mr. REHBERG. We thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Edwards. I
would just remind everybody that these veterans are sick today, they
are dying, they need the medical care that they deserve and the medical
care that they earned. I appreciate your willingness to work with us on
this.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from
Texas, my good friend Chairman Edwards, in a colloquy, and I would like
to thank the chairman for agreeing to engage in this. I also want to
thank Mr. Stupak for his continued support and dedication on the issue
of steel safety, and look forward to working with both gentlemen on
requiring that all iron and steel purchased by the Federal Government
be made in the United States. This will keep Americans safe and help
our country prosper.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a provision in this measure
that requires American steel producers, fabricators and manufacturers
to have the opportunity to compete for steel funded through the
Department of Defense under this act. While I am encouraged and
grateful for this provision and believe that it is a critically
important aspect for all government procurements, frankly, I do not
believe it is enough.
China disobeys international trading rules, for example, and the
playing field is not level. Therefore, it is not possible for our steel
producers to compete fairly.
This last April, the Congressional Steel Caucus held a hearing on
substandard steel from China. We learned from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection about how our government does not have an established
process to monitor the safety of steel imports. We also heard from
representatives of the

[[Page 17513]]

domestic steel industry about how some Chinese steel companies do not
adhere to international standards and guidelines when they manufacture
steel, and that the steel may be used in our military barracks,
veterans hospitals, and other vital infrastructure.
I also would mention that this last October it was reported that
substandard Chinese steel was used in the construction of a gymnasium
at San Pedro High School in California, prompting the California
Department of General Services to post an alert on defective Chinese
steel tubing fabricated for school construction projects.
Last year, China had a major earthquake and we saw pictures of how
their schools and hospitals survived. We cannot wait to take action on
this issue until a hospital or school collapses in the United States.
Does it cost too much to require the use of American steel if it saves
lives? The government that we fund must set an example and make sure
that the buildings we build use American steel that can stand the test
of time.
When considering the construction of facilities that hospitalize,
house and take care of our veterans, we owe them every possibility to
ensure their health and safety. We owe them the requirement that safe
American steel is used, and that is why Representative Stupak and I
have raised this issue.
Again, I thank the chairman for engaging in this colloquy and for his
good work on this bill.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would like to thank Chairman Visclosky for
his leadership on this issue and Mr. Stupak as well. We all know that a
healthy steel industry in the United States is not only terribly
important for our economy, but it is critical to our Nation's defense.
It is an industry we must have.
So I look forward to working with the gentleman in good faith to see
if we can take the language in this bill that already is supportive of
the use of U.S. steel and see if we can't improve that language as we
go forward.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman very much, and would yield back
my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Filner) assumed the chair.

____________________

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4040) entitled ``An Act to establish
consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for
children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer
Product Safety Commission.''.
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4137) entitled ``An
Act to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other
purposes.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The committee will resume its sitting.

____________________

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

The committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I rise today to enter into a colloquy
with my colleagues, the chairman of the Military Construction
Subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, and Ranking Member Wamp, about an issue of
significant importance to my constituents in Ridgecrest, California.
China Lake, the large naval installation in Ridgecrest, was slated to
become the Navy's Center of Excellence for weapons development as part
of the 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure. This news confirmed
what those of us familiar with China Lake have always known; China
Lake's location, access to airspace, 350 days of flying a year and
exceptional personnel make it an excellent place for the military to
develop the tools for the men and women serving on the front line.
Unfortunately, since the recommendation was made, I have had concerns
that it is not being implemented as consistently with the original
recommendation as it should be. I am concerned that the number of jobs
slated to move and overall construction plan has decreased more than
would be expected.
For these reasons, I come to the floor today to ask the chairman that
he work with me to ensure that Congress continues its oversight of the
BRAC implementation process.
I would yield to the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I want to thank Mr. McCarthy for mentioning
this issue. I was one of those several years ago who raised serious
questions about whether BRAC was adequately funded or not. We were told
it was. It turns out construction costs have skyrocketed in fact above
original estimates.
I would look forward to working with the gentleman to see that our
subcommittee, working with Mr. Wamp in good faith, exercises the
oversight that we have a responsibility to carry out to see that BRAC
dollars are spent, spent wisely, spent efficiently, and that we do
everything humanly possible to keep the BRAC process on time.
Mr. WAMP. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from
California for raising this issue before the House tonight. As the
gentleman has seen firsthand, dealing with this multiyear,
multibillion-dollar BRAC process, some of the business plans that were
initially adopted have changed. He is doing everything he can to make
sure that the Department of Defense sticks as close as possible to
those plans. I join Chairman Edwards and commit to working to ensure
that we conduct proper oversight of the BRAC process.
I want to thank the chairman for this commitment to fully fund the
BRAC process, which was a major point of discussion throughout our 100
hours and 19 hearings this year, to make sure BRAC is fully funded on
time.
I am grateful the gentleman from California has taken this initiative
tonight.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I want to thank Chairman Edwards and
Ranking Member Wamp for their leadership on this issue, and I yield
back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
offer the amendment of Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, at this point
in the reading.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it is 9:15 at
night. We don't know how long it is going to take us to complete this
bill tonight. And what we are being asked to do, as I understand it, is
to give unanimous consent so that the gentleman may be able to offer an
amendment which he otherwise would not be able to offer because we have
already moved past that point in the bill. That is my understanding.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would the gentleman yield to a question?
Mr. OBEY. Go ahead.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It was our understanding as I was waiting for the
proper time to offer this amendment that the body would take the two
colloquies first, and then we would have the opportunity of presenting
this in this form. So I think actually going through this form in the
long run was probably more timesaving than doing other kinds of actions
if this was not allowed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, I am not
interested in the reason why the gentleman's request is tardy. I simply
want to repeat, it is my understanding that what the gentleman is
asking us to do

[[Page 17514]]

is to allow him to offer an amendment which we have already passed in
the reading of the bill.
I will not object to that request, provided we have certain
understandings about how long we are going to drone on on these issues.
Since this is already a non-germane amendment, I want to make sure I
understand what the full request is going to be.
My understanding is that Mr. Burgess also has an amendment which he
wants to offer which has also been passed in the reading; is that
correct?

{time} 2115

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I don't know that one.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. I believe the gentleman is correct.
Mr. OBEY. If that is the correct understanding, then I simply want to
make certain that if we grant this request, that there will be only one
speaker on that side on the subject of the amendment that the gentleman
from Utah wants to offer and one speaker on that side of the aisle on
the amendment that Mr. Burgess desires to offer.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the gentleman will yield on that issue? That
was always our intent. I think I am enough.
Mr. OBEY. But is that the understanding?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That is my understanding.
Mr. WAMP. If the chairman would yield.
Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. WAMP. I just want to say, in all fairness, Mr. Chairman, the
Chair allowed the reader to read past this point with people on their
feet for the colloquy, with an understanding on both sides that the
colloquy would go first and then we would start this point in the bill.
The reading was an accidental reading, not that someone wasn't here
ready to offer the amendments. Mr. Burgess was sitting right here. And
points of order are going to be raised against both. So, with all due
respect, Mr. Chairman, if we can get on with it, we will dispose of it
quickly.
Mr. OBEY. If I can take back the time. I know Mr. Burgess was here. I
saw him sitting here for a considerable length of time, and I am not
trying to pin a tail on anybody. My point is simply that this has not
been a day noted for its courtesy across the aisle. And I am perfectly
willing to grant courtesy, provided that we have a clear understanding
that the House is not going to be abused, in terms of its time, in the
process.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Utah is
the designee of the gentleman from Ohio and may offer his amendment at
this time.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
Before title I, insert the following:
DIVISION A
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert
the following:
DIVISION B

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``American Energy Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
division is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--AMERICAN ENERGY

Subtitle A--OCS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Policy.
Sec. 103. Definitions under the Submerged Lands Act.
Sec. 104. Seaward boundaries of States.
Sec. 105. Exceptions from confirmation and establishment of States'
title, power, and rights.
Sec. 106. Definitions under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Sec. 107. Determination of adjacent zones and planning areas.
Sec. 108. Administration of leasing.
Sec. 109. Grant of leases by Secretary.
Sec. 110. Disposition of receipts.
Sec. 111. Reservation of lands and rights.
Sec. 112. Outer Continental Shelf leasing program.
Sec. 113. Coordination with adjacent States.
Sec. 114. Environmental studies.
Sec. 115. Termination of effect of laws prohibiting the spending of
appropriated funds for certain purposes.
Sec. 116. Outer Continental Shelf incompatible use.
Sec. 117. Repurchase of certain leases.
Sec. 118. Offsite environmental mitigation.
Sec. 119. OCS regional headquarters.
Sec. 120. Leases for areas located within 100 miles of California or
Florida.
Sec. 121. Coastal impact assistance.
Sec. 122. Repeal of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.

Subtitle B--ANWR

Sec. 141. Short title.
Sec. 142. Definitions.
Sec. 143. Leasing program for lands within the Coastal Plain.
Sec. 144. Lease sales.
Sec. 145. Grant of leases by the Secretary.
Sec. 146. Lease terms and conditions.
Sec. 147. Coastal Plain environmental protection.
Sec. 148. Expedited judicial review.
Sec. 149. Federal and State distribution of revenues.
Sec. 150. Rights-of-way across the Coastal Plain.
Sec. 151. Conveyance.
Sec. 152. Local government impact aid and community service assistance.

Subtitle C--Oil Shale

Sec. 161. Repeal.

TITLE II--CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY

Subtitle A--Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficiency

Sec. 201. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor
vehicles.
Sec. 202. Extension of credit for alternative fuel vehicles.
Sec. 203. Extension of alternative fuel vehicle refueling property
credit.

Subtitle B--Tapping America's Ingenuity and Creativity

Sec. 211. Definitions.
Sec. 212. Statement of policy.
Sec. 213. Prize authority.
Sec. 214. Eligibility.
Sec. 215. Intellectual property.
Sec. 216. Waiver of liability.
Sec. 217. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 218. Next generation automobile prize program.
Sec. 219. Advanced battery manufacturing incentive program.

Subtitle C--Home and Business Tax Incentives

Sec. 221. Extension of credit for energy efficient appliances.
Sec. 222. Extension of credit for nonbusiness energy property.
Sec. 223. Extension of credit for residential energy efficient
property.
Sec. 224. Extension of new energy efficient home credit.
Sec. 225. Extension of energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.
Sec. 226. Extension of special rule to implement FERC and State
electric restructuring policy.
Sec. 227. Home energy audits.
Sec. 228. Accelerated recovery period for depreciation of smart meters.

Subtitle D--Refinery Permit Process Schedule

Sec. 231. Short title.
Sec. 232. Definitions.
Sec. 233. State assistance.
Sec. 234. Refinery process coordination and procedures.
Sec. 235. Designation of closed military bases.
Sec. 236. Savings clause.
Sec. 237. Refinery revitalization repeal.

TITLE III--NEW AND EXPANDING TECHNOLOGIES

Subtitle A--Alternative Fuels

Sec. 301. Repeal.
Sec. 302. Government auction of long term put option contracts on coal-
to-liquid fuel produced by qualified coal-to-liquid
facilities.
Sec. 303. Standby loans for qualifying coal-to-liquids projects.

Subtitle B--Tax Provisions

Sec. 311. Extension of renewable electricity, refined coal, and Indian
coal production credit.
Sec. 312. Extension of energy credit.
Sec. 313. Extension and modification of credit for clean renewable
energy bonds.
Sec. 314. Extension of credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel.

Subtitle C--Nuclear

Sec. 321. Use of funds for recycling.
Sec. 322. Rulemaking for licensing of spent nuclear fuel recycling
facilities.
Sec. 323. Nuclear waste fund budget status.
Sec. 324. Waste Confidence.
Sec. 325. ASME Nuclear Certification credit.

Subtitle D--American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund

Sec. 331. American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund.
TITLE I--AMERICAN ENERGY
Subtitle A--OCS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008''.

[[Page 17515]]

SEC. 102. POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States that--
(1) the United States is blessed with abundant energy
resources on the outer Continental Shelf and has developed a
comprehensive framework of environmental laws and regulations
and fostered the development of state-of-the-art technology
that allows for the responsible development of these
resources for the benefit of its citizenry;
(2) Adjacent States are required by the circumstances to
commit significant resources in support of exploration,
development, and production activities for mineral resources
on the outer Continental Shelf, and it is fair and proper for
a portion of the receipts from such activities to be shared
with Adjacent States and their local coastal governments;
(3) the existing laws governing the leasing and production
of the mineral resources of the outer Continental Shelf have
reduced the production of mineral resources, have preempted
Adjacent States from being sufficiently involved in the
decisions regarding the allowance of mineral resource
development, and have been harmful to the national interest;
(4) the national interest is served by granting the
Adjacent States more options related to whether or not
mineral leasing should occur in the outer Continental Shelf
within their Adjacent Zones;
(5) it is not reasonably foreseeable that exploration of a
leased tract located more than 25 miles seaward of the
coastline, development and production of a natural gas
discovery located more than 25 miles seaward of the
coastline, or development and production of an oil discovery
located more than 50 miles seaward of the coastline will
adversely affect resources near the coastline;
(6) transportation of oil from a leased tract might
reasonably be foreseen, under limited circumstances, to have
the potential to adversely affect resources near the
coastline if the oil is within 50 miles of the coastline, but
such potential to adversely affect such resources is likely
no greater, and probably less, than the potential impacts
from tanker transportation because tanker spills usually
involve large releases of oil over a brief period of time;
and
(7) among other bodies of inland waters, the Great Lakes,
Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle
Sound, San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound are not part of the
outer Continental Shelf, and are not subject to leasing by
the Federal Government for the exploration, development, and
production of any mineral resources that might lie beneath
them.

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS UNDER THE SUBMERGED LANDS ACT.

Section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (2) of paragraph (a) by striking all
after ``seaward to a line'' and inserting ``twelve nautical
miles distant from the coast line of such State;'';
(2) by striking out paragraph (b) and redesignating the
subsequent paragraphs in order as paragraphs (b) through (g);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (g) (as
so redesignated) and inserting ``; and'';
(4) by adding the following: ``(i) The term `Secretary'
means the Secretary of the Interior.''; and
(5) by defining ``State'' as it is defined in section 2(r)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(r)).

SEC. 104. SEAWARD BOUNDARIES OF STATES.

Section 4 of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1312) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``original'', and in
the same sentence by striking ``three geographical'' and
inserting ``twelve nautical''; and
(2) by striking all after the first sentence and inserting
the following: ``Extension and delineation of lateral
offshore State boundaries under the provisions of this Act
shall follow the lines used to determine the Adjacent Zones
of coastal States under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
to the extent such lines extend twelve nautical miles for the
nearest coastline.''

SEC. 105. EXCEPTIONS FROM CONFIRMATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
STATES' TITLE, POWER, AND RIGHTS.

Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1313) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (c) in order as
paragraphs (1) through (3);
(2) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``There is excepted''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(b) Exception of Oil and Gas Mineral Rights.--There is
excepted from the operation of sections 3 and 4 all of the
oil and gas mineral rights for lands beneath the navigable
waters that are located within the expanded offshore State
seaward boundaries established under this Act. These oil and
gas mineral rights shall remain Federal property and shall be
considered to be part of the Federal outer Continental Shelf
for purposes of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and subject to leasing under the
authority of that Act and to laws applicable to the leasing
of the oil and gas resources of the Federal outer Continental
Shelf. All existing Federal oil and gas leases within the
expanded offshore State seaward boundaries shall continue
unchanged by the provisions of this Act, except as otherwise
provided herein. However, a State may exercise all of its
sovereign powers of taxation within the entire extent of its
expanded offshore State boundaries.''.

SEC. 106. DEFINITIONS UNDER THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS
ACT.

Section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (f) to read as follows:
``(f) The term `affected State' means the `Adjacent
State'.'';
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of each of
paragraphs (a) through (o) and inserting a period;
(3) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (p) and
inserting a period;
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(r) The term `Adjacent State' means, with respect to any
program, plan, lease sale, leased tract or other activity,
proposed, conducted, or approved pursuant to the provisions
of this Act, any State the laws of which are declared,
pursuant to section 4(a)(2), to be the law of the United
States for the portion of the outer Continental Shelf on
which such program, plan, lease sale, leased tract or
activity appertains or is, or is proposed to be, conducted.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `State' includes the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam,
and the other Territories of the United States.
``(s) The term `Adjacent Zone' means, with respect to any
program, plan, lease sale, leased tract, or other activity,
proposed, conducted, or approved pursuant to the provisions
of this Act, the portion of the outer Continental Shelf for
which the laws of a particular Adjacent State are declared,
pursuant to section 4(a)(2), to be the law of the United
States.
``(t) The term `miles' means statute miles.
``(u) The term `coastline' has the same meaning as the term
`coast line' as defined in section 2(c) of the Submerged
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(c)).
``(v) The term `Neighboring State' means a coastal State
having a common boundary at the coastline with the Adjacent
State.''; and
(5) in paragraph (a), by inserting after ``control'' the
following: ``or lying within the United States exclusive
economic zone adjacent to the Territories of the United
States''.

SEC. 107. DETERMINATION OF ADJACENT ZONES AND PLANNING AREAS.

Section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A)) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``, and the President'' and all that follows through
the end of the sentence and inserting the following: ``. The
lines extending seaward and defining each State's Adjacent
Zone, and each OCS Planning Area, are as indicated on the
maps for each outer Continental Shelf region entitled `Alaska
OCS Region State Adjacent Zone and OCS Planning Areas',
`Pacific OCS Region State Adjacent Zones and OCS Planning
Areas', `Gulf of Mexico OCS Region State Adjacent Zones and
OCS Planning Areas', and `Atlantic OCS Region State Adjacent
Zones and OCS Planning Areas', all of which are dated
September 2005 and on file in the Office of the Director,
Minerals Management Service.''.

SEC. 108. ADMINISTRATION OF LEASING.

Section 5 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1334) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Voluntary Partial Relinquishment of a Lease.--Any
lessee of a producing lease may relinquish to the Secretary
any portion of a lease that the lessee has no interest in
producing and that the Secretary finds is geologically
prospective. In return for any such relinquishment, the
Secretary shall provide to the lessee a royalty incentive for
the portion of the lease retained by the lessee, in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary to
carry out this subsection. The Secretary shall publish final
regulations implementing this subsection within 365 days
after the date of the enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008.
``(l) Natural Gas Lease Regulations.--Not later than July
1, 2010, the Secretary shall publish a final regulation that
shall--
``(1) establish procedures for entering into natural gas
leases;
``(2) ensure that natural gas leases are only available for
tracts on the outer Continental Shelf that are wholly within
100 miles of the coastline within an area withdrawn from
disposition by leasing on the day after the date of enactment
of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008;
``(3) provide that natural gas leases shall contain the
same rights and obligations established for oil and gas
leases, except as otherwise provided in the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008;
``(4) provide that, in reviewing the adequacy of bids for
natural gas leases, the value of any crude oil estimated to
be contained within any tract shall be excluded;
``(5) provide that any crude oil produced from a well and
reinjected into the leased tract shall not be subject to
payment of royalty, and that the Secretary shall consider, in
setting the royalty rates for a natural gas lease, the
additional cost to the lessee of not producing any crude oil;
and
``(6) provide that any Federal law that applies to an oil
and gas lease on the outer Continental Shelf shall apply to a
natural

[[Page 17516]]

gas lease unless otherwise clearly inapplicable.''.

SEC. 109. GRANT OF LEASES BY SECRETARY.

Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``Further, the Secretary may grant
natural gas leases in a manner similar to the granting of oil
and gas leases and under the various bidding systems
available for oil and gas leases.'';
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
``The Secretary may issue more than one lease for a given
tract if each lease applies to a separate and distinct range
of vertical depths, horizontal surface area, or a combination
of the two. The Secretary may issue regulations that the
Secretary determines are necessary to manage such leases
consistent with the purposes of this Act.'';
(3) by amending subsection (p)(2)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) The Secretary shall provide for the payment to
coastal States, and their local coastal governments, of 75
percent of Federal receipts from projects authorized under
this section located partially or completely within the area
extending seaward of State submerged lands out to 4 marine
leagues from the coastline, and the payment to coastal States
of 50 percent of the receipts from projects completely
located in the area more than 4 marine leagues from the
coastline. Payments shall be based on a formula established
by the Secretary by rulemaking no later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources
Act of 2008 that provides for equitable distribution, based
on proximity to the project, among coastal States that have
coastline that is located within 200 miles of the geographic
center of the project.''.
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Natural Gas Leases.--
``(1) Right to produce natural gas.--A lessee of a natural
gas lease shall have the right to produce the natural gas
from a field on a natural gas leased tract if the Secretary
estimates that the discovered field has at least 40 percent
of the economically recoverable Btu content of the field
contained within natural gas and such natural gas is
economical to produce.
``(2) Crude oil.--A lessee of a natural gas lease may not
produce crude oil from the lease unless the Governor of the
Adjacent State agrees to such production.
``(3) Estimates of btu content.--The Secretary shall make
estimates of the natural gas Btu content of discovered fields
on a natural gas lease only after the completion of at least
one exploration well, the data from which has been tied to
the results of a three-dimensional seismic survey of the
field. The Secretary may not require the lessee to further
delineate any discovered field prior to making such
estimates.
``(4) Definition of natural gas.--For purposes of a natural
gas lease, natural gas means natural gas and all substances
produced in association with gas, including, but not limited
to, hydrocarbon liquids (other than crude oil) that are
obtained by the condensation of hydrocarbon vapors and
separate out in liquid form from the produced gas stream.
``(r) Removal of Restrictions on Joint Bidding in Certain
Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.--Restrictions on joint
bidders shall no longer apply to tracts located in the Alaska
OCS Region. Such restrictions shall not apply to tracts in
other OCS regions determined to be `frontier tracts' or
otherwise `high cost tracts' under final regulations that
shall be published by the Secretary by not later than 365
days after the date of the enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008.
``(s) Royalty Suspension Provisions.--After the date of the
enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008,
price thresholds shall apply to any royalty suspension
volumes granted by the Secretary. Unless otherwise set by
Secretary by regulation or for a particular lease sale, the
price thresholds shall be $40.50 for oil (January 1, 2006
dollars) and $6.75 for natural gas (January 1, 2006 dollars).
``(t) Conservation of Resources Fees.--Not later than one
year after the date of the enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008, the Secretary by regulation shall
establish a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing
leases that will apply to new and existing leases which shall
be set at $3.75 per acre per year. This fee shall apply from
and after October 1, 2008, and shall be treated as offsetting
receipts.'';
(5) by striking subsection (a)(3)(A) and redesignating the
subsequent subparagraphs as subparagraphs (A) and (B),
respectively;
(6) in subsection (a)(3)(A) (as so redesignated) by
striking ``In the Western'' and all that follows through
``the Secretary'' the first place it appears and inserting
``The Secretary''; and
(7) effective October 1, 2008, in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking all after ``(g)'', except paragraph (3);
(B) by striking the last sentence of paragraph (3); and
(C) by striking ``(3)''.

SEC. 110. DISPOSITION OF RECEIPTS.

Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1338) is amended--
(1) by designating the existing text as subsection (a);
(2) in subsection (a) (as so designated) by inserting ``,
if not paid as otherwise provided in this title'' after
``receipts''; and
(3) by adding the following:
``(b) Treatment of OCS Receipts From Tracts Completely
Within 100 Miles of the Coastline.--
``(1) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit into a separate
account in the Treasury the portion of OCS Receipts for each
fiscal year that will be shared under paragraphs (2), (3),
and (4).
``(2) Phased-in receipts sharing.--
``(A) Beginning October 1, 2008, the Secretary shall share
OCS Receipts derived from the following areas:
``(i) Lease tracts located on portions of the Gulf of
Mexico OCS Region completely beyond 4 marine leagues from any
coastline and completely within 100 miles of any coastline
that were available for leasing under the 2002-2007 5-Year
OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
``(ii) Lease tracts in production prior to October 1, 2008,
completely beyond 4 marine leagues from any coastline and
completely within 100 miles of any coastline located on
portions of the OCS that were not available for leasing under
the 2002-2007 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
``(iii) Lease tracts for which leases are issued prior to
October 1, 2008, located in the Alaska OCS Region completely
beyond 4 marine leagues from any coastline and completely
within 100 miles of the coastline.
``(B) The Secretary shall share the following percentages
of OCS Receipts from the leases described in subparagraph (A)
derived during the fiscal year indicated:
``(i) For fiscal year 2009, 5 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2010, 8 percent.
``(iii) For fiscal year 2011, 11 percent.
``(iv) For fiscal year 2012, 14 percent.
``(v) For fiscal year 2013, 17 percent.
``(vi) For fiscal year 2014, 20 percent.
``(vii) For fiscal year 2015, 23 percent.
``(viii) For fiscal year 2016, 26 percent.
``(ix) For fiscal year 2017, 29 percent.
``(x) For fiscal year 2018, 32 percent.
``(xi) For fiscal year 2019, 35 percent.
``(xii) For fiscal year 2020 and each subsequent fiscal
year, 37.5 percent.
``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to
leases that could not have been issued but for section 5(k)
of this Act or section 6(2) of the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008.
``(3) Immediate receipts sharing.--Beginning October 1,
2008, the Secretary shall share 37.50 percent of OCS Receipts
derived from all leases located completely beyond 4 marine
leagues from any coastline and completely within 100 miles of
any coastline not included within the provisions of paragraph
(2), and 90 percent of the balance of such OCS Receipts shall
be deposited into the American Renewable and Alternative
Energy Trust Fund established by section 331 of the American
Energy Act.
``(4) Receipts sharing from tracts within 4 marine leagues
of any coastline.--
``(A) Areas described in paragraph (2).--Beginning October
1, 2008, and continuing through September 30, 2010, the
Secretary shall share 25 percent of OCS Receipts derived from
all leases located within 4 marine leagues from any coastline
within areas described in paragraph (2). For each fiscal year
after September 30, 2010, the Secretary shall increase the
percent shared in 5 percent increments each fiscal year until
the sharing rate for all leases located within 4 marine
leagues from any coastline within areas described in
paragraph (2) becomes 75 percent.
``(B) Areas not described in paragraph (2).--Beginning
October 1, 2008, the Secretary shall share 75 percent of OCS
receipts derived from all leases located completely or
partially within 4 marine leagues from any coastline within
areas not described paragraph (2).
``(5) Allocations.--The Secretary shall allocate the OCS
Receipts deposited into the separate account established by
paragraph (1) that are shared under paragraphs (2), (3), and
(4) as follows:
``(A) Bonus bids.--Deposits derived from bonus bids from a
leased tract, including interest thereon, shall be allocated
at the end of each fiscal year to the Adjacent State.
``(B) Royalties.--Deposits derived from royalties from a
leased tract, including interest thereon, shall be allocated
at the end of each fiscal year to the Adjacent State and any
other producing State or States with a leased tract within
its Adjacent Zone within 100 miles of its coastline that
generated royalties during the fiscal year, if the other
producing or States have a coastline point within 300 miles
of any portion of the leased tract, in which case the amount
allocated for the leased tract shall be--
``(i) one-third to the Adjacent State; and
``(ii) two-thirds to each producing State, including the
Adjacent State, inversely proportional to the distance
between the nearest point on the coastline of the producing
State and the geographic center of the leased tract.
``(c) Treatment of OCS Receipts From Tracts Partially or
Completely Beyond 100 Miles of the Coastline.--
``(1) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit into a separate
account in the Treasury the

[[Page 17517]]

portion of OCS Receipts for each fiscal year that will be
shared under paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(2) Phased-in receipts sharing.--
``(A) Beginning October 1, 2008, the Secretary shall share
OCS Receipts derived from the following areas:
``(i) Lease tracts located on portions of the Gulf of
Mexico OCS Region partially or completely beyond 100 miles of
any coastline that were available for leasing under the 2002-
2007 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
``(ii) Lease tracts in production prior to October 1, 2008,
partially or completely beyond 100 miles of any coastline
located on portions of the OCS that were not available for
leasing under the 2002-2007 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing
Program.
``(iii) Lease tracts for which leases are issued prior to
October 1, 2008, located in the Alaska OCS Region partially
or completely beyond 100 miles of the coastline.
``(B) The Secretary shall share the following percentages
of OCS Receipts from the leases described in subparagraph (A)
derived during the fiscal year indicated:
``(i) For fiscal year 2009, 5 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2010, 8 percent.
``(iii) For fiscal year 2011, 11 percent.
``(iv) For fiscal year 2012, 14 percent.
``(v) For fiscal year 2013, 17 percent.
``(vi) For fiscal year 2014, 20 percent.
``(vii) For fiscal year 2015, 23 percent.
``(viii) For fiscal year 2016, 26 percent.
``(ix) For fiscal year 2017, 29 percent.
``(x) For fiscal year 2018, 32 percent.
``(xi) For fiscal year 2019, 35 percent.
``(xii) For fiscal year 2020 and each subsequent fiscal
year, 37.5 percent.
``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to
leases that could not have been issued but for section 5(k)
of this Act or section 106(2) of the Deep Ocean Energy
Resources Act of 2008.
``(3) Immediate receipts sharing.--Beginning October 1,
2008, the Secretary shall share 37.5 percent of OCS Receipts
derived on and after October 1, 2008, from all leases located
partially or completely beyond 100 miles of any coastline not
included within the provisions of paragraph (2), except that
the Secretary shall only share 25 percent of such OCS
Receipts derived from all such leases within a State's
Adjacent Zone if no leasing is allowed within any portion of
that State's Adjacent Zone located completely within 100
miles of any coastline.
``(4) Allocations.--The Secretary shall allocate the OCS
Receipts deposited into the separate account established by
paragraph (1) that are shared under paragraphs (2) and (3) as
follows:
``(A) Bonus bids.--Deposits derived from bonus bids from a
leased tract, including interest thereon, shall be allocated
at the end of each fiscal year to the Adjacent State.
``(B) Royalties.--Deposits derived from royalties from a
leased tract, including interest thereon, shall be allocated
at the end of each fiscal year to the Adjacent State and any
other producing State or States with a leased tract within
its Adjacent Zone partially or completely beyond 100 miles of
its coastline that generated royalties during the fiscal
year, if the other producing State or States have a coastline
point within 300 miles of any portion of the leased tract, in
which case the amount allocated for the leased tract shall
be--
``(i) one-third to the Adjacent State; and
``(ii) two-thirds to each producing State, including the
Adjacent State, inversely proportional to the distance
between the nearest point on the coastline of the producing
State and the geographic center of the leased tract.
``(d) Transmission of Allocations.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the end of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall transmit--
``(A) to each State 60 percent of such State's allocations
under subsections (b)(5)(A), (b)(5)(B), (c)(4)(A), and
(c)(4)(B) for the immediate prior fiscal year;
``(B) to each coastal county-equivalent and municipal
political subdivisions of such State a total of 40 percent of
such State's allocations under subsections (b)(5)(A),
(b)(5)(B), (c)(4)(A), and (c)(4)(B), together with all
accrued interest thereon; and
``(C) the remaining allocations under subsections (b)(5)
and (c)(4), together with all accrued interest thereon.
``(2) Allocations to coastal county-equivalent political
subdivisions.--The Secretary shall make an initial allocation
of the OCS Receipts to be shared under paragraph (1)(B) as
follows:
``(A) 25 percent shall be allocated to coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions that are completely more
than 25 miles landward of the coastline and at least a part
of which lies not more than 75 miles landward from the
coastline, with the allocation among such coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions based on population.
``(B) 75 percent shall be allocated to coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions that are completely or
partially less than 25 miles landward of the coastline, with
the allocation among such coastal county-equivalent political
subdivisions to be further allocated as follows:
``(i) 25 percent shall be allocated based on the ratio of
such coastal county-equivalent political subdivision's
population to the coastal population of all coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions in the State.
``(ii) 25 percent shall be allocated based on the ratio of
such coastal county-equivalent political subdivision's
coastline miles to the coastline miles of all coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions in the State as calculated
by the Secretary. In such calculations, coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions without a coastline shall
be considered to have 50 percent of the average coastline
miles of the coastal county-equivalent political subdivisions
that do have coastlines.
``(iii) 25 percent shall be allocated to all coastal
county-equivalent political subdivisions having a coastline
point within 300 miles of the leased tract for which OCS
Receipts are being shared based on a formula that allocates
the funds based on such coastal county-equivalent political
subdivision's relative distance from the leased tract.
``(iv) 25 percent shall be allocated to all coastal county-
equivalent political subdivisions having a coastline point
within 300 miles of the leased tract for which OCS Receipts
are being shared based on the relative level of outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in a coastal
political subdivision compared to the level of outer
Continental Shelf activities in all coastal political
subdivisions in the State. The Secretary shall define the
term `outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities' for
purposes of this subparagraph to include, but not be limited
to, construction of vessels, drillships, and platforms
involved in exploration, production, and development on the
outer Continental Shelf; support and supply bases, ports, and
related activities; offices of geologists, geophysicists,
engineers, and other professionals involved in support of
exploration, production, and development of oil and gas on
the outer Continental Shelf; pipelines and other means of
transporting oil and gas production from the outer
Continental Shelf; and processing and refining of oil and gas
production from the outer Continental Shelf. For purposes of
this subparagraph, if a coastal county-equivalent political
subdivision does not have a coastline, its coastal point
shall be the point on the coastline closest to it.
``(3) Allocations to coastal municipal political
subdivisions.--The initial allocation to each coastal county-
equivalent political subdivision under paragraph (2) shall be
further allocated to the coastal county-equivalent political
subdivision and any coastal municipal political subdivisions
located partially or wholly within the boundaries of the
coastal county-equivalent political subdivision as follows:
``(A) One-third shall be allocated to the coastal county-
equivalent political subdivision.
``(B) Two-thirds shall be allocated on a per capita basis
to the municipal political subdivisions and the county-
equivalent political subdivision, with the allocation to the
latter based upon its population not included within the
boundaries of a municipal political subdivision.
``(e) Investment of Deposits.--Amounts deposited under this
section shall be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in
securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United
States having maturities suitable to the needs of the account
in which they are deposited and yielding the highest
reasonably available interest rates as determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury.
``(f) Use of Funds.--A recipient of funds under this
section may use the funds for one or more of the following:
``(1) To reduce in-State college tuition at public
institutions of higher learning and otherwise support public
education, including career technical education.
``(2) To make transportation infrastructure improvements.
``(3) To reduce taxes.
``(4) To promote, fund, and provide for--
``(A) coastal or environmental restoration;
``(B) fish, wildlife, and marine life habitat enhancement;
``(C) waterways construction and maintenance;
``(D) levee construction and maintenance and shore
protection; and
``(E) marine and oceanographic education and research.
``(5) To promote, fund, and provide for--
``(A) infrastructure associated with energy production
activities conducted on the outer Continental Shelf;
``(B) energy demonstration projects;
``(C) supporting infrastructure for shore-based energy
projects;
``(D) State geologic programs, including geologic mapping
and data storage programs, and State geophysical data
acquisition;
``(E) State seismic monitoring programs, including
operation of monitoring stations;
``(F) development of oil and gas resources through enhanced
recovery techniques;
``(G) alternative energy development, including bio fuels,
coal-to-liquids, oil shale, tar sands, geothermal,
geopressure, wind, waves, currents, hydro, and other
renewable energy;
``(H) energy efficiency and conservation programs; and
``(I) front-end engineering and design for facilities that
produce liquid fuels from hydrocarbons and other biological
matter.

[[Page 17518]]

``(6) To promote, fund, and provide for--
``(A) historic preservation programs and projects;
``(B) natural disaster planning and response; and
``(C) hurricane and natural disaster insurance programs.
``(7) For any other purpose as determined by State law.
``(g) No Accounting Required.--No recipient of funds under
this section shall be required to account to the Federal
Government for the expenditure of such funds, except as
otherwise may be required by law. However, States may enact
legislation providing for accounting for and auditing of such
expenditures. Further, funds allocated under this section to
States and political subdivisions may be used as matching
funds for other Federal programs.
``(h) Effect of Future Laws.--Enactment of any future
Federal statute that has the effect, as determined by the
Secretary, of restricting any Federal agency from spending
appropriated funds, or otherwise preventing it from
fulfilling its pre-existing responsibilities as of the date
of enactment of the statute, unless such responsibilities
have been reassigned to another Federal agency by the statute
with no prevention of performance, to issue any permit or
other approval impacting on the OCS oil and gas leasing
program, or any lease issued thereunder, or to implement any
provision of this Act shall automatically prohibit any
sharing of OCS Receipts under this section directly with the
States, and their coastal political subdivisions, for the
duration of the restriction. The Secretary shall make the
determination of the existence of such restricting effects
within 30 days of a petition by any outer Continental Shelf
lessee or producing State.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Coastal county-equivalent political subdivision.--The
term `coastal county-equivalent political subdivision' means
a political jurisdiction immediately below the level of State
government, including a county, parish, borough in Alaska,
independent municipality not part of a county, parish, or
borough in Alaska, or other equivalent subdivision of a
coastal State, that lies within the coastal zone.
``(2) Coastal municipal political subdivision.--The term
`coastal municipal political subdivision' means a
municipality located within and part of a county, parish,
borough in Alaska, or other equivalent subdivision of a
State, all or part of which coastal municipal political
subdivision lies within the coastal zone.
``(3) Coastal population.--The term `coastal population'
means the population of all coastal county-equivalent
political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent
official data of the Census Bureau.
``(4) Coastal zone.--The term `coastal zone' means that
portion of a coastal State, including the entire territory of
any coastal county-equivalent political subdivision at least
a part of which lies, within 75 miles landward from the
coastline, or a greater distance as determined by State law
enacted to implement this section.
``(5) Bonus bids.--The term `bonus bids' means all funds
received by the Secretary to issue an outer Continental Shelf
minerals lease.
``(6) Royalties.--The term `royalties' means all funds
received by the Secretary from production of oil or natural
gas, or the sale of production taken in-kind, from an outer
Continental Shelf minerals lease.
``(7) Producing state.--The term `producing State' means an
Adjacent State having an Adjacent Zone containing leased
tracts from which OCS Receipts were derived.
``(8) OCS receipts.--The term `OCS Receipts' means bonus
bids, royalties, and conservation of resources fees.''.

SEC. 111. RESERVATION OF LANDS AND RIGHTS.

Section 12 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1341) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following:
``The President may partially or completely revise or revoke
any prior withdrawal made by the President under the
authority of this section. The President may not revise or
revoke a withdrawal that is extended by a State under
subsection (h), nor may the President withdraw from leasing
any area for which a State failed to prohibit, or petition to
prohibit, leasing under subsection (g). Further, in the area
of the outer Continental Shelf more than 100 miles from any
coastline, not more than 25 percent of the acreage of any OCS
Planning Area may be withdrawn from leasing under this
section at any point in time. A withdrawal by the President
may be for a term not to exceed 10 years. When considering
potential uses of the outer Continental Shelf, to the maximum
extent possible, the President shall accommodate competing
interests and potential uses.'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Availability for Leasing Within Certain Areas of the
Outer Continental Shelf.--
``(1) Prohibition against leasing.--
``(A) Unavailable for leasing without state request.--
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, from and
after enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of
2008, the Secretary shall not offer for leasing for oil and
gas, or natural gas, any area within 50 miles of the
coastline that was withdrawn from disposition by leasing in
the Atlantic OCS Region or the Pacific OCS Region, or the
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Eastern Planning Area, as depicted
on the maps referred to in this subparagraph, under the
`Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United
States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition', 34
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1111, dated June 12, 1998, or any
area within 50 miles of the coastline not withdrawn under
that Memorandum that is included within the Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region Eastern Planning Area as indicated on the map
entitled `Gulf of Mexico OCS Region State Adjacent Zones and
OCS Planning Areas' or the Florida Straits Planning Area as
indicated on the map entitled `Atlantic OCS Region State
Adjacent Zones and OCS Planning Areas', both of which are
dated September 2005 and on file in the Office of the
Director, Minerals Management Service.
``(B) Areas between 50 and 100 miles from the coastline.--
Unless an Adjacent State petitions under subsection (h)
within one year after the date of the enactment of the Deep
Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008 for natural gas leasing or
by June 30, 2010, for oil and gas leasing, the Secretary
shall offer for leasing any area more than 50 miles but less
than 100 miles from the coastline that was withdrawn from
disposition by leasing in the Atlantic OCS Region, the
Pacific OCS Region, or the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Eastern
Planning Area, as depicted on the maps referred to in this
subparagraph, under the `Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain
Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from
Leasing Disposition', 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1111, dated
June 12, 1998, or any area more than 50 miles but less than
100 miles of the coastline not withdrawn under that
Memorandum that is included within the Gulf of Mexico OCS
Region Eastern Planning Area as indicated on the map entitled
`Gulf of Mexico OCS Region State Adjacent Zones and OCS
Planning Areas' or within the Florida Straits Planning Area
as indicated on the map entitled `Atlantic OCS Region State
Adjacent Zones and OCS Planning Areas', both of which are
dated September 2005 and on file in the Office of the
Director, Minerals Management Service.
``(2) Petition for leasing.--
``(A) In general.--The Governor of the State, upon
concurrence of its legislature, may submit to the Secretary a
petition requesting that the Secretary make available any
area that is within the State's Adjacent Zone, included
within the provisions of paragraph (1), and that (i) is
greater than 25 miles from any point on the coastline of a
Neighboring State for the conduct of offshore leasing, pre-
leasing, and related activities with respect to natural gas
leasing; or (ii) is greater than 50 miles from any point on
the coastline of a Neighboring State for the conduct of
offshore leasing, pre-leasing, and related activities with
respect to oil and gas leasing. The Adjacent State may also
petition for leasing any other area within its Adjacent Zone
if leasing is allowed in the similar area of the Adjacent
Zone of the applicable Neighboring State, or if not allowed,
if the Neighboring State, acting through its Governor,
expresses its concurrence with the petition. The Secretary
shall only consider such a petition upon making a finding
that leasing is allowed in the similar area of the Adjacent
Zone of the applicable Neighboring State or upon receipt of
the concurrence of the Neighboring State. The date of receipt
by the Secretary of such concurrence by the Neighboring State
shall constitute the date of receipt of the petition for that
area for which the concurrence applies.
``(B) Limitations on leasing.--In its petition, a State
with an Adjacent Zone that contains leased tracts may
condition new leasing for oil and gas, or natural gas for
tracts within 25 miles of the coastline by--
``(i) requiring a net reduction in the number of production
platforms;
``(ii) requiring a net increase in the average distance of
production platforms from the coastline;
``(iii) limiting permanent surface occupancy on new leases
to areas that are more than 10 miles from the coastline;
``(iv) limiting some tracts to being produced from shore or
from platforms located on other tracts; or
``(v) other conditions that the Adjacent State may deem
appropriate as long as the Secretary does not determine that
production is made economically or technically impracticable
or otherwise impossible.
``(C) Action by secretary.--Not later than 90 days after
receipt of a petition under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall approve the petition, unless the Secretary determines
that leasing the area would probably cause serious harm or
damage to the marine resources of the State's Adjacent Zone.
Prior to approving the petition, the Secretary shall complete
an environmental assessment that documents the anticipated
environmental effects of leasing in the area included within
the scope of the petition.
``(D) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to approve or
deny a petition in accordance with subparagraph (C) the
petition shall be considered to be approved 90 days after
receipt of the petition.

[[Page 17519]]

``(E) Amendment of the 5-year leasing program.--
Notwithstanding section 18, within 180 days of the approval
of a petition under subparagraph (C) or (D), after the
expiration of the time limits in paragraph (1)(B), the
Secretary shall amend the current 5-Year Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program to include a lease sale or
sales for at least 75 percent of the associated areas, unless
there are, from the date of approval, expiration of such time
limits, as applicable, fewer than 12 months remaining in the
current 5-Year Leasing Program in which case the Secretary
shall include the associated areas within lease sales under
the next 5-Year Leasing Program. For purposes of amending the
5-Year Program in accordance with this section, further
consultations with States shall not be required. For purposes
of this section, an environmental assessment performed under
the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 to assess the effects of approving the petition shall be
sufficient to amend the 5-Year Leasing Program.
``(h) Option To Extend Withdrawal From Leasing Within
Certain Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.--A State,
through its Governor and upon the concurrence of its
legislature, may extend for a period of time of up to 5 years
for each extension the withdrawal from leasing for all or
part of any area within the State's Adjacent Zone located
more than 50 miles, but less than 100 miles, from the
coastline that is subject to subsection (g)(1)(B). A State
may extend multiple times for any particular area but not
more than once per calendar year for any particular area. A
State must prepare separate extensions, with separate votes
by its legislature, for oil and gas leasing and for natural
gas leasing. An extension by a State may affect some areas to
be withdrawn from all leasing and some areas to be withdrawn
only from one type of leasing.
``(i) Effect of Other Laws.--Adoption by any Adjacent State
of any constitutional provision, or enactment of any State
statute, that has the effect, as determined by the Secretary,
of restricting either the Governor or the Legislature, or
both, from exercising full discretion related to subsection
(g) or (h), or both, shall automatically (1) prohibit any
sharing of OCS Receipts under this Act with the Adjacent
State, and its coastal political subdivisions, and (2)
prohibit the Adjacent State from exercising any authority
under subsection (h), for the duration of the restriction.
The Secretary shall make the determination of the existence
of such restricting constitutional provision or State statute
within 30 days of a petition by any outer Continental Shelf
lessee or coastal State.
``(j) Prohibition on Leasing East of the Military Mission
Line.--
``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from and
after the enactment of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of
2008, prior to January 1, 2022, no area of the outer
Continental Shelf located in the Gulf of Mexico east of the
military mission line may be offered for leasing for oil and
gas or natural gas unless a waiver is issued by the Secretary
of Defense. If such a waiver is granted, 62.5 percent of the
OCS Receipts from a lease within such area issued because of
such waiver shall be paid annually to the National Guards of
all States having a point within 1000 miles of such a lease,
allocated among the States on a per capita basis using the
entire population of such States.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `military mission line'
means a line located at 86 degrees, 41 minutes West
Longitude, and extending south from the coast of Florida to
the outer boundary of United States territorial waters in the
Gulf of Mexico.''.

SEC. 112. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM.

Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end of paragraph
(3) the following: ``The Secretary shall, in each 5-Year
Program, include lease sales that when viewed as a whole
propose to offer for oil and gas or natural gas leasing at
least 75 percent of the available unleased acreage within
each OCS Planning Area. Available unleased acreage is that
portion of the outer Continental Shelf that is not under
lease at the time of the proposed lease sale, and has not
otherwise been made unavailable for leasing by law.'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking so much as precedes
paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(c)(1) During the preparation of any proposed leasing
program under this section, the Secretary shall consider and
analyze leasing throughout the entire outer Continental Shelf
without regard to any other law affecting such leasing.
During this preparation the Secretary shall invite and
consider suggestions from any interested Federal agency,
including the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Federal Trade Commission, and from the Governor of any
coastal State. The Secretary may also invite or consider any
suggestions from the executive of any local government in a
coastal State that have been previously submitted to the
Governor of such State, and from any other person. Further,
the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Defense
regarding military operational needs in the outer Continental
Shelf. The Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Defense
to resolve any conflicts that might arise regarding offering
any area of the outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas or
natural gas leasing. If the Secretaries are not able to
resolve all such conflicts, any unresolved issues shall be
elevated to the President for resolution.
``(2) After the consideration and analysis required by
paragraph (1), including the consideration of the suggestions
received from any interested Federal agency, the Federal
Trade Commission, the Governor of any coastal State, any
local government of a coastal State, and any other person,
the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a
proposed leasing program accompanied by a draft environmental
impact statement prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. After the publishing of the
proposed leasing program and during the comment period
provided for on the draft environmental impact statement, the
Secretary shall submit a copy of the proposed program to the
Governor of each affected State for review and comment. The
Governor may solicit comments from those executives of local
governments in the Governor's State that the Governor, in the
discretion of the Governor, determines will be affected by
the proposed program. If any comment by such Governor is
received by the Secretary at least 15 days prior to
submission to the Congress pursuant to paragraph (3) and
includes a request for any modification of such proposed
program, the Secretary shall reply in writing, granting or
denying such request in whole or in part, or granting such
request in such modified form as the Secretary considers
appropriate, and stating the Secretary's reasons therefor.
All such correspondence between the Secretary and the
Governor of any affected State, together with any additional
information and data relating thereto, shall accompany such
proposed program when it is submitted to the Congress.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Projection of State Adjacent Zone Resources and State
and Local Government Shares of OCS Receipts.--Concurrent with
the publication of the scoping notice at the beginning of the
development of each 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Leasing Program, or as soon thereafter as possible, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) provide to each Adjacent State a current estimate of
proven and potential oil and gas resources located within the
State's Adjacent Zone; and
``(2) provide to each Adjacent State, and coastal political
subdivisions thereof, a best-efforts projection of the OCS
Receipts that the Secretary expects will be shared with each
Adjacent State, and its coastal political subdivisions, using
the assumption that the unleased tracts within the State's
Adjacent Zone are fully made available for leasing, including
long-term projected OCS Receipts. In addition, the Secretary
shall include a macroeconomic estimate of the impact of such
leasing on the national economy and each State's economy,
including investment, jobs, revenues, personal income, and
other categories.''.

SEC. 113. COORDINATION WITH ADJACENT STATES.

Section 19 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1345) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence by inserting
``, for any tract located within the Adjacent State's
Adjacent Zone,'' after ``government''; and
(2) by adding the following:
``(f)(1) No Federal agency may permit or otherwise approve,
without the concurrence of the Adjacent State, the
construction of a crude oil or petroleum products (or both)
pipeline within the part of the Adjacent State's Adjacent
Zone that is withdrawn from oil and gas or natural gas
leasing, except that such a pipeline may be approved, without
such Adjacent State's concurrence, to pass through such
Adjacent Zone if at least 50 percent of the production
projected to be carried by the pipeline within its first 10
years of operation is from areas of the Adjacent State's
Adjacent Zone.
``(2) No State may prohibit the construction within its
Adjacent Zone or its State waters of a natural gas pipeline
that will transport natural gas produced from the outer
Continental Shelf. However, an Adjacent State may prevent a
proposed natural gas pipeline landing location if it proposes
two alternate landing locations in the Adjacent State,
acceptable to the Adjacent State, located within 50 miles on
either side of the proposed landing location.''.

SEC. 114. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES.

Section 20(d) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1346) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(d)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For all programs, lease sales, leases, and actions
under this Act, the following shall apply regarding the
application of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
``(A) Granting or directing lease suspensions and the
conduct of all preliminary activities on outer Continental
Shelf tracts, including seismic activities, are categorically
excluded from the need to prepare either an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement, and the
Secretary shall not be required to analyze whether any
exceptions to a categorical exclusion apply

[[Page 17520]]

for activities conducted under the authority of this Act.
``(B) The environmental impact statement developed in
support of each 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program provides
the environmental analysis for all lease sales to be
conducted under the program and such sales shall not be
subject to further environmental analysis.
``(C) Exploration plans shall not be subject to any
requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement, and
the Secretary may find that exploration plans are eligible
for categorical exclusion due to the impacts already being
considered within an environmental impact statement or due to
mitigation measures included within the plan.
``(D) Within each OCS Planning Area, after the preparation
of the first development and production plan environmental
impact statement for a leased tract within the Area, future
development and production plans for leased tracts within the
Area shall only require the preparation of an environmental
assessment unless the most recent development and production
plan environmental impact statement within the Area was
finalized more than 10 years prior to the date of the
approval of the plan, in which case an environmental impact
statement shall be required.''.

SEC. 115. TERMINATION OF EFFECT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE
SPENDING OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR CERTAIN
PURPOSES.

All provisions of existing Federal law prohibiting the
spending of appropriated funds to conduct oil and natural gas
leasing and preleasing activities, or to issue a lease to any
person, for any area of the outer Continental Shelf shall
have no force or effect.

SEC. 116. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF INCOMPATIBLE USE.

(a) In General.--No Federal agency may permit construction
or operation (or both) of any facility, or designate or
maintain a restricted transportation corridor or operating
area on the Federal outer Continental Shelf or in State
waters, that will be incompatible with, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior, oil and gas or natural gas leasing
and substantially full exploration and production of tracts
that are geologically prospective for oil or natural gas (or
both).
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
facility, transportation corridor, or operating area the
construction, operation, designation, or maintenance of which
is or will be--
(1) located in an area of the outer Continental Shelf that
is unavailable for oil and gas or natural gas leasing by
operation of law;
(2) used for a military readiness activity (as defined in
section 315(f) of Public Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 703 note); or
(3) required in the national interest, as determined by the
President.

SEC. 117. REPURCHASE OF CERTAIN LEASES.

(a) Authority To Repurchase and Cancel Certain Leases.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall repurchase and cancel any
Federal oil and gas, geothermal, coal, oil shale, tar sands,
or other mineral lease, whether onshore or offshore, but not
including any outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases that
were subject to litigation in the Court of Federal Claims on
January 1, 2006, if the Secretary finds that such lease
qualifies for repurchase and cancellation under the
regulations authorized by this section.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 365 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a
final regulation stating the conditions under which a lease
referred to in subsection (a) would qualify for repurchase
and cancellation, and the process to be followed regarding
repurchase and cancellation. Such regulation shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
(1) The Secretary shall repurchase and cancel a lease after
written request by the lessee upon a finding by the Secretary
that--
(A) a request by the lessee for a required permit or other
approval complied with applicable law, except the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), and
terms of the lease and such permit or other approval was
denied;
(B) a Federal agency failed to act on a request by the
lessee for a required permit, other approval, or
administrative appeal within a regulatory or statutory time-
frame associated with the requested action, whether advisory
or mandatory, or if none, within 180 days; or
(C) a Federal agency attached a condition of approval,
without agreement by the lessee, to a required permit or
other approval if such condition of approval was not mandated
by Federal statute or regulation in effect on the date of
lease issuance, or was not specifically allowed under the
terms of the lease.
(2) A lessee shall not be required to exhaust
administrative remedies regarding a permit request,
administrative appeal, or other required request for approval
for the purposes of this section.
(3) The Secretary shall make a final agency decision on a
request by a lessee under this section within 180 days of
request.
(4) Compensation to a lessee to repurchase and cancel a
lease under this section shall be the amount that a lessee
would receive in a restitution case for a material breach of
contract.
(5) Compensation shall be in the form of a check or
electronic transfer from the Department of the Treasury from
funds deposited into miscellaneous receipts under the
authority of the same Act that authorized the issuance of the
lease being repurchased.
(6) Failure of the Secretary to make a final agency
decision on a request by a lessee under this section within
180 days of request shall result in a 10 percent increase in
the compensation due to the lessee if the lease is ultimately
repurchased.
(c) No Prejudice.--This section shall not be interpreted to
prejudice any other rights that the lessee would have in the
absence of this section.

SEC. 118. OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
conducting activities under the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 181 et seq.), the Geothermal Steam Act (30 U.S.C. 1001
et seq.), the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30
U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the Weeks Act (16 U.S.C. 552 et seq.),
the General Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.), the
Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), may in
satisfying any mitigation requirements associated with such
activities propose mitigation measures on a site away from
the area impacted and the Secretary of the Interior shall
accept these proposed measures if the Secretary finds that
they generally achieve the purposes for which mitigation
measures appertained.

SEC. 119. OCS REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS.

Not later than July 1, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior
shall establish the headquarters for the Atlantic OCS Region,
the headquarters for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, and the
headquarters for the Pacific OCS Region within a State
bordering the Atlantic OCS Region, a State bordering the Gulf
of Mexico OCS Region, and a State bordering the Pacific OCS
Region, respectively, from among the States bordering those
Regions, that petitions by no later than January 1, 2010, for
leasing, for oil and gas or natural gas, covering at least 40
percent of the area of its Adjacent Zone within 100 miles of
the coastline. Such Atlantic and Pacific OCS Regions
headquarters shall be located within 25 miles of the
coastline and each MMS OCS regional headquarters shall be the
permanent duty station for all Minerals Management Service
personnel that on a daily basis spend on average 60 percent
or more of their time in performance of duties in support of
the activities of the respective Region, except that the
Minerals Management Service may house regional inspection
staff in other locations. Each OCS Region shall each be led
by a Regional Director who shall be an employee within the
Senior Executive Service.

SEC. 120. LEASES FOR AREAS LOCATED WITHIN 100 MILES OF
CALIFORNIA OR FLORIDA.

(a) Authorization To Cancel and Exchange Certain Existing
Oil and Gas Leases; Prohibition on Submittal of Exploration
Plans for Certain Leases Prior to June 30, 2012.--
(1) Authority.--Within 2 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, the lessee of an existing oil and gas lease for
an area located completely within 100 miles of the coastline
within the California or Florida Adjacent Zones shall have
the option, without compensation, of exchanging such lease
for a new oil and gas lease having a primary term of 5 years.
For the area subject to the new lease, the lessee may select
any unleased tract on the outer Continental Shelf that is in
an area available for leasing. Further, with the permission
of the relevant Governor, such a lessee may convert its
existing oil and gas lease into a natural gas lease having a
primary term of 5 years and covering the same area as the
existing lease or another area within the same State's
Adjacent Zone within 100 miles of the coastline.
(2) Administrative process.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall establish a reasonable administrative process to
implement paragraph (1). Exchanges and conversions under
subsection (a), including the issuance of new leases, shall
not be considered to be major Federal actions for purposes of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.). Further, such actions conducted in accordance with
this section are deemed to be in compliance all provisions of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et
seq.).
(3) Operating restrictions.--A new lease issued in exchange
for an existing lease under this section shall be subject to
such national defense operating stipulations on the OCS tract
covered by the new lease as may be applicable upon issuance.
(4) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in the
lease exchange process based on the amount of the original
bonus bid paid for the issuance of each lease to be
exchanged. The Secretary shall allow leases covering partial
tracts to be exchanged for leases covering full tracts
conditioned upon payment of additional bonus bids on a per-
acre basis as determined by the average per acre of the
original bonus bid per acre for the partial tract being
exchanged.
(5) Exploration plans.--Any exploration plan submitted to
the Secretary of the Interior after the date of the enactment
of this

[[Page 17521]]

Act and before July 1, 2012, for an oil and gas lease for an
area wholly within 100 miles of the coastline within the
California Adjacent Zone or Florida Adjacent Zone shall not
be treated as received by the Secretary until the earlier of
July 1, 2012, or the date on which a petition by the Adjacent
State for oil and gas leasing covering the area within which
is located the area subject to the oil and gas lease was
approved.
(b) Further Lease Cancellation and Exchange Provisions.--
(1) Cancellation of lease.--As part of the lease exchange
process under this section, the Secretary shall cancel a
lease that is exchanged under this section.
(2) Consent of lessees.--All lessees holding an interest in
a lease must consent to cancellation of their leasehold
interests in order for the lease to be cancelled and
exchanged under this section.
(3) Waiver of rights.--As a prerequisite to the exchange of
a lease under this section, the lessee must waive any rights
to bring any litigation against the United States related to
the transaction.
(4) Plugging and abandonment.--The plugging and abandonment
requirements for any wells located on any lease to be
cancelled and exchanged under this section must be complied
with by the lessees prior to the cancellation and exchange.
(c) Area Partially Within 100 Miles of Florida.--An
existing oil and gas lease for an area located partially
within 100 miles of the coastline within the Florida Adjacent
Zone may only be developed and produced using wells drilled
from well-head locations at least 100 miles from the
coastline to any bottom-hole location on the area of the
lease. This subsection shall not apply if Florida has
petitioned for leasing closer to the coastline than 100
miles.
(d) Existing Oil and Gas Lease Defined.--In this section
the term ``existing oil and gas lease'' means an oil and gas
lease in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 121. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE.

Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356a) is repealed.

SEC. 122. REPEAL OF THE GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF
2006.

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 is repealed
effective October 1, 2008.
Subtitle B--ANWR

SEC. 141. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``American Energy
Independence and Price Reduction Act''.

SEC. 142. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Coastal plain.--The term ``Coastal Plain'' means that
area described in appendix I to part 37 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'', except as otherwise
provided, means the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary's designee.

SEC. 143. LEASING PROGRAM FOR LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL PLAIN.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as
are necessary--
(1) to establish and implement, in accordance with this
subtitle and acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management in consultation with the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a competitive oil
and gas leasing program that will result in an
environmentally sound program for the exploration,
development, and production of the oil and gas resources of
the Coastal Plain; and
(2) to administer the provisions of this subtitle through
regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions,
prohibitions, stipulations, and other provisions that ensure
the oil and gas exploration, development, and production
activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no significant
adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat,
subsistence resources, and the environment, including, in
furtherance of this goal, by requiring the application of the
best commercially available technology for oil and gas
exploration, development, and production to all exploration,
development, and production operations under this subtitle in
a manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the
public for the mineral resources to be leased.
(b) Repeal.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3143) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in section
1 of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1003.
(c) Compliance With Requirements Under Certain Other
Laws.--
(1) Compatibility.--For purposes of the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et
seq.), the oil and gas leasing program and activities
authorized by this section in the Coastal Plain are deemed to
be compatible with the purposes for which the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge was established, and no further findings or
decisions are required to implement this determination.
(2) Adequacy of the department of the interior's
legislative environmental impact statement.--The ``Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on
the Coastal Plain prepared pursuant to section 1002 of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16
U.S.C. 3142) and section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is
deemed to satisfy the requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that apply with respect to
prelease activities, including actions authorized to be taken
by the Secretary to develop and promulgate the regulations
for the establishment of a leasing program authorized by this
subtitle before the conduct of the first lease sale.
(3) Compliance with nepa for other actions.--Before
conducting the first lease sale under this subtitle, the
Secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with
respect to the actions authorized by this subtitle that are
not referred to in paragraph (2). Notwithstanding any other
law, the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing
alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental
effects of such courses of action. The Secretary shall only
identify a preferred action for such leasing and a single
leasing alternative, and analyze the environmental effects
and potential mitigation measures for those two alternatives.
The identification of the preferred action and related
analysis for the first lease sale under this subtitle shall
be completed within 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act. The Secretary shall only consider public comments
that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action
and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an
environmental analysis. Notwithstanding any other law,
compliance with this paragraph is deemed to satisfy all
requirements for the analysis and consideration of the
environmental effects of proposed leasing under this
subtitle.
(d) Relationship to State and Local Authority.--Nothing in
this subtitle shall be considered to expand or limit State
and local regulatory authority.
(e) Special Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with the
State of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope
Borough, may designate up to a total of 45,000 acres of the
Coastal Plain as a Special Area if the Secretary determines
that the Special Area is of such unique character and
interest so as to require special management and regulatory
protection. The Secretary shall designate as such a Special
Area the Sadlerochit Spring area, comprising approximately
4,000 acres.
(2) Management.--Each such Special Area shall be managed so
as to protect and preserve the area's unique and diverse
character including its fish, wildlife, and subsistence
resource values.
(3) Exclusion from leasing or surface occupancy.--The
Secretary may exclude any Special Area from leasing. If the
Secretary leases a Special Area, or any part thereof, for
purposes of oil and gas exploration, development, production,
and related activities, there shall be no surface occupancy
of the lands comprising the Special Area.
(4) Directional drilling.--Notwithstanding the other
provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may lease all or
a portion of a Special Area under terms that permit the use
of horizontal drilling technology from sites on leases
located outside the Special Area.
(f) Limitation on Closed Areas.--The Secretary's sole
authority to close lands within the Coastal Plain to oil and
gas leasing and to exploration, development, and production
is that set forth in this subtitle.
(g) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subtitle,
including rules and regulations relating to protection of the
fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and
environment of the Coastal Plain, by no later than 15 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Revision of regulations.--The Secretary shall
periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the rules and
regulations issued under subsection (a) to reflect any
significant biological, environmental, or engineering data
that come to the Secretary's attention.

SEC. 144. LEASE SALES.

(a) In General.--Lands may be leased pursuant to this
subtitle to any person qualified to obtain a lease for
deposits of oil and gas under the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
(b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
establish procedures for--
(1) receipt and consideration of sealed nominations for any
area in the Coastal Plain for inclusion in, or exclusion (as
provided in subsection (c)) from, a lease sale;
(2) the holding of lease sales after such nomination
process; and
(3) public notice of and comment on designation of areas to
be included in, or excluded from, a lease sale.
(c) Lease Sale Bids.--Bidding for leases under this
subtitle shall be by sealed competitive cash bonus bids.
(d) Acreage Minimum in First Sale.--In the first lease sale
under this subtitle, the Secretary shall offer for lease
those tracts the Secretary considers to have the greatest
potential for the discovery of hydrocarbons,

[[Page 17522]]

taking into consideration nominations received pursuant to
subsection (b)(1), but in no case less than 200,000 acres.
(e) Timing of Lease Sales.--The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct the first lease sale under this subtitle within
22 months after the date of the enactment of this Act;
(2) evaluate the bids in such sale and issue leases
resulting from such sale, within 90 days after the date of
the completion of such sale; and
(3) conduct additional sales so long as sufficient interest
in development exists to warrant, in the Secretary's
judgment, the conduct of such sales.

SEC. 145. GRANT OF LEASES BY THE SECRETARY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may grant to the highest
responsible qualified bidder in a lease sale conducted
pursuant to section 144 any lands to be leased on the Coastal
Plain upon payment by the lessee of such bonus as may be
accepted by the Secretary.
(b) Subsequent Transfers.--No lease issued under this
subtitle may be sold, exchanged, assigned, sublet, or
otherwise transferred except with the approval of the
Secretary. Prior to any such approval the Secretary shall
consult with, and give due consideration to the views of, the
Attorney General.

SEC. 146. LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

(a) In General.--An oil or gas lease issued pursuant to
this subtitle shall--
(1) provide for the payment of a royalty of not less than
12\1/2\ percent in amount or value of the production removed
or sold from the lease, as determined by the Secretary under
the regulations applicable to other Federal oil and gas
leases;
(2) provide that the Secretary may close, on a seasonal
basis, portions of the Coastal Plain to exploratory drilling
activities as necessary to protect caribou calving areas and
other species of fish and wildlife;
(3) require that the lessee of lands within the Coastal
Plain shall be fully responsible and liable for the
reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain and any other
Federal lands that are adversely affected in connection with
exploration, development, production, or transportation
activities conducted under the lease and within the Coastal
Plain by the lessee or by any of the subcontractors or agents
of the lessee;
(4) provide that the lessee may not delegate or convey, by
contract or otherwise, the reclamation responsibility and
liability to another person without the express written
approval of the Secretary;
(5) provide that the standard of reclamation for lands
required to be reclaimed under this subtitle shall be, as
nearly as practicable, a condition capable of supporting the
uses which the lands were capable of supporting prior to any
exploration, development, or production activities, or upon
application by the lessee, to a higher or better use as
approved by the Secretary;
(6) contain terms and conditions relating to protection of
fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and
the environment as required pursuant to section 143(a)(2);
(7) provide that the lessee, its agents, and its
contractors use best efforts to provide a fair share, as
determined by the level of obligation previously agreed to in
the 1974 agreement implementing section 29 of the Federal
Agreement and Grant of Right of Way for the Operation of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, of employment and contracting for
Alaska Natives and Alaska Native Corporations from throughout
the State;
(8) prohibit the export of oil produced under the lease;
and
(9) contain such other provisions as the Secretary
determines necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions
of this subtitle and the regulations issued under this
subtitle.
(b) Project Labor Agreements.--The Secretary, as a term and
condition of each lease under this subtitle and in
recognizing the Government's proprietary interest in labor
stability and in the ability of construction labor and
management to meet the particular needs and conditions of
projects to be developed under the leases issued pursuant to
this subtitle and the special concerns of the parties to such
leases, shall require that the lessee and its agents and
contractors negotiate to obtain a project labor agreement for
the employment of laborers and mechanics on production,
maintenance, and construction under the lease.

SEC. 147. COASTAL PLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

(a) No Significant Adverse Effect Standard To Govern
Authorized Coastal Plain Activities.--The Secretary shall,
consistent with the requirements of section 143, administer
the provisions of this subtitle through regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations,
and other provisions that--
(1) ensure the oil and gas exploration, development, and
production activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no
significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment;
(2) require the application of the best commercially
available technology for oil and gas exploration,
development, and production on all new exploration,
development, and production operations; and
(3) ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage
covered by production and support facilities, including
airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for
support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the
Coastal Plain.
(b) Site-Specific Assessment and Mitigation.--The Secretary
shall also require, with respect to any proposed drilling and
related activities, that--
(1) a site-specific analysis be made of the probable
effects, if any, that the drilling or related activities will
have on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence
resources, and the environment;
(2) a plan be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
(in that order and to the extent practicable) any significant
adverse effect identified under paragraph (1); and
(3) the development of the plan shall occur after
consultation with the agency or agencies having jurisdiction
over matters mitigated by the plan.
(c) Regulations To Protect Coastal Plain Fish and Wildlife
Resources, Subsistence Users, and the Environment.--Before
implementing the leasing program authorized by this subtitle,
the Secretary shall prepare and promulgate regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations,
and other measures designed to ensure that the activities
undertaken on the Coastal Plain under this subtitle are
conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes and
environmental requirements of this subtitle.
(d) Compliance With Federal and State Environmental Laws
and Other Requirements.--The proposed regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, and
stipulations for the leasing program under this subtitle
shall require compliance with all applicable provisions of
Federal and State environmental law, and shall also require
the following:
(1) Standards at least as effective as the safety and
environmental mitigation measures set forth in items 1
through 29 at pages 167 through 169 of the ``Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on
the Coastal Plain.
(2) Seasonal limitations on exploration, development, and
related activities, where necessary, to avoid significant
adverse effects during periods of concentrated fish and
wildlife breeding, denning, nesting, spawning, and migration.
(3) That exploration activities, except for surface
geological studies, be limited to the period between
approximately November 1 and May 1 each year and that
exploration activities shall be supported, if necessary, by
ice roads, winter trails with adequate snow cover, ice pads,
ice airstrips, and air transport methods, except that such
exploration activities may occur at other times if the
Secretary finds that such exploration will have no
significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain.
(4) Design safety and construction standards for all
pipelines and any access and service roads, that--
(A) minimize, to the maximum extent possible, adverse
effects upon the passage of migratory species such as
caribou; and
(B) minimize adverse effects upon the flow of surface water
by requiring the use of culverts, bridges, and other
structural devices.
(5) Prohibitions on general public access and use on all
pipeline access and service roads.
(6) Stringent reclamation and rehabilitation requirements,
consistent with the standards set forth in this subtitle,
requiring the removal from the Coastal Plain of all oil and
gas development and production facilities, structures, and
equipment upon completion of oil and gas production
operations, except that the Secretary may exempt from the
requirements of this paragraph those facilities, structures,
or equipment that the Secretary determines would assist in
the management of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
that are donated to the United States for that purpose.
(7) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on access by
all modes of transportation.
(8) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on sand and
gravel extraction.
(9) Consolidation of facility siting.
(10) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on use of
explosives.
(11) Avoidance, to the extent practicable, of springs,
streams, and river system; the protection of natural surface
drainage patterns, wetlands, and riparian habitats; and the
regulation of methods or techniques for developing or
transporting adequate supplies of water for exploratory
drilling.
(12) Avoidance or minimization of air traffic-related
disturbance to fish and wildlife.
(13) Treatment and disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes,
solid wastes, reserve pit fluids, drilling muds and cuttings,
and domestic wastewater, including an annual waste management
report, a hazardous materials tracking system, and a
prohibition on chlorinated solvents, in accordance with
applicable Federal and State environmental law.
(14) Fuel storage and oil spill contingency planning.
(15) Research, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
(16) Field crew environmental briefings.

[[Page 17523]]

(17) Avoidance of significant adverse effects upon
subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping by subsistence
users.
(18) Compliance with applicable air and water quality
standards.
(19) Appropriate seasonal and safety zone designations
around well sites, within which subsistence hunting and
trapping shall be limited.
(20) Reasonable stipulations for protection of cultural and
archeological resources.
(21) All other protective environmental stipulations,
restrictions, terms, and conditions deemed necessary by the
Secretary.
(e) Considerations.--In preparing and promulgating
regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions,
prohibitions, and stipulations under this section, the
Secretary shall consider the following:
(1) The stipulations and conditions that govern the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leasing program, as set
forth in the 1999 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement.
(2) The environmental protection standards that governed
the initial Coastal Plain seismic exploration program under
parts 37.31 to 37.33 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) The land use stipulations for exploratory drilling on
the KIC-ASRC private lands that are set forth in Appendix 2
of the August 9, 1983, agreement between Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation and the United States.
(f) Facility Consolidation Planning.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, after providing for
public notice and comment, prepare and update periodically a
plan to govern, guide, and direct the siting and construction
of facilities for the exploration, development, production,
and transportation of Coastal Plain oil and gas resources.
(2) Objectives.--The plan shall have the following
objectives:
(A) Avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities and
activities.
(B) Encouraging consolidation of common facilities and
activities.
(C) Locating or confining facilities and activities to
areas that will minimize impact on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment.
(D) Utilizing existing facilities wherever practicable.
(E) Enhancing compatibility between wildlife values and
development activities.
(g) Access to Public Lands.--The Secretary shall--
(1) manage public lands in the Coastal Plain subject to
subsections (a) and (b) of section 811 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3121); and
(2) ensure that local residents shall have reasonable
access to public lands in the Coastal Plain for traditional
uses.

SEC. 148. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Filing of Complaint.--
(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), any complaint
seeking judicial review of any provision of this subtitle or
any action of the Secretary under this subtitle shall be
filed--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), within the 90-
day period beginning on the date of the action being
challenged; or
(B) in the case of a complaint based solely on grounds
arising after such period, within 90 days after the
complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the
grounds for the complaint.
(2) Venue.--Any complaint seeking judicial review of any
provision of this subtitle or any action of the Secretary
under this subtitle may be filed only in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
(3) Limitation on scope of certain review.--Judicial review
of a Secretarial decision to conduct a lease sale under this
subtitle, including the environmental analysis thereof, shall
be limited to whether the Secretary has complied with the
terms of this subtitle and shall be based upon the
administrative record of that decision. The Secretary's
identification of a preferred course of action to enable
leasing to proceed and the Secretary's analysis of
environmental effects under this subtitle shall be presumed
to be correct unless shown otherwise by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary.
(b) Limitation on Other Review.--Actions of the Secretary
with respect to which review could have been obtained under
this section shall not be subject to judicial review in any
civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement.

SEC. 149. FEDERAL AND STATE DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of the amount of adjusted bonus, rental, and royalty
revenues from Federal oil and gas leasing and operations
authorized under this subtitle--
(1) 50 percent shall be paid to the State of Alaska; and
(2) except as provided in section 152(d), 90 percent of the
balance shall be deposited into the American Renewable and
Alternative Energy Trust Fund established by section 331.
(b) Payments to Alaska.--Payments to the State of Alaska
under this section shall be made semiannually.

SEC. 150. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAIN.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall issue rights-of-way
and easements across the Coastal Plain for the transportation
of oil and gas--
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), under section 28
of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185), without regard to
title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (30 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.); and
(2) under title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (30 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.), for access
authorized by sections 1110 and 1111 of that Act (16 U.S.C.
3170 and 3171).
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in
any right-of-way or easement issued under subsection (a) such
terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure that
transportation of oil and gas does not result in a
significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife,
subsistence resources, their habitat, and the environment of
the Coastal Plain, including requirements that facilities be
sited or designed so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of
roads and pipelines.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall include in
regulations under section 143(g) provisions granting rights-
of-way and easements described in subsection (a) of this
section.

SEC. 151. CONVEYANCE.

In order to maximize Federal revenues by removing clouds on
title to lands and clarifying land ownership patterns within
the Coastal Plain, the Secretary, notwithstanding the
provisions of section 1302(h)(2) of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3192(h)(2)), shall
convey--
(1) to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation the surface estate
of the lands described in paragraph 1 of Public Land Order
6959, to the extent necessary to fulfill the Corporation's
entitlement under sections 12 and 14 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611 and 1613) in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Agreement between the
Department of the Interior, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation effective January 22, 1993; and
(2) to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation the remaining
subsurface estate to which it is entitled pursuant to the
August 9, 1983, agreement between the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation and the United States of America.

SEC. 152. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT AID AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
ASSISTANCE.

(a) Financial Assistance Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may use amounts available
from the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance
Fund established by subsection (d) to provide timely
financial assistance to entities that are eligible under
paragraph (2) and that are directly impacted by the
exploration for or production of oil and gas on the Coastal
Plain under this subtitle.
(2) Eligible entities.--The North Slope Borough, the City
of Kaktovik, and any other borough, municipal subdivision,
village, or other community in the State of Alaska that is
directly impacted by exploration for, or the production of,
oil or gas on the Coastal Plain under this subtitle, as
determined by the Secretary, shall be eligible for financial
assistance under this section.
(b) Use of Assistance.--Financial assistance under this
section may be used only for--
(1) planning for mitigation of the potential effects of oil
and gas exploration and development on environmental, social,
cultural, recreational, and subsistence values;
(2) implementing mitigation plans and maintaining
mitigation projects;
(3) developing, carrying out, and maintaining projects and
programs that provide new or expanded public facilities and
services to address needs and problems associated with such
effects, including fire-fighting, police, water, waste
treatment, medivac, and medical services; and
(4) establishment of a coordination office, by the North
Slope Borough, in the City of Kaktovik, which shall--
(A) coordinate with and advise developers on local
conditions, impact, and history of the areas utilized for
development; and
(B) provide to the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate an annual report on the status of
coordination between developers and the communities affected
by development.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--Any community that is eligible for
assistance under this section may submit an application for
such assistance to the Secretary, in such form and under such
procedures as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
(2) North slope borough communities.--A community located
in the North Slope Borough may apply for assistance under
this section either directly to the Secretary or through the
North Slope Borough.
(3) Application assistance.--The Secretary shall work
closely with and assist the North Slope Borough and other
communities eligible for assistance under this section in
developing and submitting applications for assistance under
this section.

[[Page 17524]]

(d) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury the
Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund.
(2) Use.--Amounts in the fund may be used only for
providing financial assistance under this section.
(3) Deposits.--Subject to paragraph (4), there shall be
deposited into the fund amounts received by the United States
as revenues derived from rents, bonuses, and royalties from
Federal leases and lease sales authorized under this
subtitle.
(4) Limitation on deposits.--The total amount in the fund
may not exceed $11,000,000.
(5) Investment of balances.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest amounts in the fund in interest bearing
government securities.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To provide financial
assistance under this section there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary from the Coastal Plain Local
Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund $5,000,000 for each
fiscal year.
Subtitle C--Oil Shale

SEC. 161. REPEAL.

Section 433 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 is
repealed.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
Subtitle A--Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficiency

SEC. 201. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE
MOTOR VEHICLES.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 30D. NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR
VEHICLES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the credit amounts
determined under subsection (b) with respect to each new
qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle placed in
service by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Per Vehicle Dollar Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount determined under this
subsection with respect to any new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle is the sum of the amounts determined
under paragraphs (2) and (3) with respect to such vehicle.
``(2) Base amount.--The amount determined under this
paragraph is $3,000.
``(3) Battery capacity.--In the case of a vehicle which
draws propulsion energy from a battery with not less than 5
kilowatt hours of capacity, the amount determined under this
paragraph is $200, plus $200 for each kilowatt hour of
capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours. The amount determined
under this paragraph shall not exceed $2,000.
``(c) Application With Other Credits.--
``(1) Business credit treated as part of general business
credit.--So much of the credit which would be allowed under
subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined without
regard to this subsection) that is attributable to property
of a character subject to an allowance for depreciation shall
be treated as a credit listed in section 38(b) for such
taxable year (and not allowed under subsection (a)).
``(2) Personal credit.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this title, the credit
allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year (determined
after application of paragraph (1)) shall be treated as a
credit allowable under subpart A for such taxable year.
``(B) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of a
taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall not
exceed the excess of--
``(i) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(ii) the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
(other than this section and sections 23 and 25D) and section
27 for the taxable year.
``(d) New Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30(c)(2))--
``(A) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer,
``(B) which is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer
and not for resale,
``(C) which is made by a manufacturer,
``(D) which has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than
14,000 pounds,
``(E) which has received a certificate of conformity under
the Clean Air Act and meets or exceeds the Bin 5 Tier II
emission standard established in regulations prescribed by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act for that make and
model year vehicle, and
``(F) which is propelled to a significant extent by an
electric motor which draws electricity from a battery which--
``(i) has a capacity of not less than 4 kilowatt hours, and
``(ii) is capable of being recharged from an external
source of electricity.
``(2) Exception.--The term `new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle' shall not include any vehicle which is
not a passenger automobile or light truck if such vehicle has
a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 8,500 pounds.
``(3) Other terms.--The terms `passenger automobile',
`light truck', and `manufacturer' have the meanings given
such terms in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of the
administration of title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521 et seq.).
``(4) Battery capacity.--The term `capacity' means, with
respect to any battery, the quantity of electricity which the
battery is capable of storing, expressed in kilowatt hours,
as measured from a 100 percent state of charge to a 0 percent
state of charge.
``(e) Limitation on Number of New Qualified Plug-In
Electric Drive Motor Vehicles Eligible for Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a new qualified plug-in
electric drive motor vehicle sold during the phaseout period,
only the applicable percentage of the credit otherwise
allowable under subsection (a) shall be allowed.
``(2) Phaseout period.--For purposes of this subsection,
the phaseout period is the period beginning with the second
calendar quarter following the calendar quarter which
includes the first date on which the number of new qualified
plug-in electric drive motor vehicles manufactured by the
manufacturer of the vehicle referred to in paragraph (1) sold
for use in the United States after the date of the enactment
of this section, is at least 60,000.
``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage is--
``(A) 50 percent for the first 2 calendar quarters of the
phaseout period,
``(B) 25 percent for the 3d and 4th calendar quarters of
the phaseout period, and
``(C) 0 percent for each calendar quarter thereafter.
``(4) Controlled groups.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 30B(f)(4) shall apply for purposes of this
subsection.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any property for which
a credit is allowable under subsection (a) shall be reduced
by the amount of such credit (determined without regard to
subsection (c)).
``(2) Recapture.--The Secretary shall, by regulations,
provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable
under subsection (a) with respect to any property which
ceases to be property eligible for such credit.
``(3) Property used outside united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b)(1)
or with respect to the portion of the cost of any property
taken into account under section 179.
``(4) Election not to take credit.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any vehicle if the taxpayer
elects to not have this section apply to such vehicle.
``(5) Property used by tax-exempt entity; interaction with
air quality and motor vehicle safety standards.--Rules
similar to the rules of paragraphs (6) and (10) of section
30B(h) shall apply for purposes of this section.''.
(b) Coordination With Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit.--
Section 30B(d)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Exclusion of plug-in vehicles.--Any vehicle with
respect to which a credit is allowable under section 30D
(determined without regard to subsection (c) thereof) shall
not be taken into account under this section.''.
(c) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--Section
38(b) of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' each place it appears at the end of
any paragraph,
(2) by striking ``plus'' each place it appears at the end
of any paragraph,
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (31) and
inserting ``, plus'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(32) the portion of the new qualified plug-in electric
drive motor vehicle credit to which section 30D(c)(1)
applies.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1)(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by
striking ``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``30D,'' after ``25D,''.
(C) Section 25B(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``and 25D'' and inserting ``, 25D, and 30D''.
(D) Section 26(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(E) Section 1400C(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``and 25D'' and inserting ``25D, and 30D''.
(2) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (35), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page 17525]]

``(37) to the extent provided in section 30D(f)(1).''.
(3) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by inserting
``30D(f)(4),'' after ``30C(e)(5),''.
(4) The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 30D. New qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.''.

(e) Treatment of Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit as a
Personal Credit.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 30B(g) of such
Code is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a) for any taxable year (after application of paragraph (1))
shall be treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for
such taxable year.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 30C(d)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``sections 27, 30, and 30B'' and
inserting ``sections 27 and 30''.
(B) Paragraph (3) of section 55(c) of such Code is amended
by striking ``30B(g)(2),''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
(2) Treatment of alternative motor vehicle credit as
personal credit.--The amendments made by subsection (e) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(g) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--The amendment made by
subsection (d)(1)(A) shall be subject to title IX of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 in
the same manner as the provision of such Act to which such
amendment relates.

SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES.

Paragraph (4) of section 30B(j) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.

SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING
PROPERTY CREDIT.

Paragraph (1) of section 30C(g) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``hydrogen,'' inserting
``hydrogen or alternative fuels (as defined in section
30B(e)(4)(B)),''.
Subtitle B--Tapping America's Ingenuity and Creativity

SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Administering entity.--The term ``administering
entity'' means the entity with which the Secretary enters
into an agreement under section 214(c).
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Energy.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.

SEC. 212. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to provide incentives
to encourage the development and implementation of innovative
energy technologies and new energy sources that will reduce
our reliance on foreign energy.

SEC. 213. PRIZE AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to
competitively award cash prizes in conformity with this
subtitle to advance the research, development, demonstration,
and commercial application of innovative energy technologies
and new energy sources.
(b) Advertising and Solicitation of Competitors.--
(1) Advertising.--The Secretary shall widely advertise
prize competitions to encourage broad participation in the
program carried out under subsection (a), including
individuals, universities, communities, and large and small
businesses.
(2) Announcement through federal register notice.--The
Secretary shall announce each prize competition by publishing
a notice in the Federal Register. This notice shall include
essential elements of the competition such as the subject of
the competition, the duration of the competition, the
eligibility requirements for participation in the
competition, the process for participants to register for the
competition, the amount of the prize, and the criteria for
awarding the prize.
(c) Administering the Competition.--The Secretary may enter
into an agreement with a private, nonprofit entity to
administer the prize competitions, subject to the provisions
of this subtitle. The administering entity shall perform the
following functions:
(1) Advertise the competition and its results.
(2) Raise funds from private entities and individuals to
pay for administrative costs and cash prizes.
(3) Develop, in consultation with and subject to the final
approval of the Secretary, criteria to select winners based
upon the goal of safely and adequately storing nuclear used
fuel.
(4) Determine, in consultation with and subject to the
final approval of the Secretary, the appropriate amount of
the awards.
(5) Protect against the administering entity's unauthorized
use or disclosure of a registered participant's intellectual
property, trade secrets, and confidential business
information. Any information properly identified as trade
secrets or confidential business information that is
submitted by a participant as part of a competitive program
under this subtitle may be withheld from public disclosure.
(6) Develop and promulgate sufficient rules to define the
parameters of designing and proposing innovative energy
technologies and new energy sources with input from industry,
citizens, and corporations familiar with such activities.
(d) Funding Sources.--Prizes under this subtitle may
consist of Federal appropriated funds, funds provided by the
administering entity, or funds raised through grants or
donations. The Secretary may accept funds from other Federal
agencies for such cash prizes and, notwithstanding section
3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, may use such funds
for the cash prize program. Other than publication of the
names of prize sponsors, the Secretary may not give any
special consideration to any private sector entity or
individual in return for a donation to the Secretary or
administering entity.
(e) Announcement of Prizes.--The Secretary may not publish
a notice required by subsection (b)(2) until all the funds
needed to pay out the announced amount of the prize have been
appropriated to the Department or the Department has received
from the administering entity a written commitment to provide
all necessary funds.

SEC. 214. ELIGIBILITY.

To be eligible to win a prize under this subtitle, an
individual or entity--
(1) shall notify the administering entity of intent to
submit ideas and intent to collect the prize upon selection;
(2) shall comply with all the requirements stated in the
Federal Register notice required under section 213(b)(2);
(3) in the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated
in and maintain a primary place of business in the United
States, and in the case of an individual, whether
participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen of the
United States;
(4) shall not be a Federal entity, a Federal employee
acting within the scope of his or her employment, or an
employee of a national laboratory acting within the scope of
employment;
(5) shall not use Federal funding or other Federal
resources to compete for the prize; and
(6) shall not be an entity acting on behalf of any foreign
government or agent.

SEC. 215. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

The Federal Government shall not, by virtue of offering or
awarding a prize under this subtitle, be entitled to any
intellectual property rights derived as a consequence of, or
in direct relation to, the participation by a registered
participant in a competition authorized by this subtitle.
This section shall not be construed to prevent the Federal
Government from negotiating a license for the use of
intellectual property developed for a prize competition under
this subtitle. The Federal Government may seek assurances
that technologies for which prizes are awarded under this
subtitle are offered for commercialization in the event an
award recipient does not take, or is not expected to take
within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve
practical application of the technology.

SEC. 216. WAIVER OF LIABILITY.

The Secretary may require registered participants to waive
claims against the Federal Government and the administering
entity (except claims for willful misconduct) for any injury,
death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits
arising from the registered participants' participation in a
competition under this subtitle. The Secretary shall give
notice of any waiver required under this section in the
notice required by section 213(b)(2). The Secretary may not
require a registered participant to waive claims against the
administering entity arising out of the unauthorized use or
disclosure by the administering entity of the registered
participant's intellectual property, trade secrets, or
confidential business information.

SEC. 217. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Awards.--40 percent of amounts in the American Energy
Trust Fund shall be available without further appropriation
to carry out specified provisions of this section.
(b) Treatment of Awards.--Amounts received pursuant to an
award under this subtitle may not be taxed by any Federal,
State, or local authority.
(c) Administration.--In addition to the amounts authorized
under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2020
$2,000,000 for the administrative costs of carrying out this
subtitle.
(d) Carryover of Funds.--Funds appropriated for prize
awards under this subtitle shall remain available until
expended and may be transferred, reprogrammed, or expended
for other purposes only after the expiration of 11 fiscal
years after the fiscal year for which the funds were
originally appropriated. No provision in this subtitle
permits obligation or payment of funds in violation of
section 1341 of title 31, United States Code.

[[Page 17526]]

SEC. 218. NEXT GENERATION AUTOMOBILE PRIZE PROGRAM.

The Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to award
a prize in the amount of $500,000,000 to the first automobile
manufacturer incorporated in the United States to manufacture
and sell in the United States 50,000 midsized sedan
automobiles which operate on gasoline and can travel 100
miles per gallon.

SEC. 219. ADVANCED BATTERY MANUFACTURING INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced battery.--The term ``advanced battery'' means
an electrical storage device suitable for vehicle
applications.
(2) Engineering integration costs.--The term ``engineering
integration costs'' includes the cost of engineering tasks
relating to--
(A) incorporation of qualifying components into the design
of advanced batteries; and
(B) design of tooling and equipment and developing
manufacturing processes and material suppliers for production
facilities that produce qualifying components or advanced
batteries.
(b) Advanced Battery Manufacturing Facility.--The Secretary
shall provide facility funding awards under this section to
advanced battery manufacturers to pay not more than 30
percent of the cost of reequipping, expanding, or
establishing a manufacturing facility in the United States to
produce advanced batteries.
(c) Period of Availability.--An award under subsection (b)
shall apply to--
(1) facilities and equipment placed in service before
December 30, 2020; and
(2) engineering integration costs incurred during the
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and
ending on December 30, 2020.
(d) Direct Loan Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subtitle, and subject to the availability
of appropriated funds, the Secretary shall carry out a
program to provide a total of not more than $100,000,000 in
loans to eligible individuals and entities (as determined by
the Secretary) for the costs of activities described in
subsection (b).
(2) Selection of eligible projects.--The Secretary shall
select eligible projects to receive loans under this
subsection in cases in which, as determined by the Secretary,
the award recipient--
(A) is financially viable without the receipt of additional
Federal funding associated with the proposed project;
(B) will provide sufficient information to the Secretary
for the Secretary to ensure that the qualified investment is
expended efficiently and effectively; and
(C) has met such other criteria as may be established and
published by the Secretary.
(3) Rates, terms, and repayment of loans.--A loan provided
under this subsection--
(A) shall have an interest rate that, as of the date on
which the loan is made, is equal to the cost of funds to the
Department of the Treasury for obligations of comparable
maturity;
(B) shall have a term equal to the lesser of--
(i) the projected life, in years, of the eligible project
to be carried out using funds from the loan, as determined by
the Secretary; and
(ii) 25 years;
(C) may be subject to a deferral in repayment for not more
than 5 years after the date on which the eligible project
carried out using funds from the loan first begins
operations, as determined by the Secretary; and
(D) shall be made by the Federal Financing Bank.
(e) Fees.--The cost of administering a loan made under this
section shall not exceed $100,000.
(f) Set Aside for Small Manufacturers.--
(1) Definition of covered firm.--In this subsection, the
term ``covered firm'' means a firm that--
(A) employs fewer than 500 individuals; and
(B) manufactures automobiles or components of automobiles.
(2) Set aside.--Of the amount of funds used to provide
awards for each fiscal year under subsection (b), the
Secretary shall use not less than 10 percent to provide
awards to covered firms or consortia led by a covered firm.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated from the American Energy Trust Fund such
sums as are necessary to carry out this section for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
Subtitle C--Home and Business Tax Incentives

SEC. 221. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT
APPLIANCES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 45M of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable amount)
is amended by striking ``calendar year 2006 or 2007'' each
place it appears in paragraphs (1)(A)(i), (1)(B)(i),
(1)(C)(ii)(I), and (1)(C)(iii)(I), and inserting ``calendar
year 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013''.
(b) Restart of Credit Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section
45M(e) of such Code (relating to aggregate credit amount
allowed) is amended by inserting ``beginning after December
31, 2007'' after ``for all prior taxable years''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to appliances produced after December 31, 2007.

SEC. 222. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY
PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Section 25C(g) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after December 31,
2007.

SEC. 223. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENT PROPERTY.

Section 25D(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.

SEC. 224. EXTENSION OF NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME CREDIT.

Subsection (g) of section 45L of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.

SEC. 225. EXTENSION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
DEDUCTION.

Section 179D(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December
31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.

SEC. 226. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL RULE TO IMPLEMENT FERC AND
STATE ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING POLICY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 451(i) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 2014''.
(b) Extension of Period for Transfer of Operational Control
Authorized by FERC.--Clause (ii) of section 451(i)(4)(B) of
such Code is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and
inserting ``the date which is 4 years after the close of the
taxable year in which the transaction occurs''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to transactions after December 31, 2007.
(2) Transfers of operational control.--The amendment made
by subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in section
909 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

SEC. 227. HOME ENERGY AUDITS.

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after section 25D the following new section:

``SEC. 25E. HOME ENERGY AUDITS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 50 percent of
the amount of qualified energy audit paid or incurred by the
taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The amount allowed as a credit
under subsection (a) with respect to a residence of the
taxpayer for a taxable year shall not exceed $400.
``(2) Limitation based on amount of tax.--In the case of
any taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply,
the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall not exceed the
excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart
(other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable
year.
``(c) Qualified Energy Audit.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified energy audit' means an energy
audit of the principal residence of the taxpayer performed by
a qualified energy auditor through a comprehensive site
visit. Such audit may include a blower door test, an infra-
red camera test, and a furnace combustion efficiency test. In
addition, such audit shall include such substitute tests for
the tests specified in the preceding sentence, and such
additional tests, as the Secretary may by regulation require.
A principal residence shall not be taken into consideration
under this subparagraph unless such residence is located in
the United States.
``(d) Principal Residence.--For purposes of this section,
the term `principal residence' has the same meaning as when
used in section 121.
``(e) Qualified Energy Auditor.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall specify by
regulations the qualifications required to be a qualified
energy auditor for purposes of this section. Such regulations
shall include rules prohibiting conflicts-of-interest,
including the disallowance of commissions or other payments
based on goods or non-audit services purchased by the
taxpayer from the auditor.
``(2) Certification.--The Secretary shall prescribe the
procedures and methods for certifying that an auditor is a
qualified energy auditor. To the maximum extent practicable,
such procedures and methods shall provide for a variety of
sources to obtain certifications.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 23(b)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by inserting ``and section 25E'' after ``this
section''.
(2) Section 23(c)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``, 25E,'' after ``25D''.

[[Page 17527]]

(3) Section 24(b)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by striking
``and 25B'' and inserting ``, 25B, and 25E''.
(4) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 25(e)(1)(C) of such
Code are each amended by inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(5) Section 25B(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 23'' and inserting ``sections 23 and 25E''.
(6) Section 25D(c)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``and section 25E'' after ``this section''.
(7) Section 25D(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``and 25B'' and inserting ``25B, and 25E''.
(8) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 25D the following new
item:

``Sec. 25E. Home energy audits.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Application of egtrra sunset.--The amendments made by
paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (b) shall be subject to
title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 in the same manner as the provisions of such Act
to which such amendments relate.

SEC. 228. ACCELERATED RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF
SMART METERS.

(a) In General.--Section 168(e)(3)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of clause (v), by striking the period at the end of
clause (vi) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after
clause (vi) the following new clause:
``(vii) any qualified smart electric meter.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 168(i) of such Code is amended by
inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(18) Qualified smart electric meters.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified smart electric
meter' means any smart electric meter which is placed in
service by a taxpayer who is a supplier of electric energy or
a provider of electric energy services.
``(B) Smart electric meter.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `smart electric meter' means any time-based
meter and related communication equipment which is capable of
being used by the taxpayer as part of a system that--
``(i) measures and records electricity usage data on a
time-differentiated basis in at least 24 separate time
segments per day,
``(ii) provides for the exchange of information between
supplier or provider and the customer's electric meter in
support of time-based rates or other forms of demand
response,
``(iii) provides data to such supplier or provider so that
the supplier or provider can provide energy usage information
to customers electronically, and
``(iv) provides net metering.''.
(c) Continued Application of 150 Percent Declining Balance
Method.--Paragraph (2) of section 168(b) of such Code is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) any property (other than property described in
paragraph (3)) which is a qualified smart electric meter,
or''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle D--Refinery Permit Process Schedule

SEC. 231. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act''.

SEC. 232. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the term ``applicant'' means a person who (with the
approval of the governor of the State, or in the case of
Native American tribes or tribal territories the designated
leader of the tribe or tribal community, where the proposed
refinery would be located) is seeking a Federal refinery
authorization;
(3) the term ``biomass'' has the meaning given that term in
section 932(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
(4) the term ``Federal refinery authorization''--
(A) means any authorization required under Federal law,
whether administered by a Federal or State administrative
agency or official, with respect to siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a refinery; and
(B) includes any permits, licenses, special use
authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals
required under Federal law with respect to siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of a refinery;
(5) the term ``refinery'' means--
(A) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine crude oil by
any chemical or physical process, including distillation,
fluid catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, coking, alkylation,
etherification, polymerization, catalytic reforming,
isomerization, hydrotreating, blending, and any combination
thereof, in order to produce gasoline or distillate;
(B) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine coal by any
chemical or physical process, including liquefaction, in
order to produce gasoline or diesel as its primary output; or
(C) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process (including biochemical,
photochemical, and biotechnology processes), and refine
biomass in order to produce biofuel; and
(6) the term ``State'' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 233. STATE ASSISTANCE.

(a) State Assistance.--At the request of a governor of a
State, or in the case of Native American tribes or tribal
territories the designated leader of the tribe or tribal
community, the Administrator is authorized to provide
financial assistance to that State or tribe or tribal
community to facilitate the hiring of additional personnel to
assist the State or tribe or tribal community with expertise
in fields relevant to consideration of Federal refinery
authorizations.
(b) Other Assistance.--At the request of a governor of a
State, or in the case of Native American tribes or tribal
territories the designated leader of the tribe or tribal
community, a Federal agency responsible for a Federal
refinery authorization shall provide technical, legal, or
other nonfinancial assistance to that State or tribe or
tribal community to facilitate its consideration of Federal
refinery authorizations.

SEC. 234. REFINERY PROCESS COORDINATION AND PROCEDURES.

(a) Appointment of Federal Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--The President shall appoint a Federal
coordinator to perform the responsibilities assigned to the
Federal coordinator under this subtitle.
(2) Other agencies.--Each Federal and State agency or
official required to provide a Federal refinery authorization
shall cooperate with the Federal coordinator.
(b) Federal Refinery Authorizations.--
(1) Meeting participants.--Not later than 30 days after
receiving a notification from an applicant that the applicant
is seeking a Federal refinery authorization pursuant to
Federal law, the Federal coordinator appointed under
subsection (a) shall convene a meeting of representatives
from all Federal and State agencies responsible for a Federal
refinery authorization with respect to the refinery. The
governor of a State shall identify each agency of that State
that is responsible for a Federal refinery authorization with
respect to that refinery.
(2) Memorandum of agreement.--(A) Not later than 90 days
after receipt of a notification described in paragraph (1),
the Federal coordinator and the other participants at a
meeting convened under paragraph (1) shall establish a
memorandum of agreement setting forth the most expeditious
coordinated schedule possible for completion of all Federal
refinery authorizations with respect to the refinery,
consistent with the full substantive and procedural review
required by Federal law. If a Federal or State agency
responsible for a Federal refinery authorization with respect
to the refinery is not represented at such meeting, the
Federal coordinator shall ensure that the schedule
accommodates those Federal refinery authorizations,
consistent with Federal law. In the event of conflict among
Federal refinery authorization scheduling requirements, the
requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be
given priority.
(B) Not later than 15 days after completing the memorandum
of agreement, the Federal coordinator shall publish the
memorandum of agreement in the Federal Register.
(C) The Federal coordinator shall ensure that all parties
to the memorandum of agreement are working in good faith to
carry out the memorandum of agreement, and shall facilitate
the maintenance of the schedule established therein.
(c) Consolidated Record.--The Federal coordinator shall,
with the cooperation of Federal and State administrative
agencies and officials, maintain a complete consolidated
record of all decisions made or actions taken by the Federal
coordinator or by a Federal administrative agency or officer
(or State administrative agency or officer acting under
delegated Federal authority) with respect to any Federal
refinery authorization. Such record shall be the record for
judicial review under subsection (d) of decisions made or
actions taken by Federal and State administrative agencies
and officials, except that, if the Court determines that the
record does not contain sufficient information, the Court may
remand the proceeding to the Federal coordinator for further
development of the consolidated record.
(d) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--The United States District Court for the
district in which the proposed refinery is located shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the review
of the failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
refinery authorization in accordance with the schedule
established pursuant to the memorandum of agreement.
(2) Standing.--If an applicant or a party to a memorandum
of agreement alleges that a

[[Page 17528]]

failure to act described in paragraph (1) has occurred and
that such failure to act would jeopardize timely completion
of the entire schedule as established in the memorandum of
agreement, such applicant or other party may bring a cause of
action under this subsection.
(3) Court action.--If an action is brought under paragraph
(2), the Court shall review whether the parties to the
memorandum of agreement have been acting in good faith,
whether the applicant has been cooperating fully with the
agencies that are responsible for issuing a Federal refinery
authorization, and any other relevant materials in the
consolidated record. Taking into consideration those factors,
if the Court finds that a failure to act described in
paragraph (1) has occurred, and that such failure to act
would jeopardize timely completion of the entire schedule as
established in the memorandum of agreement, the Court shall
establish a new schedule that is the most expeditious
coordinated schedule possible for completion of proceedings,
consistent with the full substantive and procedural review
required by Federal law. The court may issue orders to
enforce any schedule it establishes under this paragraph.
(4) Federal coordinator's action.--When any civil action is
brought under this subsection, the Federal coordinator shall
immediately file with the Court the consolidated record
compiled by the Federal coordinator pursuant to subsection
(c).
(5) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.

SEC. 235. DESIGNATION OF CLOSED MILITARY BASES.

(a) Designation Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate no less than 3 closed military installations, or
portions thereof, as potentially suitable for the
construction of a refinery. At least 1 such site shall be
designated as potentially suitable for construction of a
refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.
(b) Redevelopment Authority.--The redevelopment authority
for each installation designated under subsection (a), in
preparing or revising the redevelopment plan for the
installation, shall consider the feasibility and
practicability of siting a refinery on the installation.
(c) Management and Disposal of Real Property.--The
Secretary of Defense, in managing and disposing of real
property at an installation designated under subsection (a)
pursuant to the base closure law applicable to the
installation, shall give substantial deference to the
recommendations of the redevelopment authority, as contained
in the redevelopment plan for the installation, regarding the
siting of a refinery on the installation. The management and
disposal of real property at a closed military installation
or portion thereof found to be suitable for the siting of a
refinery under subsection (a) shall be carried out in the
manner provided by the base closure law applicable to the
installation.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``base closure law'' means the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and title II of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note);
and
(2) the term ``closed military installation'' means a
military installation closed or approved for closure pursuant
to a base closure law.

SEC. 236. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to affect the
application of any environmental or other law, or to prevent
any party from bringing a cause of action under any
environmental or other law, including citizen suits.

SEC. 237. REFINERY REVITALIZATION REPEAL.

Subtitle H of title III of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and the items relating thereto in the table of contents of
such Act are repealed.
TITLE III--NEW AND EXPANDING TECHNOLOGIES
Subtitle A--Alternative Fuels

SEC. 301. REPEAL.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17142) is repealed.

SEC. 302. GOVERNMENT AUCTION OF LONG TERM PUT OPTION
CONTRACTS ON COAL-TO-LIQUID FUEL PRODUCED BY
QUALIFIED COAL-TO-LIQUID FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, from time to time,
auction to the public coal-to-liquid fuel put option
contracts having expiration dates of 5 years, 10 years, 15
years, or 20 years.
(b) Consultation With Secretary of Energy.--The Secretary
shall consult with the Secretary of Energy regarding--
(1) the frequency of the auctions;
(2) the strike prices specified in the contracts;
(3) the number of contracts to be auctioned with a given
strike price and expiration date; and
(4) the capacity of existing or planned facilities to
produce coal-to-liquid fuel.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Coal-to-liquid fuel.--The term ``coal-to-liquid fuel''
means any transportation-grade liquid fuel derived primarily
from coal (including peat) and produced at a qualified coal-
to-liquid facility.
(2) Coal-to-liquid put option contract.--The term ``coal-
to-liquid put option contract'' means a contract, written by
the Secretary, which--
(A) gives the holder the right (but not the obligation) to
sell to the Government of the United States a certain
quantity of a specific type of coal-to-liquid fuel produced
by a qualified coal-to-liquid facility specified in the
contract, at a strike price specified in the contract, on or
before an expiration date specified in the contract; and
(B) is transferable by the holder to any other entity.
(3) Qualified coal-to-liquid facility.--The term
``qualified coal-to-liquid facility'' means a manufacturing
facility that has the capacity to produce at least 10,000
barrels per day of transportation grade liquid fuels from a
feedstock that is primarily domestic coal (including peat and
any property which allows for the capture, transportation, or
sequestration of by-products resulting from such process,
including carbon emissions).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(5) Strike price.--The term ``strike price'' means, with
respect to a put option contract, the price at which the
holder of the contract has the right to sell the fuel which
is the subject of the contract.
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 303. STANDBY LOANS FOR QUALIFYING COAL-TO-LIQUIDS
PROJECTS.

Section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16512) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(k) Standby Loans for Qualifying CTL Projects.--
``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Cap price.--The term `cap price' means a market price
specified in the standby loan agreement above which the
project is required to make payments to the United States.
``(B) Full term.--The term `full term' means the full term
of a standby loan agreement, as specified in the agreement,
which shall not exceed the lesser of 30 years or 90 percent
of the projected useful life of the project (as determined by
the Secretary).
``(C) Market price.--The term `market price' means the
average quarterly price of a petroleum price index specified
in the standby loan agreement.
``(D) Minimum price.--The term `minimum price' means a
market price specified in the standby loan agreement below
which the United States is obligated to make disbursements to
the project.
``(E) Output.--The term `output' means some or all of the
liquid or gaseous transportation fuels produced from the
project, as specified in the loan agreement.
``(F) Primary term.--The term `primary term' means the
initial term of a standby loan agreement, as specified in the
agreement, which shall not exceed the lesser of 20 years or
75 percent of the projected useful life of the project (as
determined by the Secretary).
``(G) Qualifying ctl project.--The term `qualifying CTL
project' means--
``(i) a commercial-scale project that converts coal to one
or more liquid or gaseous transportation fuels; or
``(ii) not more than one project at a facility that
converts petroleum refinery waste products, including
petroleum coke, into one or more liquids or gaseous
transportation fuels,
that demonstrates the capture, and sequestration or disposal
or use of, the carbon dioxide produced in the conversion
process, and that, on the basis of a carbon dioxide
sequestration plan prepared by the applicant, is certified by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
consultation with the Secretary, as producing fuel with life
cycle carbon dioxide emissions at or below the average life
cycle carbon dioxide emissions for the same type of fuel
produced at traditional petroleum based facilities with
similar annual capacities.
``(H) Standby loan agreement.--The term `standby loan
agreement' means a loan agreement entered into under
paragraph (2).
``(2) Standby loans.--
``(A) Loan authority.--The Secretary may enter into standby
loan agreements with not more than six qualifying CTL
projects, at least one of which shall be a project jointly or
in part owned by two or more small coal producers. Such an
agreement--
``(i) shall provide that the Secretary will make a direct
loan (within the meaning of section 502(1) of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990) to the qualifying CTL project; and
``(ii) shall set a cap price and a minimum price for the
primary term of the agreement.
``(B) Loan disbursements.--Such a loan shall be disbursed
during the primary term of such agreement whenever the market
price falls below the minimum price. The

[[Page 17529]]

amount of such disbursements in any calendar quarter shall be
equal to the excess of the minimum price over the market
price, times the output of the project (but not more than a
total level of disbursements specified in the agreement).
``(C) Loan repayments.--The Secretary shall establish terms
and conditions, including interest rates and amortization
schedules, for the repayment of such loan within the full
term of the agreement, subject to the following limitations:
``(i) If in any calendar quarter during the primary term of
the agreement the market price is less than the cap price,
the project may elect to defer some or all of its repayment
obligations due in that quarter. Any unpaid obligations will
continue to accrue interest.
``(ii) If in any calendar quarter during the primary term
of the agreement the market price is greater than the cap
price, the project shall meet its scheduled repayment
obligation plus deferred repayment obligations, but shall not
be required to pay in that quarter an amount that is more
than the excess of the market price over the cap price, times
the output of the project.
``(iii) At the end of the primary term of the agreement,
the cumulative amount of any deferred repayment obligations,
together with accrued interest, shall be amortized (with
interest) over the remainder of the full term of the
agreement.
``(3) Profit-sharing.--The Secretary is authorized to enter
into a profit-sharing agreement with the project at the time
the standby loan agreement is executed. Under such an
agreement, if the market price exceeds the cap price in a
calendar quarter, a profit-sharing payment shall be made for
that quarter, in an amount equal to--
``(A) the excess of the market price over the cap price,
times the output of the project; less
``(B) any loan repayments made for the calendar quarter.
``(4) Compliance with federal credit reform act.--
``(A) Upfront payment of cost of loan.--No standby loan
agreement may be entered into under this subsection unless
the project makes a payment to the United States that the
Office of Management and Budget determines is equal to the
cost of such loan (determined under 502(5)(B) of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990). Such payment shall be made at the
time the standby loan agreement is executed.
``(B) Minimization of risk to the government.--In making
the determination of the cost of the loan for purposes of
setting the payment for a standby loan under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget
shall take into consideration the extent to which the minimum
price and the cap price reflect historical patterns of
volatility in actual oil prices relative to projections of
future oil prices, based upon publicly available data from
the Energy Information Administration, and employing
statistical methods and analyses that are appropriate for the
analysis of volatility in energy prices.
``(C) Treatment of payments.--The value to the United
States of a payment under subparagraph (A) and any profit-
sharing payments under paragraph (3) shall be taken into
account for purposes of section 502(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 in determining the cost to the
Federal Government of a standby loan made under this
subsection. If a standby loan has no cost to the Federal
Government, the requirements of section 504(b) of such Act
shall be deemed to be satisfied.
``(5) Other provisions.--
``(A) No double benefit.--A project receiving a loan under
this subsection may not, during the primary term of the loan
agreement, receive a Federal loan guarantee under subsection
(a) of this section, or under other laws.
``(B) Subrogation, etc.--Subsections (g)(2) (relating to
subrogation), (h) (relating to fees), and (j) (relating to
full faith and credit) shall apply to standby loans under
this subsection to the same extent they apply to loan
guarantees.''.
Subtitle B--Tax Provisions

SEC. 311. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY, REFINED COAL,
AND INDIAN COAL PRODUCTION CREDIT.

(a) Credit Made Permanent.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 45 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified
facilities) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and before January 1, 2009'' each place
it occurs,
(B) by striking ``, and before January 1, 2009'' in
paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)(i), and
(C) by striking ``before January 1, 2009'' in paragraph
(10).
(2) Open-loop biomass facilities.--Subparagraph (A) of
section 45(d)(3) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--In the case of a facility using open-
loop biomass to produce electricity, the term `qualified
facility' means any facility owned by the taxpayer which is
originally placed in service after October 22, 2004.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to electricity produced and sold after December
31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.
(b) Sales of Net Electricity to Regulated Public Utilities
Treated as Sales to Unrelated Persons.--Paragraph (4) of
section 45(e) of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``The net amount of electricity
sold by any taxpayer to a regulated public utility (as
defined in section 7701(a)(33)) shall be treated as sold to
an unrelated person.''.
(c) Allowance Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Clause (ii) of section 38(c)(4)(B) of such
Code (relating to specified credits) is amended by striking
``produced--'' and all that follows and inserting ``produced
at a facility which is originally placed in service after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 312. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT.

(a) Solar Energy Property.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and
(3)(A)(ii) of section 48(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to energy credit) are each amended by striking
``but only with respect to periods ending before January 1,
2009''.
(b) Fuel Cell Property.--Section 48(c)(1) of such Code
(relating to qualified fuel cell property) is amended by
striking subparagraph (E).
(c) Microturbine Property.--Subparagraph (E) of section
48(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
qualified microturbine property) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(d) Allowance Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) of
such Code (relating to specified credits) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii), by redesignating
clause (iv) as clause (v), and by inserting after clause
(iii) the following new clause:
``(iv) the credit determined under section 48, and''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 313. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR CLEAN
RENEWABLE ENERGY BONDS.

(a) Extension.--Section 54(m) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Increase in National Limitation.--Section 54(f) of such
Code (relating to limitation on amount of bonds designated)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``$1,200,000,000'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``$1,600,000,000'', and
(2) by striking ``$750,000,000'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``$1,000,000,000''.
(c) Modification of Ratable Principal Amortization
Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (5) of section 54(l) of such
Code is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Ratable principal amortization required.--A bond
shall not be treated as a clean renewable energy bond unless
it is part of an issue which provides for an equal amount of
principal to be paid by the qualified issuer during each 12-
month period that the issue is outstanding (other than the
first 12-month period).''.
(2) Technical amendment.--The third sentence of section
54(e)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ``subsection
(l)(6)'' and inserting ``subsection (l)(5)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 314. EXTENSION OF CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE
DIESEL.

(a) In General.--Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and
6427(e)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each
amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and inserting
``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fuel produced, and sold or used, after
December 31, 2008.
Subtitle C--Nuclear

SEC. 321. USE OF FUNDS FOR RECYCLING.

Section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10222) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``The Secretary may''
and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (f), the
Secretary may''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Recycling.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts in the Waste Fund may be used by
the Secretary of Energy to make grants to or enter into long-
term contracts with private sector entities for the recycling
of spent nuclear fuel.
``(2) Competitive selection.--Grants and contracts
authorized under paragraph (1) shall be awarded on the basis
of a competitive bidding process that--
``(A) maximizes the competitive efficiency of the projects
funded;
``(B) best serves the goal of reducing the amount of waste
requiring disposal under this Act; and
``(C) ensures adequate protection against the proliferation
of nuclear materials that

[[Page 17530]]

could be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.''.

SEC. 322. RULEMAKING FOR LICENSING OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
RECYCLING FACILITIES.

(a) Requirement.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall,
as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act, complete a
rulemaking establishing a process for the licensing by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, of facilities for the recycling of spent nuclear fuel.
(b) Funding.--Amounts in the Nuclear Waste Fund established
under section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10222) shall be made available to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to cover the costs of carrying out
subsection (a) of this section.

SEC. 323. NUCLEAR WASTE FUND BUDGET STATUS.

Section 302(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10222(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(7) The receipts and disbursements of the Waste Fund
shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts, or deficits or surplus for purposes of--
``(A) the budget of the United States Government as
submitted by the President;
``(B) the congressional budget; or
``(C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.''.

SEC. 324. WASTE CONFIDENCE.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not deny an
application for a license, permit, or other authorization
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 on the grounds that
sufficient capacity does not exist, or will not become
available on a timely basis, for disposal of spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste from the facility for
which the license, permit, or other authorization is sought.

SEC. 325. ASME NUCLEAR CERTIFICATION CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business related credits) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 45O. ASME NUCLEAR CERTIFICATION CREDIT.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the ASME
Nuclear Certification credit determined under this section
for any taxable year is an amount equal to 15 percent of the
qualified nuclear expenditures paid or incurred by the
taxpayer.
``(b) Qualified Nuclear Expenditures.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified nuclear expenditures' means any
expenditure related to--
``(1) obtaining a certification under the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers Nuclear Component Certification
program, or
``(2) increasing the taxpayer's capacity to construct,
fabricate, assemble, or install components--
``(A) for any facility which uses nuclear energy to produce
electricity, and
``(B) with respect to the construction, fabrication,
assembly, or installation of which the taxpayer is certified
under such program.
``(c) Timing of Credit.--The credit allowed under
subsection (a) for any expenditures shall be allowed--
``(1) in the case of a qualified nuclear expenditure
described in subsection (b)(1), for the taxable year of such
certification, and
``(2) in the case of any other qualified nuclear
expenditure, for the taxable year in which such expenditure
is paid or incurred.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Basis adjustment.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for an expenditure,
the increase in basis which would result (but for this
subsection) for such expenditure shall be reduced by the
amount of the credit allowed under this section.
``(2) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any amount taken into account
in determining the credit under this section.
``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2019.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (b) of section
38 is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph
(30), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (31) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(32) the ASME Nuclear Certification credit determined
under section 45O(a).''.
(2) Subsection (a) of section 1016 (relating to adjustments
to basis) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (36), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (37) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(38) to the extent provided in section 45O(e)(1).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2007.
Subtitle D--American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund

SEC. 331. AMERICAN RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TRUST
FUND.

(a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--There is established in
the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as
the ``American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund'',
consisting of such amounts as may be transferred to the
American Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund as
provided in section 149 and the amendments made by section
110 of this Act.
(b) Expenditures From American Renewable and Alternative
Energy Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--Amounts in the American Renewable and
Alternative Energy Trust Fund shall be available without
further appropriation to carry out specified provisions of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; in this
section referred to as ``EPAct2005'') and the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; in
this section referred to as ``EISAct2007''), as follows:
(A) Grants to improve the commercial value of forest
biomass for electric energy, useful heat, transportation
fuels, and other commercial purposes, section 210 of
EPAct2005, 3 percent
(B) Hydroelectric production incentives, section 242 of
EPAct2005, 2 percent.
(C) Oil shale, tar sands, and other strategic
unconventional fuels, section 369 of EPAct2005, 3 percent.
(D) Clean Coal Power Initiative, section 401 of EPAct2005,
7 percent.
(E) Solar and wind technologies, section 812 of EPAct2005,
7 percent.
(F) Renewable Energy, section 931of EPAct2005, 20 percent.
(G) Production incentives for cellulosic biofuels, section
942 of EPAct2005, 2.5 percent.
(H) Coal and related technologies program, section 962 of
EPAct2005, 4 percent.
(I) Methane hydrate research, section 968 of EPAct2005, 2.5
percent.
(J) Incentives for Innovative Technologies, section 1704 of
EPAct2005, 7 percent.
(K) Grants for production of advanced biofuels, section 207
of EISAct2007, 16 percent.
(L) Photovoltaic demonstration program, section 607
EISAct2007, 2.5 percent.
(M) Geothermal Energy, title VI, subtitle B of EISAct2007,
4 percent.
(N) Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Technologies,
title VI, subtitle C of EISAct2007, 2.5 percent.
(O) Energy storage competitiveness, section 641 of
EISAct2007, 10 percent.
(P) Smart grid technology research, development, and
demonstration, section 1304 of EISAct2007, 7 percent.
(2) Apportionment of excess amount.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), any amounts allocated under paragraph (1) that
are in excess of the amounts authorized in the applicable
cited section or subtitle of EPAct2005 and EISAct2007 shall
be reallocated to the remaining sections and subtitles cited
in paragraph (1), up to the amounts otherwise authorized by
law to carry out such sections and subtitles, in proportion
to the amounts authorized by law to be appropriated for such
other sections and subtitles.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesies, real or unreal, that have been granted to this point so
far.
If you go back to the movie The Natural, there is a wonderful scene
where this mythical team, the New York Knights, are on a losing
tradition, so they bring a sports psychologist down to try and talk to
the team. And as the sports psychologist is droning on to them, he
says, ``You know, men, the mind is a strange thing. What is losing?
Losing is a disease as contagious as the bubonic plague, attacking one
but infecting all. And consider yourself, if you are on a ship at sea
gently rocking, gently rocking.''
And at that point, Roy Hobbs can't take it anymore, so he bolts out
of there because he realizes that if you are in a losing situation,
talking about it doesn't help, only action on the field of play will
help.
And when given the chance to go on the field and play, he pounded the
ball and led them to victory after victory after victory.
And what we are talking about simply here tonight is what Americans
want, which is for us to do something here on this playing field on the
issue of energy and energy security.
We are fighting for the people of my district who will be faced with
a 30 percent increase in heating costs this winter. We are fighting for
the 1,100 people who lost their jobs with an airline because 100 planes
were not able to be provided the fuel to fly. We are flying for an
Ethiopian-born cab driver here in Washington, D.C. who, for the first

[[Page 17531]]

time in his life since coming here, he cannot meet his kids at home
because he has to drive two extra hours every night just to make up
what he loses in these fees. We are fighting for a father in Virginia
who can no longer go to his father-and-son outings because he can't
afford the gasoline to drive there. We are talking about the Clark
County School District which had an unexpected 62 percent of its budget
all related to energy costs, and that all comes out of future salaries
of the teachers of those poor areas.
If you are rich, this problem is simply an annoyance. Only 11 cents
out of $1 goes to energy. But if you are on the poverty line, 50 cents
of every dollar goes to energy. And that 50 cents that comes out of the
pocket of a poor person or somebody on a fixed income is money that
cannot be spent on luxuries like tuna casseroles or Hamburger Helper.
We are a country that has the technology and the ability to solve
this problem. We are a country with a proud history of solving our
problems with technology. Since 1784 when we invented the bifocals, to
1867 when we changed the world by inventing the typewriter and changed
the West by inventing barbed wire and changed our lives by inventing
toilet paper in the same year, to 1945 with the microwave, to even soft
contacts today. We have had the technology to be able to solve this
energy problem. And before us is an amendment which will reward
Americans for their efforts of conservation in a way that we have not
done in a long time. It will increase production of our energy sources
by recognizing that not only do we have to have the fossil fuels
increased, but all the royalties that we will now make by increased
production in oil and gas and oil shale and coal will be used to fund
the improvements and the innovations and the research for alternative
energy so that we can look forward to the future.
We recognize that we have to do something with our infrastructure. We
do not have the refinery capacity that we need. We recognize that
Washington is not the seat of all wisdom, that bringing an expert into
a room here is not going to solve our problems; but what we need to do
is unlock the brilliance within Americans and within what they have to
offer to the American people. By offering prizes, we can find solutions
that have been plaguing and missing us for years.
In 1714, the British didn't have a way of mapping their waters in the
navigation, so they offered a $20,000 prize and a clock maker came up
with the system of longitude and latitude that we still use today.
In 1810, Napoleon needed a way to feed his troops. He gave a 12,000
franc prize to find somebody to use the vacuum-packed processes we
still use today.
Lindbergh flew across the ocean to get a prize from a newspaper, and
it spawned a $32 billion industry.
We have that capability today. We have the Roy Hobbs who realizes
that the only way you solve the problem is get on the playing field and
do it.
We have the ability to solve our problem today if we just come to
this playing field and do it, and to require a vote on this amendment
so that we can fulfill the words of Daniel Webster that are looking at
us every day we come here to inspire us, to tell us to take our
resources and to build from that, and to do something that is worthy to
be remembered.
This amendment would be worthy to be remembered, and I urge that we
accept this amendment and I urge that we have a vote on this amendment.
This may be the only chance we actually have to have an up or down vote
on this particular amendment, which impacts the lives of everybody but
especially the most vulnerable in our society.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 15 seconds.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill to provide health
care and benefits for America's veterans and their families, America's
service men and women and their families. This is not an energy bill.
The speaker that just spoke knows it, I know it, and the veterans of
America know it.
Let me read to you from the VFW Action Alert from 3 days ago.
``Some Members of Congress may try to attach nonrelated items to the
bill which would hold up or even defeat final passage. We ask you to
contact your representatives today and urge them to pass a clean VA-
MilCon Appropriations bill. Tell them that further delay hurts our
veterans and our troops on the ground. Let them know that we expect
them to reaffirm their priorities by doing the right thing and passing
the funding bill quickly.''
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting; I
just want to be clear. Is the gentleman speaking to a point of order,
or is he speaking to the amendment itself? I would make the point of
order the gentleman is not speaking----
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I am speaking in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on the amendment.
The gentleman will continue.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say to this body what the
Disabled American Veterans said about amendments such as this. ``It is
our strongest recommendation that this bill be unfettered with
nongermane amendments. We observe in media accounts that some Members
of the body may wish to offer such amendments, and we fear that if
these amendments are ruled in order for floor debate, they may bring
down the bill. Accordingly, we ask that you work with the majority
leader and minority leader to ensure this key bill, one that impacts
one in every four Americans and is a vital priority for DAV and our
membership, is passed in the most orderly manner without the
distractions attendant to the political season or party differences on
unrelated national priorities.''
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what the Veterans of Foreign Wars have
said about this type of amendment, and I quote from their newsletter
from 6 days ago. ``We believe attaching them (nongermane amendments) to
this critical veterans' bill could jeopardize its passage by
unnecessarily delaying it or even grinding debate completely to a halt.
This is unacceptable.''
Mr. Chairman, I have to make a choice on this amendment to stand with
the gentleman and Mr. Boehner, or stand with millions of America's
veterans. For me, that is an easy choice. I will stand with our
veterans, fight for a clean VA military construction bill that was put
in good faith together on a bipartisan basis. The energy debate should
be left for another day. Let's take care of our veterans. Let's honor
our veterans, our troops, and their families. They deserve no less.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point
of order?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, one month ago when we were trying to add
funding to provide the largest expansion of the GI bill in the history
of the bill since it was first approved in 1945, the House Minority
Leader issued the following statement. He said, ``House Republicans
believe that loading up the troop funding bill with billions upon
billions of unrelated Washington spending is reckless and dangerous.''
Now, it was difficult for me at the time to understand how adding
education benefits for our troops was unrelated to funding the troops,
but today we are now being asked to consider a nongermane amendment
which would bring a divisive energy debate into legislation which is
trying to provide for the needs of our military families around the
country and which is trying to provide the needs in the health care
area for our veterans.

[[Page 17532]]

If I were to debate energy in the middle of this bill, I would point
out that one of the reasons that we have $4 gas today is that we have
an administration which has pursued fiscal policies that have borrowed
almost $2 trillion to finance tax cuts and to finance the war in Iraq,
and that has contributed to driving down the value of the dollar, which
has in turn raised the cost of purchasing a gallon of gasoline by 30
percent.
If I were to debate energy on this bill, I would point out that,
since Jimmy Carter left office, we have had a succession of
administrations running from Reagan to Bush that systemically presided
over the gutting of energy research done by the government on
alternative energy sources.
I would also point out that over the last 8 years we have had an
energy policy run by an administration dominated by two oil men in the
President and the Vice President.
I would point out that their national security advisor, Secretary
Rice, served on Chevron's board of directors for 10 years and even had
an oil tanker named after her; that Interior Secretary Gale Norton
started her career at a think tank funded by energy companies; commerce
Secretary Don Evans was former president and CEO of a Texas oil
company; Deputy Interior Secretary Griles was a former lobbyist for the
oil, chemical, and mining industry, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,
I would also point out that we on this side of the aisle have worked
to pass increased fuel economy standards for automobiles; we have voted
to eliminate $14 billion in special tax breaks for oil and gas
companies; we voted to crack down on speculation which has driven up
the cost of oil and gas at the expense of the American people. I would
have pointed out that we have voted to get more oil from the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. And, I would be pointing out that we have
also asked the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.

{time} 2130

I would also point out that we support drilling on the 68 million
acres of public lands that are already leased and not being developed.
That is what I would point out if I were in a debate on energy. But, in
fact, this is supposed to be a discussion about the needs of our
military families for housing, for education, and the needs of our
veterans for health care. And I think we would best serve the country
in this Chamber tonight if we would focus our remarks on that issue.
And that is what I will continue to do.

Point of Order

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment changes the application of existing law.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the
gentleman from Wisconsin chose not to extend our time by debating
energy here tonight.
I wish to speak specifically to this point of order. The issue on a
point of order is the nexus between the amendment to the underlying
bill, and it would be my contention there are multiple in which one can
look. This particular bill on MILCON has at least eight references to
runways and roads which are to be produced, all of which will be made
by asphalt, which is a petroleum-based substance. With costs
increasing, it would be a difficult price to try and do that.
We will have people coming in here talking about VA benefits to
people, falling all over themselves stumbling to be good about it. That
is great. But if, indeed, those VA hospitals are going to have a 30
percent increase in heating costs which have to be paid first, many of
the benefits that we are looking at in this bill will be unable to be
provided. It is almost like taking medicine off their trays when we
require people to get those benefits to pay 4 and $5 a gallon to get
there.
The couple in West Virginia that drove 80 miles every week and were
reimbursed 11 cents a mile. For 8 bucks they could not fund their
ability to get those benefits.
We will increase our benefits and, at the same time, tell veterans
they are going to have to pay at a higher price out of their pocket to
get those benefits. What we give with one hand will be taken back
simply with another because of our inaction.
There is precedent for what I am attempting to do. In 1999, there was
an amendment that was made in order even though it was in violation of
the germaneness rule by Spence and Ortiz. In 2000 there were two more
that were part of the Department of Transportation bill, bipartisan
amendment.
There was another one that was made in 1990, and those are the
original ones we were able to look at, let alone the concept of all
sorts of legislation that we routinely put into appropriations types of
measures. There is precedent for what I am trying to talk about.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those situations where a ruling by the
Chair will make a decision on whether we deny discussion on energy in
this body or not. A ruling by the Chair will decide whether we talk
about conservation and production and infrastructure needs; will deny
or not a vote by the representatives of the people on an issue the
people are asking for us to take a vote.
Benjamin Franklin, when talking about the Revolution once said that
``revolutions come into this world like illegitimate children.'' He
didn't use the word illegitimate, but illegitimate children, ``half
improvised and half compromised.''
We have provided the improvisation for this issue. We are looking to
the gentleman at the Chair to provide the compromise; to simply say
that we can go forward with the debate that is significant, it is
timely, it is important and does have significant nexus to this
particular piece of legislation for, indeed, what we are appropriating
cannot be accomplished if the energy prices continue to soar and make
it an impossibility to do that.
This is a chance, Mr. Chairman, that the fate of the American economy
and maybe our military intelligence will rest in the hands of your
decision. It is my hope that you will decide in the favor of people on
this particular point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I would simply observe
that the ruling of the Chair will do one thing and one thing only: it
will determine what the rules of the House are and whether this
amendment is in compliance with those rules. And I would ask for a
ruling.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah proposes directly to amend existing law. As such,
it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in
order.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to offer my amendment at this point in the reading.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the
amendment at this point?
Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, so long as the
understanding that was expressed earlier stands and that there will be
only one speaker on that side of the aisle on this nongermane
amendment, I would not have an objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Other than myself, the gentleman from Texas and the
gentleman from Wisconsin, I see no other speakers to speak on my
amendment.

[[Page 17533]]

Mr. OBEY. Well, the gentleman from Wisconsin does not intend to
participate on this one, so it will just be two of you.
Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman may offer his
amendment at this point.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Burgess:
Page 2, line 14, insert after the dollar amount
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 3, line 8, insert before the period the following:
``Provided further, That of the amount appropriated in this
paragraph, $100,000,000 shall be available for the design and
construction of one petroleum refinery for the Army''.
Page 3, line 16, insert after the dollar amount
``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
Page 4, line 4, insert before the period the following:
``Provided further, That of the amount appropriated in this
paragraph, $200,000,000 shall be available for the design and
construction of one petroleum refinery each for the Navy and
Marine Corps''.
Page 4, line 10, insert after the dollar amount
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 7, insert before the period the following:
``Provided further, That of the amount appropriated in this
paragraph, $100,000,000 shall be available for the design and
construction of one petroleum refinery for the Air Force''.
Page 15, line 17, insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced
by $400,000,000)''.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering tonight
provides $400 million towards new construction projects. This money
will be used to put American workers, pipe fitters, engineers,
construction workers to work and build refineries that produce the
specialized types and grades of fuel used by each branch of the service
for their equipment. The refineries will be located on existing or
former bases under the purview of the Department of Defense, and will
represent the first refineries built in the United States since 1976.
And the time to do it is now.
The Air Force isn't going to have a fleet of plug-in hybrid fighter
jets, and the Navy isn't going to have a solar battleship in the near
future. They need fuel, plain and simple.
Investing in critical infrastructure and protecting the Nation are
our top responsibilities in the Federal Government. Today I am offering
an amendment that provides Federal funds for the construction and
design of one refinery for each branch of the military to produce the
petroleum products required by that branch, combining these two
critical roles for the public good.
Prices are high. So is demand. Let's address both sides of the energy
equation, and let's put our Americans back to work to help the military
protect the Nation.
We have heard a lot about exploring and drilling for American sources
of energy. Hands down, Americans agree on this point. It is an 80
percent issue across the country and, indeed, it is even higher in my
district and other districts of north and central Texas. Polls show the
vast majority of Americans favor drilling offshore in the ANWR.
The United States Department of Defense is straining under record
high prices. In 2007, with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
United States armed service consumed 16 gallons of fuel per soldier per
day, or about $3 million worth of fuel every day. That is a lot of
fuel, and that is a lot of opportunity for American energy and American
jobs.
But this is not regular gasoline. All military planes, vehicles,
generators and heavy equipment in areas of foreign operation use jet
petroleum to avoid transporting and carrying different fuel grades and
accidentally putting the wrong type of fuel in their equipment.
Right now global refineries are operating at a very tight capacity.
This, in turn, limits the quantity of gasoline and other products that
they can produce. This squeeze impacts the consumers, domestic refiners
and the military as the cost of refining comprises between 10 and 20
percent of the price at the pump. It means the taxpayers are getting
hit with higher costs twice, and it also leaves military fuel supplies
vulnerable to disruptions from terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
And then there's the question of importing refined products. We
already heard under the colloquy about how important it is to use an
American product, American-made steel. Well, how about we use American-
made gasoline? Use the gasoline that is produced here in America.
Domestic refinery production has declined as industry operates with
tight profit margins and lower inventories of crude oil to cut gasoline
costs, and these constraints mean a greater proportion of gasoline
demand has to be met with imported products. We know what that means.
We buy it from people who don't like us. We are funding both sides in
the war on terror.
Four of five of the top suppliers of military fuel are foreign
companies or foreign state-owned entities. This poses a serious threat
to our national and our economic security and must be addressed.
Let me stress that this is a win/win for America. These military
specific refineries could produce and protect specialized military
fuels from capacity limitations that squeeze supply and increase prices
for everyone; would free up commercial refining capacity and ensure
that we are not forced to outsource a significant portion of our
defense when we buy from foreign refineries.
Military commanders say you can't kick behind without tanker gas, or
something like that. The Air Force isn't going to have a fleet of plug-
in hybrids, as I already said. Our national defense and our national
economic security are too important to risk on shortages of refinery
capacities when we are faced with natural disasters.
We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What good is it if there is no
strategic way to refine it?
And this amendment would provide the beginning of that strategic way
to put the refineries in areas that are already cleared
environmentally, already have the security in place, and it makes
sense.
We have also heard tonight that we need to pass a clean bill. It is
important to get this bill done because our veterans and our military
need the monies that will be appropriated in this bill, and I agree
with that very much. It is my understanding this bill has been ready to
go for 4 or 5 weeks.
I don't know why we have not seen fit to bring it up before tonight.
I don't know why we had to bring it up under a modified closed rule.
But those are the rules the majority has set. Those are the rules under
which we will play.
So I thank the chairman for hearing this amendment. I think it is an
important concept that needs to be furthered.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point
of order?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I won't repeat the statements by
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the
American Legion and others who have spoken out against non-germane
amendments on this bill whose purpose is to support our veterans, their
families, our troops, and their families.
I know the gentleman from Texas. He is a friend of mine. I think he
is genuine in his efforts to accomplish what he would like to
accomplish, but this is not the bill. This is not the time. This is not
the place in which to do it.
Furthermore, despite the gentleman's good intentions, there is a
serious flaw in this amendment for which I would strongly oppose it,
and that is, it would take $400 million out of the President's budget
request for the Base

[[Page 17534]]

Realignment and Closing process. That would be a terrible mistake
because its result would be that thousands of America's veterans
returning home from their second and even third tours of duty in Iraq
and Afghanistan would come home to find that the barracks that were
supposed to have been built with that BRAC money were not built.
They would come home, and then those troops, as they began to train
to go back to Iraq and Afghanistan, would find the training ranges that
they needed that were to have been built with this $400 million in BRAC
funding were not built; the very training ranges that are a vital part
of not only allowing those troops to carry out their mission in our
Nation's behalf, but help them come home safely to their families.
So, for those reasons, as well as a number of others, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to make a point of order against the amendment because it
provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states, in
pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds that are
not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will not dispute the point of order. I
believe that the amendment is germane because it is a military
construction bill. But I understand the concept of authorizing. I would
point out Congressional Budget Office does score this as a savings, so
as the old saying goes, it doesn't cost, it pays. And I was willing to
offer this money in the spirit of bipartisanship. But also in the
spirit of bipartisanship I will, at this time, ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. BERKLEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this bill. I
want to thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp for their
extraordinary efforts on behalf of this Nation's veterans, and for
including report language on veterans burial benefits.

{time} 2145

I'm deeply concerned about the eroding value of plot allowance and
burial benefits provided to our Nation's veterans. Because the benefits
are not indexed to inflation, their value continues to diminish each
year. As a result, families and State veteran cemeteries have been left
to cover the increasing costs of burying their loved ones. The VA
simply must assess the need to increase the plot allowance of burial
benefits to cover the same percentage of burial benefit costs that were
covered in 1973 when these benefits were first initiated.
I appreciate the fact that the chairman has included the report
language in the report the need for increasing burial benefits for our
veterans.
I'm also pleased that the committee recognizes the importance of
veterans' mental health and substance abuse services. This is an issue
of great importance to me. I had a constituent by the name of Justin
Bailey. He volunteered to serve this Nation, he was sent to Iraq, he
served with honor and distinction. And when he returned, he developed a
substance abuse problem. At the suggestion of his parents, he checked
himself into a VA facility, and even though he was suffering from a
substance abuse problem due to PTSD and other mental health issues, he
was given more medication while he was in the VA facility. And he
ultimately ended up overdosing while he was in the care of the VA.
Unfortunately, Justin is not an isolated incident. There are
thousands of young men and women returning from service overseas that
come back with a mental health problem or substance abuse problem or
PTSD. I'm very delighted that this committee and Chairman Edwards have
recognized that this is a crisis and this bill increases funding for
mental health and substance abuse services for our veterans.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp for
recognizing the importance of these issues, and I would like to urge my
colleagues to support this legislation without reservation and without
continuing to add on things that do not belong in this bill and are not
germane.
Let's stand up for our veterans, and let's stand up for them this
evening.
I yield back.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Military Construction, Air Force

(including rescissions of funds)

For acquisition, construction, installation, and
equipment of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $976,524,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $77,314,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons
therefor: Provided further, That the amount appropriated in
this paragraph shall be for the projects and activities, and
in the amounts, specified under the headings ``Air Force'' in
the table entitled ``Military Construction'' in the report of
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives to accompany this bill: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Air Force'' under Public Law 109-114, $1,359,000 are hereby
rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law
110-5, $3,581,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Air Force'' under Public Law 110-161, $12,741,000 are hereby
rescinded.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire whether the
gentleman from Texas would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would be honored to do so.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman.
Simply put, dirt needs to be turned on the replacement Veterans
Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado. This facility is the centerpiece of
the VA's capital construction plan under the Capital Asset Realignment
for Enhanced Services, the CARES project, which began in 1999.
Eight years are gone, millions of dollars in additional costs have
been incurred, and three VA secretaries later, it is safe to say the
time for action for Colorado and the Rocky Mountain veterans is now.
They've waited far too long, and our taxpayers will pay far more the
longer this project is dragged out. We have to get this project done.
It is for these reasons I understand and identify with the
frustration many in our veterans' community feel in being shut out of
the design process as they continue to see the construction of this
important undertaking pushed back year after year.
Achieving consensus and moving forward with the construction of this
facility has and will continue to be one of my top priorities in
Congress. Simply put, it is not fair or right to punish our veterans by
the repeated delays resulting each time a new Secretary of Veterans
Affairs is appointed.
I believe our veterans deserve better than they've been treated
through this process, and to quote the Denver Post, ``Changing plans
midstream without bringing in the people who would use the facility or
those who put their political capital to work to get money for the
project is an affront.'' And the editorial concludes with, ``We hope
the VA reconsiders its decision and honors the commitment made to
veterans in the Colorado region. The long-anticipated standalone
facility is sorely needed and further delay is unacceptable.'' And I
couldn't agree more.

[[Page 17535]]

That is why I feel it is vital to provide the funding necessary for
the Veterans Administration to move forward with the construction of
the central utility substation, the parking garage, and the surface
parking lots of the proposed facility. These are all projects for which
money has already been appropriated and is in the bank, and they're
ready to go. In all likelihood, this is going to take more than the $20
million that the administration is currently calling for.
But with that, I would like to yield to the gentleman to ask if he's
willing to continue to work with me to secure the funding required to
build a facility our veterans can be proud of as soon as possible.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. The answer to the gentleman's question is
absolutely yes, and I want to salute the gentleman from Colorado for
his tireless devotion for seeing that the veterans in the Denver area
in Colorado have a VA medical center that is worthy of their service to
our country.
It is simply not right that this process has been like a ping pong
game going back and forth. The veterans of Colorado are told one year
one thing's going to happen, the next year another thing is going to
happen. The gentleman is right in saying that if plans are changing,
there should be input from the veterans in the local communities.
So I look forward to working with the gentleman not only in this
House but in meetings with the VA officials so that we see we move this
important project forward expeditiously.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to his
visit to Aurora, Colorado, at the end of August.
I yield back.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Military Construction, Defense-Wide

(including transfer and rescission of funds)

For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $1,614,450,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $211,606,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be for
the projects and activities, and in the amounts, specified
under the headings ``Defense-Wide'' in the table entitled
``Military Construction'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany
this bill: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'' under Public Law
108-324, $3,589,000 are hereby rescinded.

Military Construction, Army National Guard

For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$628,668,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed
$50,563,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Secretary of Defense determines that additional
obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the determination and the reasons therefor: Provided
further, That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall
be for the projects and activities, and in the amounts,
specified under the headings ``Army National Guard'' in the
table entitled ``Military Construction'' in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
to accompany this bill.

Military Construction, Air National Guard

For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$142,809,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed
$10,209,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Secretary of Defense determines that additional
obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the determination and the reasons therefor: Provided
further, That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall
be for the projects and activities, and in the amounts,
specified under the headings ``Air National Guard'' in the
table entitled ``Military Construction'' in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
to accompany this bill.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Hampshire is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in
a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership in
supporting our veterans and particularly on this bill. The 110th
Congress has made great strides in fulfilling the promises made to our
veterans.
Mr. Chairman, there are more than 130,000 veterans in New Hampshire.
Those veterans have gone without a full service VA hospital for the
past 7 years. Last year, over 700 veterans who visited our VA facility
in Manchester for acute care were transported to Boston VA facilities
or to the White River Junction in Vermont. For some of our more rural
northern residents, this can be an arduous ordeal. Hours can be spent
in a car or bus traveling for medical care.
To address this inequity, I introduced legislation this week that
would require the VA to either provide full-service hospital care or
comparable services to veterans in every State.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us also includes an increase of
$200 million in fee-based care funding, care that our veterans can
receive in local non-VA medical facilities. This program can provide
much-needed assistance to veterans in New Hampshire, and I wanted to
receive your assurances that we would continue to work together to
ensure that New Hampshire veterans have adequate access to in-State
health care.
At this time, I would like to yield to my friend and colleague from
the Second District of New Hampshire.
Mr. HODES. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I want to thank the chairman for his extraordinary leadership on this
important issue and for standing up for veterans around the country.
I rise today to echo the concern of my colleague, Congresswoman Carol
Shea-Porter. New Hampshire remains the only State in the Nation without
a full service VA hospital, forcing many veterans to drive long
distances to get the care and treatment they desperately need and that
they've earned. With record high gas prices, New Hampshire veterans are
simply paying more to get critical medical care, and that's plain
wrong.
I would like to echo the concerns of my colleague and also ask the
chairman to clarify that the increases in fee-based care contained in
the underlying bill are meant to address issues like those we have in
New Hampshire.
And I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and
members of his committee on this important issue for Granite State
veterans.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would like to answer the gentleman's question
by saying that the answer is ``yes.''
And I want to thank Mr. Hodes and Ms. Shea-Porter for fighting on
behalf of improved medical care for the veterans of New Hampshire. You
have not only done that by your election to Congress, you have been key
players in making it possible for us to pass the largest increase in VA
health care funding in the VA 77-year history. It wouldn't have
happened without your election to Congress and your leadership.

[[Page 17536]]

I look forward to working with both of you in our subcommittee to see
that we can ensure that the veterans of New Hampshire who have served
our country receive the medical care that they deserve.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. I yield back.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Military Construction, Army Reserve

For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $282,607,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $14,883,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be for
the projects and activities, and in the amounts, specified
under the headings ``Army Reserve'' in the table entitled
``Military Construction'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany
this bill.

Military Construction, Navy Reserve

For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization
Acts, $57,045,000, to remain available until September 30,
2013: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to
exceed $2,045,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, and architect and engineer services, as authorized by
law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and
notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor:
Provided further, That the amount appropriated in this
paragraph shall be for the projects and activities, and in
the amounts, specified under the headings ``Navy Reserve'' in
the table entitled ``Military Construction'' in the report of
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives to accompany this bill.

Military Construction, Air Force Reserve

For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $30,018,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $5,675,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be for
the projects and activities, and in the amounts, specified
under the headings ``Air Force Reserve'' in the table
entitled ``Military Construction'' in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
to accompany this bill.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Security Investment Program

For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $218,867,000, to remain available until
expended.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through title II, page 35, line 18, be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

Family Housing Construction, Army

For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$646,580,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That the amount appropriated in this paragraph
shall be for the projects and activities, and in the amounts,
specified under the heading ``Family Housing Construction,
Army'' in the table entitled ``Military Construction'' in the
report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives to accompany this bill.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army

For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $716,110,000.

Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $382,778,000, to remain available until September 30,
2013: Provided, That the amount appropriated in this
paragraph shall be for the projects and activities, and in
the amounts, specified under the heading ``Family Housing
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' in the table entitled
``Military Construction'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany
this bill.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps

For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $376,062,000.

Family Housing Construction, Air Force

For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$395,879,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That the amount appropriated in this paragraph
shall be for the projects and activities, and in the amounts,
specified under the heading ``Family Housing Construction,
Air Force'' in the table entitled ``Military Construction''
in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives to accompany this bill.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $594,465,000.

Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $49,231,000.

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund

For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $850,000, to remain available until expended, for
family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section
2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative
means of acquiring and improving military family housing and
supporting facilities.

Homeowners Assistance Fund

For the Homeowners Assistance Fund established by section
1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3374), $4,500,000, to
remain available until expended.

Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by law,
$134,278,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That such amounts of this appropriation as may be
determined by the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to
such appropriations of the Department of Defense available
for military construction as the Secretary may designate, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation to which
transferred: Provided further, That the amount appropriated
in this paragraph shall be for the projects and activities,
and in the amounts, specified in the table entitled
``Chemical Demilitarization Construction'' in the report of
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives to accompany this bill.

Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990

For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.

[[Page 17537]]

2687 note), $473,377,000, to remain available until expended.

Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $9,065,386,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Department of Defense shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress 14 days prior to obligating an amount for a
construction project that exceeds or reduces the amount
identified for that project in the most recently submitted
budget request for this account by 20 percent or $2,000,000,
whichever is less: Provided further, That the previous
proviso shall not apply to projects costing less than
$5,000,000, except for those projects not previously
identified in any budget submission for this account and
exceeding the minor construction threshold under 10 U.S.C.
2805.

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds made available in this title for
construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds made available in this title for
construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where
the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise
determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public
interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this title
for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate
any activity from one base or installation to another,
without prior notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts
estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects
to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty
Organization member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Sea, unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint venture with
host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this title
for military construction in the United States territories
and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any
contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to
a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall not
be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor
exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a
foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards
for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the
lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a
Marshallese contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including
the Committees on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of
any proposed military exercise involving United States
personnel 30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended
for construction, either temporary or permanent, are
anticipated to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available in this title which are limited for obligation
during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the
last two months of the fiscal year.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds made available to a military department or defense
agency for the construction of military projects may be
obligated for a military construction project or contract, or
for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time
before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year for which funds for such project were made available, if
the funds obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from
funds available for military construction projects; and (2)
do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus
any amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
Sec. 118. (a) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, by February 15
of each year, an annual report, in unclassified and, if
necessary classified form, on actions taken by the Department
of Defense and the Department of State during the previous
fiscal year to encourage host countries to assume a greater
share of the common defense burden of such countries and the
United States.
(b) The report under subsection (a) shall include a
description of--
(1) attempts to secure cash and in-kind contributions from
host countries for military construction projects;
(2) attempts to achieve economic incentives offered by host
countries to encourage private investment for the benefit of
the United States Armed Forces;
(3) attempts to recover funds due to be paid to the United
States by host countries for assets deeded or otherwise
imparted to host countries upon the cessation of United
States operations at military installations;
(4) the amount spent by host countries on defense, in
dollars and in terms of the percent of gross domestic product
(GDP) of the host country; and
(5) for host countries that are members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the amount contributed
to NATO by host countries, in dollars and in terms of the
percent of the total NATO budget.
(c) In this section, the term ``host country'' means other
member countries of NATO, Japan, South Korea, and United
States allies bordering the Arabian Sea.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 119. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to
the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10
U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for
the same purposes and the same time period as that account.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 120. Subject to 30 days prior notification, or 14
days for a notification provided in an electronic medium
pursuant to sections 480 and 2883, of title 10, United States
Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress, such additional amounts as may be determined by the
Secretary of Defense may be transferred to: (1) the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from
amounts appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing''
accounts, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes and for the same period of time as amounts
appropriated directly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of
Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund from
amounts appropriated for construction of military
unaccompanied housing in ``Military Construction'' accounts,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same period of time as amounts appropriated
directly to the Fund: Provided, That appropriations made
available to the Funds shall be available to cover the costs,
as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,

[[Page 17538]]

pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving
military family housing, military unaccompanied housing, and
supporting facilities.
Sec. 121. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any
solicitation for a contract with the private sector for
military family housing the Secretary of the military
department concerned shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the notice
described in subsection (b).
(b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice
of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental
payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private
party under the contract involved in the event of--
(A) the closure or realignment of the installation for
which housing is provided under the contract;
(B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such
installation; or
(C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at
such installation.
(2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the
nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and
likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal
Government with respect to the guarantee.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 122. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the accounts established by sections
2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund
established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to
pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance
Program. Any amounts transferred shall be merged with and be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the fund to which transferred.
Sec. 123. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of
law, funds made available in this title for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for
the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days prior notification to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, except that an
after-the-fact notification shall be submitted if the
limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated with
environmental remediation that could not be reasonably
anticipated at the time of the budget submission: Provided
further, That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is
to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance
expenditures for each individual general or flag officer
quarters for the prior fiscal year.
Sec. 124. Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement
Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of
title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be
available until expended for the purposes specified in
subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred
pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 125. None of the funds made available in this title,
or in any Act making appropriations for military construction
which remain available for obligation, may be obligated or
expended to carry out a military construction, land
acquisition, or family housing project at or for a military
installation approved for closure, or at a military
installation for the purposes of supporting a function that
has been approved for realignment to another installation, in
2005 under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), unless such a project at a military installation
approved for realignment will support a continuing mission or
function at that installation or a new mission or function
that is planned for that installation, or unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the cost to the United
States of carrying out such project would be less than the
cost to the United States of cancelling such project, or if
the project is at an active component base that shall be
established as an enclave or in the case of projects having
multi-agency use, that another Government agency has
indicated it will assume ownership of the completed project.
The Secretary of Defense may not transfer funds made
available as a result of this limitation from any military
construction project, land acquisition, or family housing
project to another account or use such funds for another
purpose or project without the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This
section shall not apply to military construction projects,
land acquisition, or family housing projects for which the
project is vital to the national security or the protection
of health, safety, or environmental quality: Provided, That
the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional
defense committees within seven days of a decision to carry
out such a military construction project.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 126. During the 5-year period after appropriations
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military construction and family housing operation and
maintenance and construction have expired for obligation,
upon a determination that such appropriations will not be
necessary for the liquidation of obligations or for making
authorized adjustments to such appropriations for obligations
incurred during the period of availability of such
appropriations, unobligated balances of such appropriations
may be transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'', to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 127. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this title may be used for any action that is
related to or promotes the expansion of the boundaries or
size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits Administration

compensation and pensions

(including transfer of funds)

For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53,
55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; pension benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 15, 51,
53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; and burial
benefits, the Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors,
emergency and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-
service credits and certificates, payment of premiums due on
commercial life insurance policies guaranteed under the
provisions of title IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits as
authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, and
chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States
Code, $43,111,681,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $26,798,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to
``General operating expenses'', ``Medical support and
compliance'', and ``Information technology systems'' for
necessary expenses in implementing the provisions of chapters
51, 53, and 55 of title 38, United States Code, the funding
source for which is specifically provided as the
``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: Provided
further, That such sums as may be earned on an actual
qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to ``Medical
care collections fund'' to augment the funding of individual
medical facilities for nursing home care provided to
pensioners as authorized.

readjustment benefits

For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 21, 30,
31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United
States Code, $3,086,944,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That expenses for rehabilitation program
services and assistance which the Secretary is authorized to
provide under subsection (a) of section 3104 of title 38,
United States Code, other than under paragraphs (1), (2),
(5), and (11) of that subsection, shall be charged to this
account.

veterans insurance and indemnities

For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by title 38, United States Code, chapters 19 and
21, $42,300,000, to remain available until expended.

veterans housing benefit program fund program account

For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2009, within the resources available, not
to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for direct loans are
authorized for specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $157,210,000.

vocational rehabilitation loans program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, $61,000, as authorized by
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$3,180,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $320,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.

[[Page 17539]]

native american veteran housing loan program account

For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, $646,000.

guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program
account

For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
transitional housing loan program authorized by subchapter VI
of chapter 20 of title 38, United States Code, not to exceed
$750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this Act for
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical support and
compliance'' may be expended.

Veterans Health Administration

medical services

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United
States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not
under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including
medical supplies and equipment, food services, and salaries
and expenses of health-care employees hired under title 38,
United States Code, and aid to State homes as authorized by
section 1741 of title 38, United States Code;
$30,854,270,000, plus reimbursements, of which not less than
$3,800,000,000 shall be expended for specialty mental health
care: Provided, That of the funds made available under this
heading, not to exceed $1,350,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2010: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall establish a priority for the provision
of medical treatment for veterans who have service-connected
disabilities, lower income, or have special needs: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding
for the provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in
enrollment priority groups 1 through 6: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of
prescription drugs from Veterans Health Administration
facilities to enrolled veterans with privately written
prescriptions based on requirements established by the
Secretary: Provided further, That the implementation of the
program described in the previous proviso shall incur no
additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Provided further, That for the Department of Defense/
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Sharing Incentive
Fund, as authorized by section 8111(d) of title 38, United
States Code, a minimum of $15,000,000, to remain available
until expended, for any purpose authorized by section 8111 of
title 38, United States Code.

medical support and compliance

For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities; and administrative and legal expenses of the
Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the
Department as authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United
States Code, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.): $4,400,000,000, plus reimbursements, of
which $250,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2010.

medical facilities

For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and
other necessary facilities of the Veterans Health
Administration; for administrative expenses in support of
planning, design, project management, real property
acquisition and disposition, construction, and renovation of
any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department; for oversight, engineering, and architectural
activities not charged to project costs; for repairing,
altering, improving, or providing facilities in the several
hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the Department,
not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire
of temporary employees and purchase of materials; for leases
of facilities; and for laundry services, $5,029,000,000, plus
reimbursements, of which $350,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2010: Provided, That $300,000,000 for
non-recurring maintenance provided under this heading shall
be allocated in a manner not subject to the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation.

medical and prosthetic research

For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by
chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, $500,000,000,
plus reimbursements, to remain available until September 30,
2010.

National Cemetery Administration

For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration or
improvement of facilities under the jurisdiction of the
Department, $240,000,000, of which not to exceed $20,000,000
shall be available until September 30, 2010.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perlmutter) assumed the chair.

____________________

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed without amendment a concurrent resolution of
the House of the following title:

H. Con. Res. 398. Concurrent resolution providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will resume its sitting.

____________________

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

The Committee resumed its sitting.

{time} 2200

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Departmental Administration

general operating expenses

For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms, or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail,
$1,801,867,000: Provided, That expenses for services and
assistance authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and
(11) of section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, that
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines are necessary to
enable entitled veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible,
to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable
employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily
living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further,
That the Veterans Benefits Administration shall be funded at
not less than $1,473,753,000: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$75,000,000 shall be available for obligation until September
30, 2010: Provided further, That from the funds made
available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits
Administration may purchase (on a one-for-one replacement
basis only) up to two passenger motor vehicles for use in
operations of that Administration in Manila, Philippines.

information technology systems

For necessary expenses for information technology systems
and telecommunications support, including developmental
information systems and operational information systems;
including pay and associated cost; for the capital asset
acquisition of information technology systems, including
management and related contractual costs of said
acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with
operations authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, $2,492,066,000, plus reimbursements, to be
available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That none of
these funds may be obligated until the Department of Veterans
Affairs submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress, and such Committees approve, a plan for
expenditure that: (1) meets the capital planning and
investment control review requirements established by the
Office of Management and Budget; (2) complies with the
Department of Veterans Affairs enterprise architecture; (3)
conforms with an established enterprise life cycle
methodology; and (4) complies with the acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and systems acquisition management
practices of the Federal Government: Provided further, That
within 30 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a reprogramming
base letter which provides, by project, the costs included in
this appropriation.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to returning to that point in
the reading?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page 17540]]

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 36, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $18,018,000)''.
Page 41, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $18,018,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I often come to the floor,
and I often preface my remarks when I have an amendment, saying that I
come to the floor tonight with a commonsense amendment. Quite candidly,
I think that is more than apropos when I speak about what I'm here to
speak about tonight.
My amendment simply does this: It seeks to increase the funds for
State veterans homes, and it does so in the amount of $18 million. From
where does it get the money? Well, it does so by reducing the
administrative expenses by a mere less than 1 percent, and that's a
critical number, less than 1 percent. We believe that within that over
billion dollar line that there is more than enough aptitude for going
in and for finding less than 1 percent of additional funds that we
could take out and put to a worthy cause such as toward our State
veterans homes.
Today, there are 126 State extended care facilities. They're extended
across all 50 States and in Puerto Rico as well. These veterans homes
care for nearly 30,000 of our Nation's heroes. The number of veterans
requiring care will continue to increase as servicemembers return from
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Currently, there is a backlog, a huge, extensive backlog of projects
waiting for funds. Now, many of these projects on this waiting list are
critical for providing veterans with a healthy and secure environment.
In fact, of the almost 200 projects waiting for Federal funds, nearly
half of them are classified as priority 1.
I believe it is our duty to see that these facilities are able to
provide the highest quality of care for the lives of those who have
made the sacrifices for our Nation. After all, you can't really just
call these things ``institutions'' anymore. These really are the homes
where our veterans will spend out the days of their lives.
The staffs of these homes work hard to honor our veterans and to
ensure that their last years are spent in comfort. I've had the
pleasure now of working with folks back at the Paramus Veterans Home in
my district in Bergen County, New Jersey. I've frequently visited with
them and with their relatives who would come and visit, and local
veterans organizations around the area would also come in, and they
would work with them. These service organizations have worked hard to
raise matching funds for these types of essential projects at these
facilities. Likewise, they do across the Nation and, I'm sure, in each
of your districts as well.
I would also like to make one other point. That is, in the Senate
bill, in the Senate MilCon-VA Appropriations bill, they designate
$1.779 billion for general operating expenses while the House version
designates $1.801 billion. So we appropriate a little bit more than the
Senate does. So that 1 percent cut from the appropriations line for the
general operating expenses would still leave more money in the final
version of the bill than the Senate version currently has. We know we
have different numbers here so that, when it gets to conference, those
numbers have to come into an equilibrium of some sense. We're up here.
The Senate is over here. This will bring us closer to that equilibrium.
In addition, our colleagues over on the Senate Appropriations
Committee have approved $250 million for the State veterans homes while
the House budget only puts in $165 million. So my amendment would
simply reduce this discrepancy by increasing the funding for State
veterans homes by $18 million. In other words, we're in the House at
$165 million. The Senate is at $250 million. We're just trying to bring
the House number up a little bit closer to where the Senate is, which
probably will happen once it gets into conference committee, because
those numbers have to work together.
So I'm just suggesting that a tiny, less than 1 percent cut in the
administrative operations would allow us to provide our country's
heroes with a better quality of life, and I think that's what we owe
all of them. I hope that we can find a way to work together across the
aisle to honor our vets and to make sure that they receive excellent
care in all of their facilities.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me begin by saying to my colleague from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that I salute his focus on the importance of
increasing the funding for State extended care facilities, long-term
care for America's veterans. That is exactly why, as the chairman of
this subcommittee, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with our other
subcommittee members and with Mr. Wamp, the ranking member, to increase
by 94 percent above President Bush's request of funding for this
program, 94 percent above the President's request. So I have no problem
with the intent of what he is trying to accomplish, because we've been
working on this very issue for months this year, and the bill product
is proof of the success of that effort.
The reason I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment is that it
would take funding out of the very account that is needed to address
one of our veterans' and veterans service organizations' highest
priorities in the entire VA budget, and that is to reduce the
unconscionable backlog of veterans who are waiting to have their claims
processed, including a backlog for combat wounded veterans to have
their benefit cases considered.
Right now, there are nearly 400,000 veterans waiting to get their
claims processed. What this amendment would do is take enough money out
of that budget that would require the VA to cut 250 claims processors.
Maybe that sounds like a rounding error to some, but to America's
veterans, to 390,000 of them to be exact who are waiting for the
processing of their benefits they earned by service and even by their
sacrifice to our country, that's a significant cut, and it would do
great harm to one of the highest priorities of our veterans service
organizations.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield at this point?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'd like to finish first.
So I wish the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and that we
would continue to work in good faith as we already have this year, and
that's evidenced by the 94 percent increase above the President's
request for these.
I cannot go along with cutting funding that could lead to the loss of
250 claims processors that would link them to an already 6-month delay.
For 6 months our veterans are having to wait to get their claims
considered.
Our servicemen and -women, Mr. Chairman, didn't delay when Uncle Sam
sent them to combat. They went to all parts of the Earth and into
harm's way when our country asked them to do so. They didn't ask for a
6-month delay. For the National Guardsmen, the 500 I met last Sunday
afternoon in my hometown of Waco, many of whom are going back to Iraq
for their second and third tours of duty, they didn't wait 6 months
when their country called on them to duty, and I don't think it's right
to ask 390,000 veterans to wait 6 months.
We desperately need to get that waiting time down, and I think,
though well intended and for a good cause--and it is well intended and
it is a good cause--that this amendment that I have strongly supported
could do harm to 390,000 veterans. That's why I rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
If I have some time remaining, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It appears that we're on the same page on this, but let me just make
this one suggestion:
While the 250 positions are out there and while there's a waiting
list out there for that group, there's also, as I've suggested, around
200-some-odd projects or more, actually, over half of which are on a
critical category 1 list.

[[Page 17541]]

So we have two important lists that have long waiting lists that have
to be addressed.
My suggestion is that, if this were to pass and if we were to reduce
the funds by $18 million, there's nothing in the amendment that says to
the administration take the $18 million out of this over $1.4 billion
line and take it from the 250. You and I would have to agree that they
must be able to find some other area to take it from than these 250.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman
never identified where he would cut the money from specifically, and
this is the account that funds our claims processors that are
desperately needed. I'd be happy to continue to work with the gentleman
in a good faith, bipartisan effort to look for every dollar we can find
for extended care facilities, but let's not take that out of the hide
of nearly 400,000 veterans who have been waiting 6 months to get their
benefits started.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
to include information technology, in carrying out the
provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), $87,818,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2010.

construction, major projects

For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities, including parking projects, under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections
316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122
of title 38, United States Code, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, construction
management services, maintenance or guarantee period services
costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the
project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and
storm drainage system construction costs, and site
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more
than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title
38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were
made available in a previous major project appropriation,
$923,382,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$10,000,000 shall be to make reimbursements as provided in
section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C.
612) for claims paid for contract disputes: Provided, That
except for advance planning activities, including needs
assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments,
and other capital asset management related activities,
including portfolio development and management activities,
and investment strategy studies funded through the advance
planning fund and the planning and design activities funded
through the design fund, including needs assessments which
may or may not lead to capital investments, and funds
provided for the purchase of land for the National Cemetery
Administration through the land acquisition line item, none
of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be used
for any project which has not been approved by the Congress
in the budgetary process: Provided further, That funds
provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 2009, for each
approved project shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a
construction documents contract by September 30, 2009; and
(2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September
30, 2010: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall promptly submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a written report on
any approved major construction project for which obligations
are not incurred within the time limitations established
above: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated
in this or any other Act may be used to reduce the mission,
services, or infrastructure, including land, of the 18
facilities on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services (CARES) list requiring further study, as specified
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, without prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated
in this paragraph, $798,852,000 shall be for the site
specific projects, and in the amounts, specified under this
heading in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives to accompany this bill.

construction, minor projects

For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities, including parking projects, under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which
may lead to capital investments, architectural and
engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period
services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided
under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite
utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and
site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in
sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110,
8122, and 8162 of title 38, United States Code, where the
estimated cost of a project is equal to or less than the
amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United
States Code, $991,492,000, to remain available until
expended, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such
section: Provided, That funds in this account shall be
available for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department which are necessary because of loss or damage
caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Buyer

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Buyer:

Page 41, line 14, before the period insert ``: Provided
further: That $7,000,000 of the amount appropriated in this
paragraph shall be for the installation of alternative
fueling stations at 35 medical facility campuses''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would provide $7
million of the amount appropriated in the Department of Veterans
Affairs' VA Minor Construction account. These moneys shall be used for
the VA to install alternative fueling stations at 35 of its medical
facility campuses across the country. This is one of many measures that
can be taken to address the impact of the rising energy prices and to
alleviate our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
We have an energy crisis in this country, and unfortunately, some are
not taking action before we leave on this August break. The House will
recess, and we'll go 5 weeks, and we'll not be taking up meaningful
energy legislation, but we have an opportunity tonight.
It was in 2007 that President Bush issued executive order 13423,
``strengthening Federal environment, energy and transportation
management,'' mandating a reduction of the amount of petroleum
consumption for Federal transportation.
In compliance with the President's order, the VA has taken steps to
install E-85, ethanol fueling stations, at six VA medical centers--in
Altoona, Pennsylvania, in Augusta, Georgia, in Cleveland, Ohio, in
Danville, Illinois, in Little Rock, Arkansas, and most recently in San
Francisco, California.
I would think that Speaker Pelosi would want other VA facilities in
other States and members' districts to have the very same fueling
stations that are available at the San Francisco VA medical center in
her own congressional district.
According to the VA, it has nearly 11,000 vehicles that collectively
travel more than 100 million miles a year. The VA acquired over 1,000
Alternative Fuel Vehicles in FY 2007, and 99 percent of these are
flexible fuel vehicles that can use E-85. The installation of
alternative fuel stations at more VA sites would have a huge impact on
the reduction of greenhouse gases and in the amount of petroleum
consumed. Based on recent discussions with the Department, I am
confident that, if funding is provided, the VA could install
alternative fueling stations at the 35 additional sites.
Mr. Edwards knows full well that he is about $662 million above the
President's request and nearly $361 million more than in FY 2008.

[[Page 17542]]

So, again, in facing the tremendous energy challenge in this Nation,
we must act collectively in a bipartisan fashion to reduce our
dependence on bad actors around the world that control our energy
supplies. There are more than a dozen alternative and advanced fuels in
production and that used today, one of which is E-85, an 85 percent
ethanol mixture, which in the United States is based primarily on corn.
Investing in the use of alternative transportation fuel services is one
way to help increase the supply of American-made fuel.
I think Mr. Edwards and I would agree we're anxious to get to
nonedible fiber--cellulosic ethanol.
This use of renewable domestic energy sources will contribute to an
enhancement of energy security, and it will reduce the reliance on
foreign oil. The installation of alternative fueling stations on VA
campuses will reduce greenhouse emissions and the VA's gasoline costs,
and it will provide funds for direct health care services for the men
and women who have taken the oath to defend the freedoms and our way of
life.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me just commend Mr. Buyer for not only his
leadership on veterans affairs over the years but for this amendment. I
think this is a reasonable, responsible amendment, and I'll be glad to
support it.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2215

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAMP. I do want to point out, in follow-up support to the
gentleman's amendment, about how important it is for us to advance
alternative sources just across the board throughout the military. The
Military Construction bill is kind of a small piece, frankly, of the
energy utilization across the entire Department of Defense, but it is
something that we clearly should come together on.
The military is a tremendous user of energy, we all know that. There
is no question that we can do better there. And this was an excellent
amendment offered by a gentleman who's got just tremendous history here
with the Veterans Committee and a great patriot. So I think we want to
encourage all of those type uses as we move forward.
We're coming together here on the bill tonight, I think we're making
great progress. Over the next 2 to 3 hours I think we can get through
the rest of the sections of this bill. Certain Members are working out
agreements as I speak right now, and so we're trying to draft this
language. And I'm kind of keeping the ball rolling now, as you can
tell, so that we can get this language drafted. I think we're making
the progress that we need tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BUYER. I would like to thank Chairman Chet Edwards. I would like
to thank Zach Wamp. And to my good friend from Texas that I've worked
with for many years, we have a challenge in front of us with regard to
an amendment. And the challenge is that I've prepared an amendment that
$150 million, Mr. Chairman, would be dedicated under the minor
construction account--for which there's a lot of dollars here--for the
installation of appropriate solar electric energy roof applications.
Now, we had several meetings, Chairman Edwards, with a lot of
lawyers, and the lawyers were looking at the applications of the rules
and the processes. The interesting thing is, when we drafted the
amendment--we're having the conversation that you said we didn't have
time to do in private, so we're having to do it in public. So I have to
do it now before we actually get into the details of the amendment.
So when I did the amendment, we put it at the end, on page 41 here,
line 14. Now, when I put it there on the applications of solar, my
assumption is that when you then look at all the general authorities,
section 316, that's about colocation authority; section 2404, that's
administration; 2406 is acquisition; 8102 is also acquisition--one is
acquisition of land, 2406; 8102 is acquisition of medical facilities;
8103, that's minor construction. All these other sections have nothing
to do with solar.
So my assumption, Mr. Chairman, when I put this in here, I did not
put at the end of the amendment ``at VA medical facilities.'' My
assumption is that, well, we're not going to put it on tombstones,
we're not going to put it in a parking lot, and it doesn't apply
anywhere else.
But when I talked with the lawyers, they're like, you know, Steve,
you just can't do it like that. And you need to actually have at the
end the words ``at VA medical facilities.'' So now I've got myself in a
bit of a jam.
Now, Mr. Edwards, we can do this several ways: I could offer the
amendment. I could then present all the arguments of solar and what the
VA is presently doing in the 16 sites that they're proceeding with. And
if you say, well, but I don't like the amount, I could do a UC, we
could agree to a particular amount, we could add the language. We go to
conference. If you say, nope, we're not going to have anything, okay.
Well, what could I do? I could look at your language--which is general
language--and say, well, that's fine; whatever you do at conference,
that's fine with me. I'll just go down and I'll work with the
Secretary. I'll negotiate with the Secretary and I'll take whatever
those monies are and we'll do it that way.
But what I want to do with you, Chairman Edwards, is that you and I
have worked together a lot over the years. And you and I are in
agreement when it comes to alternative sources of energy. So let's be
practical. If you want to say to me, Steve, don't do $150 million;
lower the amount, add the language, we'll work this out in conference
and we'll work with the Secretary, that's how we work these things out.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Well, I was prepared to perfect your amendment, if it's
ruled in order, with the words ``at VA medical facilities'' to make
sure that it complied with the letter of the law. But I think it's an
outstanding amendment. And I would like to see it see the light of day,
but I understand there may be a point of order reserved.
Mr. BUYER. I would like to reclaim my time and now have a
conversation with the chairman. You said you wanted to have one.
I'm going to give great deference here, which way do you want me to
go?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, the gentleman talked a few minutes ago
about how we've worked together; and I think 10 minutes ago was an
example of that where I accepted the gentleman's $7 million amendment.
On this one, I think the gentleman's explanation about all the
problems that have occurred are the perfect reason why I have real
concerns about an amendment that already has technical problems in it,
an amendment that could deal with up to $150 million coming out of
minor construction projects, which are so important for our VA
hospitals and clinics, I think this just isn't the right way to handle
an amendment of that magnitude.
I think the gentleman knows me well; and I will work with him and Mr.
Wamp in all good faith and see, as we go to conference, if there are
places we can find reasonable funding sources for solar applications.
But taking $150 million, for example, would be 15 percent of the VA's
minor construction project. And the very intent of that funding is to
prevent in the VA system what Americans were outraged at in the Army
hospital system at Walter Reed.
Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, when I make the UC to add ``at VA

[[Page 17543]]

medical facilities,'' what amount do you feel is reasonable?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Buyer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. And the gentleman's question is what amount is
reasonable?
Mr. BUYER. What amount do you think is reasonable?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, what's not reasonable, I would say to the
gentleman, is trying to decide at 10:25 at night an amendment that has
already had technical difficulties, an amendment we haven't had a
hearing on in our subcommittee--we had 20 hearings over 100 hours, this
issue never came up.
So my intention is to object to the unanimous consent request, but in
good faith, just as I showed a few minutes ago on the $7 million
amendment, let's continue to work together and see if we can find a
way. I think having solar panels at VA facilities is something that can
be an excellent idea, but this isn't the way to bring about that
policy.
Mr. BUYER. I reclaim my time. I will offer the amendment, we'll go
through the procedures, we'll talk about solar, and we'll work with you
as we go to conference. If it's not there, I'll just go right down
Pennsylvania Avenue and I'll work with the administration and we'll get
the number necessary to fund the 16 sites. That's how the town works.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Buyer

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Buyer:
Page 41, line 14, before the period insert ``: Provided
further: That $150,000,000 of the amount appropriated in this
paragraph shall be for the installation of appropriate solar
electric energy roof applications''.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $150 million of
the amount appropriated in the Department of Veterans Affairs minor
construction account for the installation of solar electronic roof
applications.
Qualified solar technologies to be considered included, but not
limited to, distributed thin-film solar, amorphous crystalline, nano
photovoltaic, and technology systems. What we're trying to do is
harness the energy of the sun.
Alternative and renewable sources, such as solar power--whether it's
wind, geothermal, hydrogen, biomass--all of these are extremely
important. They play an important role in addressing rising energy
prices and alleviate our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
We have an energy crisis in this country. Peak oil is approaching
year 2037. We need to rebalance the Nation's portfolio. And in order to
do that, we increase our Nation's energy supply to bridge ourselves
beyond the alternative energy future in which we seek. We must begin to
act and to take decisive measures to address the impact of high energy
costs on the Department of Veterans Affairs.
VA medical centers consume large amounts of energy, especially for
advanced technologies such as CAT scans, MRIs, that are necessary to
provide state-of-the-art medical technologies.
Between 2005 and 2007, VA's energy costs increased by 20 percent.
Last year, the VA identified 16 potential sites for solar projects.
It's in Calverton, New York; Gustine, California; Phoenix, Arizona;
Fresno, California; West Los Angeles, California; Loma Linda,
California; Long Beach, California; Dallas, Texas; Palo Alto,
California; Sheridan, Wyoming; Reno, Nevada; Tucson, Arizona; Syracuse,
New York; Buffalo, New York; West Haven, Connecticut; and Albany, New
York. Yes, I am on the floor asking that we fund 11 Democrat districts
and five Republican.
Last year, when they identified these, they did feasibility studies
with regard to these 16 sites. This summer, the VA plans to move
forward to install rooftop solar systems at two sites, Loma Linda and
Dallas.
Solar technologies, they diversify our energy supply, they reduce our
dependence on imported fuels, improve our air quality, and offset
greenhouse gases.
And I'm also interested that, as we move toward American-made energy
solutions, that we buy solar systems that are made in America, not ones
that are made in China or in Germany or in other places. We should do
it here.
At this point, I would like to clarify the amendment. I ask unanimous
consent that at the end of my amendment, after the word
``applications,'' insert the following: ``At VA medical facilities.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the amount
of $150 million and insert the amount of $75 million.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I object.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we continue to invest
now to reduce the energy costs into the future. The opportunity to
employ this technology at the VA, the second largest department within
the Federal Government, is now.
Now, I had hoped that we could have done this tonight. I'll continue
to work with you, Mr. Chairman.
To the country, this isn't a good message to send. I will speak with
the Secretary in the morning. I will work with him. I will let him know
that you're sending down $662 million above the President's request,
$361 million more than FY08. And because he has, right now, these 16
projects, I believe there's more than sufficient funds here to move on
solar applications.
I would have hoped that we could have done this in a bipartisan
fashion; that is really unfortunate. And I will work with the Secretary
to ensure that alternative sources of energy are used in the VA.
With that, I yield back my time.

{time} 2230

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point
of order?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think anyone who has listened
to this debate over the last few minutes at 10:30 at night understands
this isn't about partisanship at all. But I think what the American
people would object to is going from $150 million to $75 million to
whatever other number that we might pull out of our hat this late in
the evening on a measure that wasn't considered for 1 minute in the 19
hearings we held covering over 100 hours.
I salute the gentleman, my friend and colleague. I salute the
gentleman for his goal of trying to encourage the VA, and I want to
encourage the Department of Defense as well, to use solar energy, to
lessen our energy costs and our dependence upon foreign energy
supplies. That is a worthwhile goal.
But, Mr. Chairman, appropriation bills are about setting priorities.
And let me tell you my priority, and I'm proud to defend this priority.
My priority is that I never want one American veteran to ever have to
live in the unconscionable conditions that Army soldiers had to live in
at Walter Reed Annex 18 last year. The American people were deeply
offended by what they saw.

[[Page 17544]]

So our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis in good faith to
see that we plus-up the minor construction accounts in the VA to
provide the kind of renovation so that we don't see that kind of
nightmare occurring in the VA system that occurred in the Army medical
system. And despite the worthiness of the gentleman's goals, even
though it's so late at night and talking about sums such as $150
million, the fact is that loss of money for minor construction could
cause the VA to have to cancel 25 to 30 significant construction
projects to help provide better care, more modernized facilities for
our veterans. So that is why I object to this amendment.
And I do look forward to working with the gentleman. If he wants to
work in good faith, that will be my commitment to him. But it ought to
be on a carefully thought-out process, weighing not only the pluses of
his laudable goals but the minuses of where he would take that money
from. That's the right way to handle the American taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. WAMP. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield.
Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you on your
statement. And, again, we are bipartisan partners here. But I would
point out that had we not had the preprinting requirement that was
talked about earlier that we're living under, the fluidity of modifying
amendments or amounts on the floor is part of the way that the
appropriations process works.
We do have a great bill. But the neat thing about appropriations is
when you bring a great bill to the floor, the Members of the House, all
of them, do have the ability to make changes or make improvements or
make suggestions, and, frankly, that is what the gentleman is trying to
do. So I want to make that point, and to say that it's not late. We can
start talking about how late it is, but this bill has been ready for
the floor for 35 days. So as far as I'm concerned, we are not late
tonight. We have got plenty of time to debate these things. So I don't
want to--especially these gentlemen, the chairman and ranking member
from the Veterans Affairs Committee who want to bring these ideas to
the floor on an appropriation bill, that's kind of the nature of an
appropriations process. It is an open process. We do have a great bill.
I don't think it's a perfect bill not subject to amendment by the
Members of the House.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that the
Rules Committee allowed any Member to offer any amendment to this bill
with the only request that it be preprinted in the Congressional Record
so the public and veterans organizations could see what those
amendments would be. And this kind of confusion at this time of night
is probably a good example of why that was a smart rule to require that
kind of preprinting.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say I would never
apologize for having a rule which requires all Members of the House to
be aware ahead of time what amendments they will be asked to consider.
It seems to me that the proper time to raise the questions raised by
the gentleman who seeks to offer the amendment is before the bill ever
hits the floor. It seems to me that if the authorizing committee or any
member thereof has some ideas that they would like to see included in
the appropriation bill that the best way to work in the legislative
body is to talk to people ahead of time about it so that we don't have
to make these horseback, half-baked judgments at 10:30 in the evening.
Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Surely.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Point of Order

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a
program that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause
2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. BUYER. I would like to speak on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. BUYER. First, it's very unfortunate that solar would be kicked
out on an attempt of a technicality. Let me go right to the point of
order.
The amendment refers to title 38, U.S. Code, Section 8103. It
provides VA the authority to ``construct'' and ``alter.'' So you can
see that in the very first line; so 8103(a)(1) ``may construct or alter
any medical facility.'' Now, it's any medical facility as the Secretary
considers necessary for use of the site. Section 8101 of title 38,
United States Code, defines the term ``alter'' with respect to medical
facility means to repair, remodel, improve, or extend. So this section
8103 is general authority. Specific authority would come under--and
this is minor construction. So under general authority, the Secretary
has great discretion. With regard to specific authority, it would come
under Section 8104. That would be designations of CBOCs, anything above
$10 million comes under Section 8104.
What I refer to, and this is what the Parliamentarians make sure
everybody has, it's the House Practice guide, the Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House. So when I go to page 84, the
authorization from specific statutes in this paragraph, Mr. Chairman,
so this was page 84, and it's entitled under Authorization From
Specific Statutes Or General Existing Law; so what I have done is refer
to the general law, not the specific. This is the general law.
``Authorization for a program may be derived from a specific law
providing authority for that particular program or from a more general
existing law,'' which means organic law, or ``authorizing
appropriations for such programs.''
So what's happened over the years, it's not like the Armed Services
Committee, Chairman Edwards.
Mr. Chairman, we don't bring that annual VA authorization bill. So
what has happened over the decades, Mr. Chairman, is that we have
always relied on the 8103 as the general authority provision.
Now, if you say, well, Steve, when you look at this amendment, when
you look at the amendment, because you don't put ``VA facility'' at the
end, well, then we might interpret that as applications to all other
sections. Mr. Chairman, that's why I said the mistake that was made
was, was that all of these other sections don't even apply to solar.
There's only one of these sections that would apply to solar, and that
is the medical facilities section, and that is the 8103.
So my appeal to you is that by putting this solar amendment here at
the end of the paragraph, there is only one section here in which it
applies to, and that's section 8103.
So when the chairman said you don't have the authorization, I would
appeal to the Chair that general authority exists within the minor
construction statute for us to do this, and that would be my argument
on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would just say briefly I think
the Chair has received plenty of advice on this point of order, and now
I would like to ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an
authorization in law.
Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument from both
parties on the point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the
item of appropriation in question is authorized in

[[Page 17545]]

law. Specifically, the amendment is not confined to medical facilities.
The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order
raised by the gentleman from Texas under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
Mr. BUYER. I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion to appeal the ruling.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The appeal is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

grants for construction of state extended care facilities

For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify, or alter existing hospital, nursing home, and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by sections 8131 through 8137 of title
38, United States Code, $165,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

grants for construction of state veterans cemeteries

For grants to assist States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by section
2408 of title 38, United States Code, $45,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Administrative Provisions

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2009 for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred as
necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations:
Provided, That before a transfer may take place, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and such Committees issue an
approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days has
elapsed.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 202. Amounts made available for fiscal year 2009, in
this Act or any other Act, under the ``Medical services'',
``Medical support and compliance'', and ``Medical
facilities'' accounts may be transferred among the accounts
to the extent necessary to implement the restructuring of the
Veterans Health Administration accounts: Provided, That
before a transfer may take place, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall request from the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer
and an approval is issued.
Sec. 203. Appropriations available in this title for
salaries and expenses shall be available for services
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land
or both; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized
by sections 5901 through 5902 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 204. No appropriations in this title (except the
appropriations for ``Construction, major projects'', and
``Construction, minor projects'') shall be available for the
purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any
new hospital or home.
Sec. 205. No appropriations in this title shall be
available for hospitalization or examination of any persons
(except beneficiaries entitled to such hospitalization or
examination under the laws providing such benefits to
veterans, and persons receiving such treatment under sections
7901 through 7904 of title 5, United States Code, or the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless reimbursement of the
cost of such hospitalization or examination is made to the
``Medical services'' account at such rates as may be fixed by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Appropriations available in this title for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be
recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts
within the last quarter of fiscal year 2008.
Sec. 207. Appropriations available in this title shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections
3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable only from ``Compensation and
pensions''.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2009, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance
Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating
expenses'' and ``Information technology systems'' account for
the cost of administration of the insurance programs financed
through those accounts: Provided, That reimbursement shall be
made only from the surplus earnings accumulated in such an
insurance program during fiscal year 2009 that are available
for dividends in that program after claims have been paid and
actuarially determined reserves have been set aside: Provided
further, That if the cost of administration of such an
insurance program exceeds the amount of surplus earnings
accumulated in that program, reimbursement shall be made only
to the extent of such surplus earnings: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall determine the cost of administration
for fiscal year 2009 which is properly allocable to the
provision of each such insurance program and to the provision
of any total disability income insurance included in that
insurance program.
Sec. 209. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease
proceeds to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by
that account during a prior fiscal year for providing
enhanced-use lease services, may be obligated during the
fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 210. Funds available in this title or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management of
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of
Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under
section 319 of title 38, United States Code, for all services
provided at rates which will recover actual costs but not
exceed $34,158,000 for the Office of Resolution Management
and $3,278,000 for the Office of Employment and
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication: Provided, That
payments may be made in advance for services to be furnished
based on estimated costs: Provided further, That amounts
received shall be credited to ``General operating expenses''
and ``Information technology systems'' for use by the office
that provided the service.
Sec. 211. No appropriations in this title shall be
available to enter into any new lease of real property if the
estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 unless the
Secretary submits a report which the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress approve within 30
days following the date on which the report is received.
Sec. 212. No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs
shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or
medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected
disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title,
unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current,
accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes
of section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the Secretary
may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the
United States, the reasonable charges for such care or
services from any person who does not make such disclosure as
required: Provided further, That any amounts so recovered for
care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be
obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which
amounts are received.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, at
the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, proceeds
or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing activities
(including disposal) may be deposited into the
``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including
site acquisition and disposition), alterations, and
improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction
or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such
sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for
in ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects''.
Sec. 214. Amounts made available under ``Medical
services'' are available--
(1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and
equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other
expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries
receiving care in the Department.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 215. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical
Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical
services'', to remain available until expended for the
purposes of that account.
Sec. 216. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall allow veterans who are
eligible under existing Department of Veterans Affairs
medical care requirements and who reside in Alaska to obtain
medical care services from medical facilities supported by
the Indian Health Service or tribal organizations. The
Secretary shall: (1) limit the application of this provision
to rural Alaskan veterans in areas where an existing
Department of Veterans Affairs facility or Veterans Affairs-
contracted service is unavailable; (2) require participating
veterans and facilities to comply with all appropriate rules
and regulations, as established by the Secretary; (3) require
this provision to be consistent with Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services activities; and (4) result
in no additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs
or the Indian Health Service.

[[Page 17546]]

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 217. Such sums as may be deposited to the Department
of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section
8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to
the ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction,
minor projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended
for the purposes of these accounts.
Sec. 218. None of the funds available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in this Act, or any other Act, may be used
to replace the current system by which the Veterans
Integrated Services Networks select and contract for diabetes
monitoring supplies and equipment.
Sec. 219. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors
of the Veterans Integrated Services Networks from conducting
outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their
respective Networks.
Sec. 220. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a quarterly report on the financial status of the
Veterans Health Administration.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 221. Amounts made available under the ``Medical
services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', ``Medical
facilities'', ``General operating expenses'', and ``National
Cemetery Administration'' accounts for fiscal year 2009, may
be transferred to or from the ``Information technology
systems'' account: Provided, That before a transfer may take
place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
the authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued.
Sec. 222. Amounts made available for the ``Information
technology systems'' account may be transferred between
projects: Provided, That no project may be increased or
decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting
a request to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress to make the transfer and an approval is issued,
or absent a response, a period of 30 days has elapsed.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 223. Any balances in prior year accounts established
for the payment of benefits under the Reinstated Entitlement
Program for Survivors shall be transferred to and merged with
amounts available under the ``Compensation and pensions''
account, and, hereinafter, receipts that would otherwise be
credited to the accounts established for the payment of
benefits under the Reinstated Entitlement Program for
Survivors program shall be credited to amounts available
under the ``Compensation and pensions'' account.
Sec. 224. Section 1710(f)(2)(B) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008,'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2009,''.
Sec. 225. Section 1729(a)(2)(E) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``October 1, 2008,'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2009,''.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of inquiry.
Mr. WAMP. Will you restate how far you've read?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Page 51, line 11.
Mr. WAMP. No objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments?

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of title II (page 51, after line 11), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 226. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
increase the number of medical centers specializing in post-
traumatic stress disorder in underserved urban areas, which
shall include using the services of existing health care
entities, pursuant to the authority in section 1703 of title
38, United States Code.
(b) At least one of the existing health care institutions
used by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) shall be--
(1) located in an area defined as a HUBzone (as that term
is defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632(p)) on the basis of one or more qualified census
tracts;
(2) located within a State that has sustained more than
five percent of the total casualties suffered by the United
States Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom; and
(3) have at least 7 years experience and significant
expertise in providing treatment and counseling services with
respect to substance abuse, alcohol addiction, and
psychiatric or stress-related disorders to populations with
special needs, including veterans and members of the Armed
Forces serving on active duty.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer and withdraw
an amendment on this particular bill.
The amendment has to do with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
calling upon them to increase the number of medical centers
specializing in posttraumatic stress disorder in underserved urban
areas, which shall include using the services of existing health care
entities pursuant to the authority in section 1703.
This particular amendment has to do with ensuring the cooperation
with existing health care institutions used by the Secretary pursuant
to subsection (a).
I would like to see these facilities located in an area defined as a
HUBZone and as well in an area that covers rural areas. I would like to
see, according to my amendment, that these facilities would be located
within a State that has sustained more than 5 percent of the total
casualties suffered by the United States Armed Forces in Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

{time} 2245

I am very pleased that, under the leadership of Chairman Edwards,
longstanding leadership, that the legislation that we have before us
includes more dollars for mental health and substance abuse, and as
well some $3.8 billion, and also it includes $200 million to address
the question of fee-based services in the Veterans' Affairs medical
system. It also has additional money, $5 billion, for medical
facilities and $165 million for extended care.
My amendment was to recognize the plain facts of combat, as we have
seen more and more soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan
wounded not only physically but mentally. Most of these soldiers have
seen--94 percent of the soldiers in Iraq have reported receiving small
arms fire, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who
was seriously injured. Some similar numbers we are finding in
Afghanistan because we have seen an increased amount of combat in
Afghanistan.
And so, Mr. Chairman, my concern is to ensure that we have the right
kind of facilities for our soldiers that are returning. So I offer this
amendment because I thought it was very important to include hospitals
like Riverside General Hospital, the only historically black hospital I
believe remaining in the United States, founded and organized by a
World War II veteran, or family of a World War II soldier.
I would hope that as we move toward the conference, since this
amendment is now being withdrawn as I conclude my remarks, I am hoping
that we will be able to work with the committee and ensure that we have
the opportunity to make this work.
I'd like to yield to the chairman, if I could. I'd like to yield to
the gentleman about the amendment that I have that has to do with
providing post-traumatic stress disorder facilities in collaboration
with existing facilities.
I think this is a good amendment. I am offering and withdrawing it in
cooperation with the committee. I won't go down to 1600 Pennsylvania
and work with the White House, but I would like to work with this
committee and this chairman, and thank him for his leadership, as well
as Chairman Filner, who has been more than powerful, if you will, on
the issues of veterans.
This has to do with putting these facilities in historically
underserved

[[Page 17547]]

areas and, as I indicated to you, Riverside Hospital has an initial
grant. We are having some difficulty in making sure they get their
moneys from the last time. But I think we need more of these
facilities.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, my
colleague. She has been a champion for fighting for more funding in the
VA for mental health care services for our veterans. Because of that,
and the support of others in this House, which she has been a real
leader in this effort, we will have added $900 million above the last
year funding level for specialty mental health care services for our
veterans.
The VA will have a great deal of discretion in how to spend that
money. I would imagine the importance of the VA health care center in
Houston and the number of veterans there, that it should be one of the
beneficiaries of this funding.
I know because of this being an appropriation bill, there were
technical reasons why there was a point of order that potentially
lodged against this amendment. But that point of order will not keep us
from working closely together to fulfill your goal of seeing that we
have first-class quality mental health care services for veterans in
underserved areas and urban areas across our country.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If I could reclaim my time and say that the
underpinnings of this amendment has to do with existing satellite
facilities such as Riverside Hospital that could be in collaboration. I
would be very grateful if I could work with the chairman and full
committee, and I want to acknowledge the chairman of the full committee
in looking at that as we go into conference, as to whether or not we
can at least ensure that those facilities will be looked at.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. We look forward to that.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the bill and in favor of
my amendment. I also rise to express my sincere appreciation to Mr.
Edwards, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs and Military Construction, and the Chairman of the Veterans
Affairs Committee, Mr. Filner, for all they have done and continue to
do to make real President Lincoln's admonition that ``we care for him
who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.''
In particular, I wish to commend Chairman Edwards, for the
leadership, commitment, and foresight he has demonstrated on the issue
of PTSD and the overall mental health of our nation's veterans. Like
Mr. Edwards and Mr. Filner, I am committed to improving the lives of
thousands of veterans who have risked their lives for our nation, and I
believe my amendment plays a crucial role in ensuring that veterans
suffering from PTSD receive the medical treatment they desperately
need.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment
to H.R. 6599, the ``Veterans Affairs and Military Construction
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2009.'' As a Member of Congress
from Texas, a state which has sustained more casualties in the ongoing
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq than all but one other, I am pleased
to offer this amendment. This amendment is intended to address the
urgent need for more post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment
and counseling facilities servicing veterans living in some of the more
distressed areas of our country.
Mr. Chairman, according to Webster's, dignity is ``the quality or
condition of being esteemed, honored or worthy.'' We can never do
enough to honor our wounded veterans. Studies have shown that 30
percent of troops deployed to Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety, or
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, when wounded troops
return home, the treatment they receive is more befitting a second
class citizen than a hero. This is a shame and a great stain on our
nation.
How these problems could be overlooked or neglected by this
Administration is unfathomable. The very leaders that these brave young
men and women rely let them down. The message that incidents like
Walter Reed Medical Center sends to our troops is that we do not care
enough. But that is not the message we wish to send. The Veterans
Administration and Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2009,
H.R. 6599, will go a long away toward correcting this misapprehension.
All Members of the House are indebted to our colleague, Mr. Edwards of
Texas, for his masterful leadership in shepherding this landmark
legislation to the House floor. For the more than 29,000 brave men and
women who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, help is on the
way. And the over 4,000 heroes who have given the last full measure of
devotion will always be in our hearts and prayers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in post-
traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to
post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since
veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and
treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mr. Chairman, PTSD is one of the most prevalent and devastating
psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women fighting in
far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.
For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it
is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen
and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see
on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an
insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your
face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the
mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your
20th birthday.
But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the
stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your
thoughts and memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous
encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.
PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war
veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such
as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child
abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural
disasters such as floods or earthquakes.
People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb
(especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close),
lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling
affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become
violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original
incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.
PTSD symptoms seem to be worse if the event that triggered them was
deliberately initiated by another person, as in a mugging or a
kidnapping. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their
thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are
called flashbacks. Flashbacks may consist of images, sounds, smells, or
feelings, and are often triggered by ordinary occurrences, such as a
door slamming or a car backfiring on the street. A person having a
flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic
incident is happening all over again.
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD
also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.
These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression,
alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety
disorders.
The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most continuous
combat operations since Vietnam. Soldiers in Iraq are at risk for being
killed or wounded themselves, are likely to have witnessed the
suffering of others, and may have participated in killing or wounding
others as part of combat operations. All of these activities have a
demonstrated association with the development of PTSD. One study
indicated that 94 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small-
arms fire. In addition, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing
someone who was seriously injured or killed, 68 percent reported seeing
dead or seriously injured Americans, and 51 percent reported handling
or uncovering human remains. The majority, 77 percent of soldiers
deployed to Iraq reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy, 48
percent reported being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant,
and 28 percent reported being responsible for the death of a
noncombatant.
My amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost,
human. They carry their experiences with them. Ask a Vietnam Veteran
about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize
that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether
good or bad. My amendment ensures that ``no soldier is left behind.''
By directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the number
of medical facilities specializing in PTSD that are located in
underserved urban areas, and conducting a concurrent study on
increasing access to PTSD treatment at these facilities those soldiers
will never feel forgotten or taken for

[[Page 17548]]

granted. These soldiers can be certain that Members of Congress will
ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that
their adjustment back into society is a successful one.
As the war in Iraq continues to drag on, and with our country
continuing to send military personnel to Afghanistan, the military has
been overwhelmed with returning soldiers suffering from mental health
problems. Earlier this month, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry
consultant to the Army surgeon general, stated ``as the war has gone
on, PTSD and other psychological effects of war have increased. The
number of (mental health workers) that was adequate for a peacetime
military is not adequate for a nation that's been at war.''
Mr. Chairman, according to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20
percent of Army soldiers have demonstrated signs of post-traumatic
stress. Symptoms of this serious disorder include nightmares,
flashbacks, emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of
appetite, memory loss, clinical depression, and anxiety. One year after
returning from combat, approximately 35 percent of soldiers are seeking
some kind of mental health treatment. Among soldiers still stationed in
Iraq and Afghanistan, many incidents of abuse, including killings and
rapes by U.S. soldiers, have been attributed to ethics lapses caused by
the strain of combat.
Mr. Chairman, last Thursday, the Department of Defense released a
report that stated ``current efforts fall significantly short'' in
providing help for troops. Further, this report found that ``[t]he
psychological health needs of America's military service members, their
families and their survivors pose a daunting and growing challenge to
the Department of Defense.''
I urge adoption of my amendment. And I thank the Chairman for his
fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor
where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.
I ask again, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent at this time to withdraw
the amendment, but keeping in mind that veterans and returning soldiers
need service and they need to have the kind of service for PTSD. And I
hope that we will be able to accomplish that.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendments No. 18 and 19 Offered by Mr. Filner

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider my
amendments 18 and 19 en bloc for the purpose of debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will designate the
amendments.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of title II of the bill, (page 51, after line
11), add the following new section:
Sec. 226. Appropriations made available in this title for
``Medical services'' shall be used by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, in an amount not to exceed $250,000,000, to
establish a community grant program to provide rehabilitative
services to veterans and servicemembers with post-traumatic
stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs may enter into cooperative agreements with
States and localities in order to inform veterans and
servicemembers of programs and benefits under this grant
program.
Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of title II of the bill (page 51, after line
11), add the following new section:
Sec. 226. Appropriations made available in this title for
``Medical services'' shall be used by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, to
establish, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, a
heroes' homecoming pilot program to evaluate the
effectiveness of offering compulsory screening, evaluation,
and when indicated, treatment for mental health conditions
such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain
injury, to servicemembers (and immediate family members)
returning from deployment and those recently discharged.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentlemen from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Authorizing
Committee, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I want to thank
Chairman Edwards, Chairman Obey, and his ranking members, for giving us
this bill and a whole series of bills that preceded this since our
party has taken over the majority of this body.
Not only have we for the first time with fiscal years 2008 and 2009
exceeded the budget requests in the so-called independent budget, which
is put together by veterans' groups for veterans, and for the first
time we exceeded them 2 years in a row. Not only that, but with the
fiscal year 2007, which we had to pick up, and several supplemental
bills which we had to pass, we have added, in my calculation, over $17
million worth of new money for the health care of our veterans, which
is an unprecedented 40 percent increase since Chairman Edwards and
Chairman Obey have been chairmen of those committees. That is
incredible.
We have put resources in place to do the job for our veterans, but
the Veterans Administration doesn't always do what we intend, or do it
with the efficiency that we would like. Many of you have heard the
horror stories of young people going to medical centers, asking for
PTSD help, post-traumatic stress disorder, being told that they can't
get an appointment for 5 or 6 weeks, going home and committing suicide.
We have had the Secretary of the VA tell me, when I said, Aren't a
thousand suicide attempts per month by our veterans a concern? He said,
No. It's consistent with the literature. We have had a Secretary, Under
Secretary of Defense say that 300,000 PTSD victims of our forces in
Iraq and 320,000 victims of brain injury were not a problem because
those were just symptoms of those injuries. They didn't really exhibit
full-blown PTSD or full-blown traumatic brain injury and therefore they
weren't concerned about it. So their concern, Mr. Chairman, has not
always equaled our commitment here.
My two amendments would try to have dealt with that in a way that I
hope and I know the chairman will work with me in the future.
Do you know that tens of thousands of our young people leave Iraq and
Afghanistan, whether they are in the active duty or the Reserves or the
National Guard, without any evaluation by medical personnel for either
PTSD or brain injury?
We have to do something about that, Mr. Chairman. I have proposed,
and we will work with you as we authorize what I am calling a Hero's
Homecoming camp, to say that every soldier with his or her company,
with his or her family, will be evaluated by medical personnel for
brain injury and PTSD, and before they are discharged from the service.
I had asked for $10 million to cooperate with the DOD to do that.
In addition, one of the chief weaknesses of the Veterans
Administration is they don't like outside help. They don't ask for
community support. All over this country, people want to help our
troops. So I have asked at some point for $250 million for community
grants to help our soldiers in their own communities who have mental
health and other injuries for their treatment and rehabilitation.
This is something I think we have to do, Mr. Chairman. I know you
agree with me in principle. I know this is not the time and place to
debate that or put that in the bill. Your commitment to our soldiers,
sailors airmen, and marines is well known. Just putting that out there,
that we have to do this community support, mandatory evaluations, that
I know that we can work together.
I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Will the gentleman yield first?
Mr. FILNER. I will yield to you first.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Let me just take this opportunity, Mr.
Chairman, to thank Mr. Filner. While I chair the appropriations
subcommittee for veterans, he is the chairman of the full Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. He has been a leading voice in fighting for mental
health care services for our veterans and a broad range of services and
benefits for our veterans. Without his leadership, we would not have
$3.8 billion in specialty mental health care mandated in this bill, a
$900 million increase over the year before.
I certainly look forward to working with the chairman of the
authorizing committee in the months ahead on the

[[Page 17549]]

programs that he has fought so hard for.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendments en
bloc are withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Filner

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of title II (page 51, after line 11), add the
following new section:
Sec. 226. (a) Payments to Veterans Who Served in
Philippines During World War II.--During the one-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (in this section referred to as
the ``Secretary'') shall make a payment to a person described
in subsection (e) who, during such period, submits to the
Secretary an application containing such information and
assurances as the Secretary may require.
(b) Payment Amounts.--Each payment under this section shall
be--
(1) in the case of a person described in subsection (e) who
is not a citizen of the United States, in the amount of
$9,000; and
(2) in the case of a person described in subsection (e) who
is a citizen of the United States, in the amount of $15,000.
(c) Limitation.--The Secretary may not make more than one
payment under this section for each person described in
subsection (d).
(d) Eligibility of Individuals Living Outside the United
States Entitled to Certain Social Security Benefits.--Receipt
of a payment under this section shall not affect the
eligibility of an individual residing outside the United
States to receive benefits under title VIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) or the amount of such
benefits.
(e) Eligible Persons.--A person covered by this section is
any person who served--
(1) before July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces
of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
while such forces were in the service of the Armed Forces of
the United States pursuant to the military order of the
President dated July 26, 1941, including among such military
forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders appointed,
designated, or subsequently recognized by the Commander in
Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent authority
in the Army of the United States; or
(2) in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of the Armed
Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 538).
(f) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount otherwise provided by
this title for ``information technology systems'' is revised
by reducing the amount by $198,000,000.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for allowing me to
take a few minutes on this amendment. As we are very much concerned
with our Iraqi and Afghanistan young men and women who are returning
with grave injuries, we cannot forget our older veterans and the
justices that we have to make up for.
We can go back to World War II where we have atomic veterans who have
not yet received compensation for being in testing areas without being
told. We have merchant mariners who never got benefits of our GI Bill,
who are in their eighties and we need to say thank you to.
We have a group of veterans who were drafted into the Army in 1941,
all the Filipinos who were in the Filipino army and various units and
various irregular areas defending that territory. That was a territory
of ours. And we drafted all the soldiers into our Army with the promise
that they would have benefits later.
Those Filipino soldiers, over a quarter million of them, held up the
Japanese advance for weeks and weeks and weeks beyond their scheduled
advance. It allowed us back home to prepare better and for MacArthur to
return. And though the Japanese overran the Philippines in the terrible
battles of Corregidor and the famous death march of Bataan, the
surviving soldiers were able to harass the Japanese through guerilla
work, and they were not strong enough to resist MacArthur when he
returned. In fact, it was the Filipinos, bravely alongside their
American counterparts, who helped to win the war in the Pacific.
After the war was over, after we had won in both the Atlantic and
Pacific, the Philippines were granted their independence, and the
Congress of 1946 said, You got your independence. You take care of your
veterans. Yes, you saved America, but that is your problem, not ours
anymore.
Although President Truman signed the legislation which embodied that
in law, he said, We must repair this important travesty. We promised
those veterans full benefits. We have taken them away. We have to go
and give them back. That was 62 years ago, Mr. Chairman, and that
travesty still burns in the hearts of the Filipinos who are alive, and
their family members.
The amendment I have in front of the body says that, basically, We
are sorry, but thank you.

{time} 2300

It provides a pension for those brave Filipino veterans. This is a
moral necessity for America to close the chapter on World War II. This
is a moral necessity for this Congress to make up for a mistake that
was made 62 years ago.
I know many Members of this body agree with remedying this moral
disaster, and yet we have had problems of how we pay for that and how
we somehow use the budget to make sure that we are helping these
deserving veterans, while not taking away from our brave young men and
women from either World War II, Vietnam, Korea, the Persian Gulf war 1
or the present conflicts.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out a way to do that. I know
the vast majority of this body agrees with me, and I look forward to
working with you to find a way to do that.
I know there are other speakers on this amendment. I would hope that
we have a colloquy with the chairman on his time in a few minutes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I want to thank the chairmen
of the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee, the ranking
members on the other side, and Chairman Filner for the underlying bill
that we are looking at, and also I want to commend Chairman Filner for
his unceasing advocacy on behalf of the Filipino-American veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the opportunity today to speak about
this important issue and to draw attention to the plight of the World
War II Filipino veterans. I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues
to support the Filipino veterans.
These brave men fought alongside American soldiers under our flag
throughout the Pacific Theater in World War II, and the United States
made a promise to grant them veterans benefits as they were drafted
into the U.S. service under President Roosevelt. Subsequently, after
the war, Congress shamefully and unjustly legislated this promise away
in two Rescissions Acts of 1946.
Nearly 1 million Filipinos who were conscripted into service by
President Roosevelt were killed in action in defense of our country,
and many of them died as they protected the POWs, who were our
soldiers, against the Japanese brutality during the Bataan Death March.
I support legislation, S. 1315, which will expand benefits, such as
life insurance, education and disability assistance for tens of
thousands of current veterans and hundreds of thousands in the coming
years. Senate 1315 also restores the promise in our words we made in
1942 to the Filipino World War II veterans who bled and died for our
country. Today there are only 18,000 World War II Filipino veterans
living, most of them in their eighties, and

[[Page 17550]]

they are dying every day, and this cannot wait.
The Senate has already passed S. 1315 by a vote of 96-1 on April 24,
2008, and I urge my colleagues to follow in the Senate's footsteps.
This is the right thing to do.
There has been some controversy and confusion about the offset to pay
for the benefits in S. 1315. I would like to set the record straight
today. This bill will close a loophole created by a case known as
Hartness v. Nicholson which gave some veterans double benefits that
Congress never intended for them to receive. The bill will return the
law to what it was originally intended for all future veterans. It will
not take any benefits away from veterans who are already receiving them
under Hartness-Nicholson.
This all seems a bit technical. I know some Members are having a hard
time supporting S. 1315. But what it boils down to is that this is the
right thing to do, and we need to do it very quickly.
Each year I meet with the Filipino community, and each year I read
the roll call of those who have passed away. These are men who are
courageous and still loyal to the United States and to the flag, and
they hold this wonderful spirit and expectation that we will finally
keep our word. You know in your hearts that these veteran soldiers who
fought under our flag deserve the promise we made them six decades ago.
America's greatness is in her strength of character. When Congress
makes a mistake, we have the courage to correct that mistake. We have
the guts to apologize and make it right. Let's do the right thing and
give the Filipino veterans their due. Let's have a vote on this when we
come back from recess this September.
I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Yes, I do. I would also like to move to strike
the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my father was a naval aviator in
World War II. My father passed away 4 months ago. Had it not been for
the courage of Filipino veterans, my father might have been killed,
because instead of the war ending before he was deployed, had it not
been for their heroism in the Pacific, my father might have been
deployed, and like so many other Americans in that war, he might have
ended up giving his life to the country.
I have been deeply moved by Mr. Honda and Mr. Filner's passionate
dedication on behalf of these great citizens of the world who
sacrificed, many of them giving the ultimate sacrifice, on behalf of
our country and our victory in World War II. Because of the legislative
process, there are times when we simply, despite all of our intentions,
cannot solve every problem on an appropriations bill, because the rules
of this Congress require an authorization process as well.
We can't solve this problem tonight, but because of Mr. Filner and
because of Mr. Honda, I think we are a giant step closer to addressing
this injustice that has existed for so long.
My commitment to Mr. Filner and Mr. Honda is to work as the chairman
of the appropriations subcommittee with the chairman of the authorizing
committee and on a bipartisan basis to find appropriations available so
that if we can get an authorization for those appropriations, we can
finally bring about justice for these people who did so much for our
country and for the world.
With that, I would like to yield, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Filner.
Mr. FILNER. I see our Speaker on the floor. The only one I think who
knows more about this issue than me is Speaker Pelosi, who has dealt
with this in the 20 years that she has been in the Congress. I would
ask the chairman to yield to her.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I will be honored to yield to the Speaker, who
has been such an eloquent voice on this issue.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman.
I have watched with interest the debate this evening, and I am so
proud of the work that you, Mr. Edwards, are doing on this issue to
honor America's vets and, Congressman Wamp, you as well.
I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Committee for bringing up this
important issue of our Filipino vets. For years we have been pleading
our case. Mr. Obey has listened patiently and tried to find a way for
us to meet the needs of these people who served our country so well,
who helped achieve the victory.
Promises were made; promises were not kept. And I know it is not
possible to do something this evening, but I wanted to come to the
floor to associate myself with the remarks of our distinguished
chairman, Bob Filner, who has worked relentlessly, as we all know,
persistently, on this important issue.
We recently had a visit from the President of the Philippines, where
she was very interested in the progress of this issue.
So, again, I associate myself with Mr. Filner's impassioned plea on
this subject. Thank you for your leadership for our veterans on an
ongoing basis. I am very proud of the leadership of this subcommittee.
Under the chairman's leadership, we have been able to give the biggest
increase in veterans' health funding in the 77-year history of the
Veterans Administration, and just recently in the supplemental we were
able to have the GI Bill for our veterans, thank you to our veterans,
and when they come home we send them to college. Now this bill goes
even further.
So I thank you and Mr. Wamp, both of you, for your leadership on this
subject, and yield back the time to the distinguished chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee, and thank him for his leadership on behalf
of our veterans, all of our veterans, and in this case at this moment
our Filipino vets.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. If I could reclaim my time, let me just say,
Mr. Chairman, in the presence of Speaker Pelosi, what I said earlier
this evening. While she has been gracious in commending others for
working for veterans over the last 2 years, she made a commitment to
America's veterans 4 years ago and said if she became Speaker, we would
have unprecedented increases in funding for veterans health care and
veterans benefits. $16.8 billion later and a 21st century bill of
rights, we can all stand, and I say gratefully, Speaker Pelosi has kept
her promise to those great Americans who have kept their promise to
serve, and I thank her deeply for that.
With that, I yield to Mr. Filner.
Mr. FILNER. I, too, want to thank the Speaker for her commitment over
a long period of time to not only the Filipino veterans, but all
veterans.
Your comments tonight, Mr. Edwards, were very moving. They show
complete understanding of the issue. I have confidence that, working
together and with the support of the Speaker, we will be able to deal
with this issue.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of amendment number
22, offered by Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner, which
would provide a one time payment to the courageous Filipino veterans of
World War II.
Filipino veterans are those that honorably answered the call of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served alongside our armed forces
during World War II. They fought shoulder to shoulder with American
servicemen; they sacrificed for the same just cause. We made a promise
to provide full veterans' benefits to those who served with our troops.
And while we have made appreciable progress toward fulfilling that
promise, we have not yet achieved the full equity that the Filipino
veterans deserve.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 760, The Filipino
Veterans Equity Act of 2007, which was introduced by the Chairman to
provide the necessary reclassification of the service of Filipino
veterans to make them eligible for all the veterans' benefits programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs. In essence,
H.R. 760 makes good on the promise our government made to these brave
men over sixty years ago.
Today, out of the 250,000 Filipino World War II veterans, only 18,000
are left. Of that number some 2,000 reside in my home state

[[Page 17551]]

of Hawaii. As Filipino veterans are entering the sunset years of their
lives, Congress is running out of time to fulfill our obligations to
them.
While there is no question in my mind that the appropriate action for
Congress is to provide full veterans' benefits to the Filipino World
War II veterans, this one time payment of $15,000 to those veterans who
are now American citizens and a $9,000 payment to those veterans that
remain Philippine nationals is a gesture that is a step forward in the
little time we have left to thank and respect the promises made to
these brave soldiers for their service to our country.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Altmire). Without objection, the amendment
is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Part of the challenges that we have been dealing with,
some have to do with fiction. The Speaker was just on the floor and
referred to promises. If the Speaker would not leave the floor--Madam
Speaker?
How fascinating. You see, the Speaker was just on the floor, Mr.
Chairman, and spoke fiction. While there had been anecdotal accounts of
such promises which she has referred to, there have been no official
written accounts of these promises. CRS has done an extensive research
of the papers and writings of both President Roosevelt and General
MacArthur and have not found any written proof that these promises were
made.
It is very unfortunate that the Speaker would not have stuck around
to listen to that. Several requests for her to stay on the floor, she
turns and just walked on out. Now, why would she do that? She doesn't
want to hear the truth. It is better to stand on the floor and just say
this.
Mr. OBEY. I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the House finishing its
work tonight, I withdraw my request that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The request is withdrawn. The gentleman from
Indiana is recognized.
Mr. BUYER. I appreciate the chairman having withdrawn the amendment
since the Parliamentarians were about to rule in my favor, so I
appreciate that, that the comments were parliamentary and permissible
on the floor.
Let me say, the challenge that we have had here in the committee is
that when Mr. Filner brought his bill he needed an offset, and the
offset is that in order to come up with $1 billion, he used the
Hartness decision. And that would take $1 billion from American
veterans. Now, that is what got us all into this.
Now, the gentleman brings an amendment and tries to say, oh, no, I
don't want to use the Hartness decision. The Hartness decision is
extremely important, Mr. Chairman, and I want to address it here for a
moment. Because in the committee itself, when I tried to strike the
offset, I was defeated on a party-line vote. And there would be a tough
vote here on the floor if we were going to vote to repeal Hartness.
The Hartness decision is that we give a pension to individuals who
served during a period of war, are elderly, severely disabled, and
indigent. It is bothersome to me that we would deny these individuals
that pension to then give to someone else. Therein lies the challenge.
Chairman Edwards and I had a good conversation, and it is the offset
with which many of us are uncomfortable about, and we are trying to
figure out how best to navigate our way through this issue. And in the
same spirit in which we are going to work on solar, we are going to
work on this issue. But we are not going to repeal Hartness.
Hartness comes from a 2006 United States Court of Appeals veterans
claims decision that overturned the Department of Veterans Affairs
decision that denied an 86-year-old legally blind World War II veteran,
Robert A. Hartness, a VA benefit called a special monthly pension. That
is what they wanted to overturn.
The court reversed the VA's denial of benefits to Mr. Hartness, and
required the VA to begin making those payments. The court held that the
U.S. law requires an award of the special monthly pension to a veteran
eligible for VA nonservice-connected disability pension if, in addition
to being at least 65 years of age, he or she has a minimum disability
rating of 60 percent or more, or is considered permanently housebound.
The VA determined Mr. Hartness to be 70 percent disabled due to loss
of vision, and the VA has also determined that this offset would affect
about 20,000 who would file for this type of decision.
So I am most hopeful, I know there is some agreement among myself and
other members on both sides of the aisle that if we want to address the
issue regarding the Filipino War Veterans of World War II issue, that
should be addressed as a standalone. Let's do not repeal or overturn
the Hartness decision because you need $1 billion and so we are going
to take it from World War II elderly, disabled, housebound veterans.
That is a little bizarre and disturbing to me.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have just one observation to make about the
remarks of the previous speaker when he indicated that the Speaker did
not want to hear the truth.
I would simply observe that when the VA several years ago was
insisting that the administration's budget for veterans' health care
was insufficient to meet the needs, the Speaker heard the truth and
acted on it. And as a result, even in the teeth of fierce opposition
from the administration, she insisted that we provide another $1
billion to the veterans' health care budget. And eventually, even the
VA came to admit that that money was needed.
When veterans' organizations after our party took control of the
Congress 1.5 years ago, when those veterans' organizations told us that
we needed to provide at least $3.5 billion more than the President's
budget had provided for veterans' health care, she heard the truth and
she acted on it.
The Speaker need never take a back seat to the gentleman from Indiana
or anyone else in this chamber when it comes to hearing the truth and
acting on it when it concerns America's veterans. She made quite clear
that the welfare of American veterans was going to be her number one
budget priority when she became Speaker, because she was objecting to
the fact that the only families in America who ever had to make any
sacrifice because of the Iraq war were military families. That was
indeed a truth which she not only heard but saw and acted upon, and
this House can be proud of that on both sides of the aisle.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III

RELATED AGENCIES

American Battle Monuments Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$7,500 for official reception and representation expenses;
and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign
countries, when required by law of such countries,
$55,470,000, to remain available until expended.

foreign currency fluctuations account

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended, for purposes
authorized by section 2109 of title 36, United States Code.

[[Page 17552]]

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
sections 7251 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code,
$73,975,000, of which $1,700,000 shall be available for the
purpose of providing financial assistance as described, and
in accordance with the process and reporting procedures set
forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-229.

Department of Defense--civil

Cemeterial Expenses

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $31,230,000, to remain
available until expended. In addition, such sums as may be
necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement,
to be derived from the Lease of Department of Defense Real
Property for Defense Agencies account.
Funds appropriated under this Act may be provided to
Arlington County, Virginia, for the relocation of the
federally-owned water main at Arlington National Cemetery
making additional land available for ground burials.

Armed Forces Retirement Home

trust fund

For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Washington, District of Columbia and the Armed Forces
Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds
available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
$63,010,000, of which $8,025,000 shall remain available until
expended for construction and renovation of the physical
plants at the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Washington.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2009 for pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 404. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
Sec. 405. All departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 406. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or any other
appropriations Act.
Sec. 407. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and
notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Terry

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Terry:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out the construction of any new national
veterans' cemetery, unless the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
provides to Congress, within 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a list of the six new locations for
establishment of national cemeteries that includes Omaha,
Nebraska, notwithstanding the current veteran population
threshold for the appropriate service area standard of the
Department of Veterans Affairs

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2002, over 6 years ago, the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs completed an independent study
recommending that the Omaha, Nebraska general area of Eastern Nebraska
be selected as the site for a new national veterans' cemetery. That
cemetery was to be built no later than 2005. As we stand here today,
there has been no decision or authorization for a national veterans'
cemetery in Eastern Nebraska.
The State of Nebraska, the Governor and the legislature has
determined a site in Sarpy County right next to Offutt Air Force Base
as the site for this national veterans' cemetery. One of the issues
supposedly that is delaying this cemetery is that, pursuant to the last
census, we are a few thousand short of the requisite 170,000 that
reside in a 75-mile radius, although Nebraska statistics differ with
that census agreement, showing that we more than amply exceed that
170,000 within a 75-mile radius.
What this amendment does is allows us to include some contiguous
counties, because what you have is a mass populace within a small area
around Offutt Air Force Base. But then, as you spread out, the
population becomes far less dense.
So in order here to comply, this amendment includes contiguous
counties to get within the U.S. Census that the Veterans Administration
is using to block the building of this national cemetery. So I am here
tonight to make sure that the promise is kept to the veterans of the
Eastern Nebraska, Western Iowa, Northwest Missouri area.
As we know, our veterans population is aging. They are passing away.
And I hear from their families quite often that they would prefer to be
buried in a veterans' cemetery without having to travel 6 hours to the
nearest Nebraska State veterans' cemetery.
So that is the purpose of this amendment, is to keep a promise by the
VA and, frankly, the entire delegation, that we are going to fight for
a veterans' cemetery that has been promised them. This has been the way
that has been recommended. I think it is probably the best way,
recognizing the geography of Nebraska.

{time} 2330

At this point, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
But I would like to work with the people, the appropriations and the
veterans' committee to make sure that this promise is kept.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. But let me
just salute the gentleman for his focus on the importance of providing
cemeteries of honor, hallowed ground for our servicemen and women who
served in uniform.
For the record, let me say that for that very reason, in this bill we
provided $83 million for the expansion of existing national cemeteries.
We increased by 41 percent funding for our State veterans cemetery
program, from $32 million to $45 million, and based on appropriations
from our subcommittee in recent years, the Arlington National Cemetery,
the most hallowed of hallowed grounds is being expanded as well.
I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. I think the
proper way to make these decisions is careful analysis, looking at the
numbers of veterans, how far they have to go to various national and
State cemeteries, and I look forward to working with him and other
Members of this House in the months ahead to see how we can do this in
a proper way so that we can honor our veterans.

[[Page 17553]]

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 408. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C.
17142).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a simple one. Earlier
this year, in one of the occasionally non-energy energy bills that we
see in the House, we had a section 526 added to something called the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In part, this section of
the bill says that no Federal agencies shall enter into a contract for
procurement of an alternative fuel if the ``life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions,'' a phrase that has yet to be legally defined, that they
must be less or equal to such emissions from an equivalent conventional
fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.
Mr. Chairman, that is very problematic language to our Defense
Department. It is very problematic language to our veterans. And in
specific, the author of that provision, the distinguished gentleman
from California, who is the Chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, told us what his purpose was by putting
this section into the bill. And I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman,
correspondence dated March 17 from the distinguished gentleman from
California to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
It reads, in part, ``It was developed,'' it, referring to section
526, ``it was included in the legislation in response to proposals
under consideration by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels.''
That was the purpose of this section. And so, Mr. Chairman, what we
have is a portion of a bill that makes it more difficult for our
Defense Department to become more energy independent, to rely more on
North American and specifically, American fuels than Middle Eastern
fuels. This is very problematic for our Defense Department.
I also, Mr. Chairman, have in my hand correspondence dated July 9
from the Defense Department, written to the Honorable James Inhofe,
ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In part, the letter reads, ``it,'' referring to 526, ``creates
uncertainty about what fuels DOD can procure and will discourage the
development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of
energy supplies for the Armed Forces.''
This is the Pentagon, Mr. Chairman.
It also goes on to say, ``As written, section 526 could apply to
alternative and synthetic fuels, including E85, fuel that is 85 percent
ethanol, and B20, diesel fuel that contains 20 percent bio fuels, that
the department is encouraged or required to use under other statutes.''
The letter from the Pentagon continues to say, ``The provision opens
the Department up to court or administrative challenges to every fuel
purchase it makes.'' And this is a very important provision of this
letter, Mr. Chairman.
``It could cause significant harm to the readiness of the Armed
Forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly
important in certain geographic areas.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got an opportunity in this legislation,
and my amendment is a very simple one. It simply says that none of the
funds provided in this act that we are debating tonight, shall be
available to enforce section 526, this problematic language that the
Pentagon says can have an adverse effect on the readiness of our Armed
Forces.
So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would pay very careful
attention when we are dealing with a bill dealing with our Army, our
veterans, our Nation's veterans, with military construction. I would
hope that we would pay very, very careful attention and do everything
we can to get rid of this section of this law that is hampering our
national defense at this time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am writing regarding questions
that have arisen with respect to the interpretation of
section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. Section 526 addresses government contracts to purchase
alternative fuels. As the author of this provision and
Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction in the House, I
would like to share my views as to how the language should be
interpreted.
Section 526 provides:
``No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for
procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a
fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any
mobility-related use, other than for research or testing,
unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the production and combustion
of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing
basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the
equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional
petroleum sources.''
This provision ensures that Federal agencies are not
spending taxpayer dollars on new fuel sources that will
exacerbate global warming. It was included in the legislation
in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force
to develop coal-to-liquid fuels. As you may know, coal-to-
liquid fuels are estimated to produce almost double the
greenhouse gas emissions of the comparable conventional fuel.
The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tar
sands, which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas
emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from
conventional petroleum sources.
The development and expanded use of these fuels could
significantly exacerbate global warming, with highly
dangerous effects. Thus, it is important to ensure that the
Federal government does not subsidize or otherwise support
the expanded use of these fuels through government purchasing
decisions.
Section 526 applies specifically to contracts to purchase
fuels, and it must be interpreted in a manner that makes
sense in light of Federal contracting practices. The purpose
of the provision is to bar federal agencies from spending
taxpayer dollars to support the development and expansion of
alternative fuels and fuels from unconventional sources, if
those fuels have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
than the comparable conventional fuels. It was not intended
to bar federal agencies from entering into contracts to
purchase fuels that are generally available in the market,
such as diesel or jet fuel, that may contain incidental
amounts of fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum
sources.
Thus, section 526 would clearly apply to a contract that
specifically requires the contractor to provide an
alternative fuel, such as coal-to-liquids fuel, or a fuel
produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, such as
fuel from tar sands. The provision also would apply to such a
contract where the purpose of the contract is to obtain such
an alternative fuel or fuel from a nonconventional petroleum
source, even if the source of the fuel is not explicitly
identified in the contract. Similarly, a contract that
supports or provides incentives for a refinery upgrade or
expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of
tar sands oils would also be subject to section 526. This
provision would not apply to contracts to purchase a
generally available fuel, such as a specific diesel or jet
fuel blend, if that fuel is not an alternative fuel or
predominantly produced from an unconventional fuel source.
Questions have also been raised as to whether the
implementation of this provision must await the development
of specific lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions profiles for
each fuel type. The language of section 526 requires only a
determination of whether a fuel has higher lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional
fuel, not a precise estimate of each fuel's specific
greenhouse gas emissions. While there is a range of numeric
estimates of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-
to-liquids fuels produced without carbon capture and
sequestration and fuels derived from tar sands, there is no
debate over the fact that both of these fuels have
substantially higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than
the comparable conventional fuels. There is no barrier to the
immediate implementation of section 526 with respect to these
fuels.
I hope this clarification of my understanding of section
526 is helpful as your

[[Page 17554]]

Committee oversees federal agencies' implementation of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman.
____

General Counsel of the

Department of Defense,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2008.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment & Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: The Department of Defense (DoD)
supports S. 2827, a bill ``to repeal a requirement with
respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative
fuels.'' The bill would repeal section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 526 has the
potential to generate significant problems for DoD in its
procurement of fuels for the national defense. It creates
uncertainty about what fuels DoD can procure and will
discourage the development of new sources, particularly
reliable domestic sources, of energy supplies for the Armed
Forces. The following is representative of the Department's
concerns.
The Department believes section 526 is overly broad both in
design and application. The law's terms are not defined and
some may argue that it covers a very broad range of fuels
commonly purchased by DoD. As written, section 526 could
apply to alternative and synthetic fuels, including E85 (fuel
that is 85 percent ethanol) and B20 (diesel fuel that
contains 20 percent biofuels), that the Department is
encouraged or required to use under other statutes.
Section 526 applies to ``an alternative or synthetic fuel,
including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum
sources.'' The provision opens the Department up to court or
administrative challenges to every fuel purchase it makes,
with the inherent potential for an adverse decision that
would cover fuels the military already relies on as well as
potential reliable sources of fuel that could be developed in
the future. Such a decision could cause significant harm to
the readiness of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be
widely used and particularly important in certain geographic
areas.
Section 526 applies worldwide, not just to purchases within
the United States. There are no means to accurately and
authoritatively determine the lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions from non-domestically produced fuels because we do
not track all of the fuel inputs in other countries and many
producing countries lack the infrastructure or institutional
control necessary to reliably track these inputs. For
example, our military aircraft used over 6 million gallons of
Canadian jet fuel in 2007 while exercising with the Canadian
Armed Forces, conducting joint operations along the Distant
Early Warning Line, and refueling at Canadian commercial
airports. Canadian fuels include a mix of fuels including
those produced from tar sands crude at various percentages.
If these fuels were subject to section 526, and fuel
suppliers were unable to authoritatively certify the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fuel,
our military aircraft may be required to stop refueling in
Canada, potentially affecting our national security.
Section 526 requires an analysis that may never be
possible. The source of a fuel informs the greenhouse gas
emissions footprint. Fuels, including conventional petroleum,
are produced from numerous sources and often mixed together.
Current standards for determining emissions of fuels from
various origins are determined on averages. However, section
526 could be interpreted to require an analysis of individual
fuel purchases for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, even
though determining the emissions footprint for any individual
batch of fuel may be impossible. For example, conventional
fuel derived from oil produced in Venezuela or Nigeria is
more likely to have a larger footprint than domestic oil
because of the energy used transporting the oil to the United
States. Foreign and domestic oil may be mixed together at a
refinery. Once foreign and domestic oils are mixed together,
the oils cannot be differentiated from one another.
Therefore, the footprint of the resulting fuel cannot be
determined accurately or authoritatively.
Finally, even a narrow interpretation of section 526 in an
effort to reduce the uncertainty and the scope of section 526
still could limit the Department's flexibility in making
emergency fuel purchases, overseas fuel purchases, and
purchases at commercial stations and airports. Currently,
there is no method for determining whether fuel purchased at
these locations meets the requirements of section 526.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the
standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no
objection to the presentation of this report for the
consideration of the committee.
Sincerely,
------ ------
(for Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Acting).

With whatever time I have remaining, I would be happy to yield to my
friend from Texas, the chairman of the committee.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I thank my colleague from Texas. I will not
object to this amendment.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the chairman for agreeing to the amendment. I
know how to take yes for an answer.
I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Taylor:
At the end of title IV of the bill, before the short title,
insert the following:
Sec. 408. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement section 2703 of Public Law 109-234.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, the Congress of the United States showed incredible generosity
to the people of south Mississippi. One of those acts of generosity was
the transfer of approximately 100 acres of very valuable waterfront
property along Highway 90 in Gulfport, Mississippi, that had, and is
still owned by the Veterans Administration to the City of Gulfport. We
are very grateful for that. It had been my desire that that remain a
veterans hospital, but because of the decision by the CARES Commission,
the initial plan was for the Nation to sell that property and plow the
proceeds of that sale into other Veterans Administration facilities in
south Mississippi for upgrades.
In the aftermath of the storm, our very capable Senators drafted some
legislation that allowed the city of Gulfport to receive this property
free from our Nation. And again we are grateful for that.
What I regret is that there were no safeguards to ensure that this
transfer, that this property continues to serve a public purpose. And
this piece of property has been a public asset for over 80 years. For
80 years veterans with psychological, traumatic mental illnesses have
been treated there. And I think it would serve our Nation well to delay
this process, go to conference and make sure that there are adequate
safeguards so that the funds received from the lease of this property,
any future use of this property, serves a public purpose.
And so I have brought this to the attention of Mr. Filner. I brought
this to the attention of Mr. Edwards.
I would hope that, given, again, we respect the fact that Congress
acted very quickly in the aftermath of Katrina to do something to help
the people of south Mississippi in their efforts to act quickly. I
regret that I don't think there were adequate safeguards to protect the
public. This is an effort to slow this down just long enough to put
those safeguards in there. I believe I have the support of Chairman
Filner. I would hope I have the support of Chairman Edwards. I would
hope Ranking Member Wamp would agree to this.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Mc Caul of Texas

Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. _____. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for a project or program named for an individual
then serving as a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or
Senator of the United States Congress.

[[Page 17555]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. It
would prohibit any funds appropriated in this bill from going to any
projects named after a sitting Member of Congress. The amendment is
based on my bill, H.R. 5771, which I introduced earlier this year, and
has been cosponsored by 27 other Members.
One of the most egregious examples of pure vanity and arrogance that
we see in Washington is the practice of naming projects after current
Members of Congress, or, as I call them, monuments to me.
According to the latest polls, only 12 percent of the American public
approves of the job we are doing in the Congress, and that sentiment is
due, in no small measure, to the fact that the American public thinks
that we care less about them than we do ourselves. That is really what
is wrong with Washington today.
And a few examples I think illustrate this problem that we have with
ethics today in the Congress. The Robert Byrd Center for Hospitality
and Tourism, the Robert Byrd Lodge, office complex, the Ted Stevens
International Airport, the Harkin Grants, the Harkin Wellness Grant
Program, the Harkin Global Communication Center, the Arlen Specter
Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center, the John Dingell Drive,
the Cynthia McKinney Parkway, the Jack Murtha Highway, the James
Clyburn Golf Center, the James Clyburn Pedestrian Overpass, the James
Clyburn Intermodal Transportation Center, and the Charlie Rangel Center
For Public Service.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is not about us. This
bill is about our military and our veterans, as it should be.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes. Let me
just clarify for the record, we have no projects or programs in this
bill, the VA and military construction bill, named after anyone
currently serving in Congress. And so for that reason, I am glad to
accept the gentleman's amendment.

{time} 2345

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 408. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out section 111(c)(5) of title 38, United
States Code, during fiscal year 2009.

THE Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the Stupak/Barrow amendment No. 16 would prevent any
funds appropriated or made available under this Act from being used to
increase the deductible veterans must pay to receive their mileage
reimbursement.
Currently, veterans driving to a Veterans Affairs facility for an
examination, treatment, or other medical care receive a mileage
reimbursement rate of 28.5 cents per mile. However, the 28.5 cents per
mile benefit is subject to a $7.77 deductible for each one-way trip and
$15.54 for a round trip with a maximum deductible of $46.62 per
calendar month.
Now, in a vast rural area where I live, many of my veterans drive
more than 100 miles for an examination or treatment. So if a veteran
lives 70 miles round trip from a VA facility, they would file a request
for reimbursement for $19.95 minus the $15.54 deductible. This would
mean a veteran would receive a mere $4.41. Even today's most efficient
vehicles cannot make a 17-mile round trip on $4.41 when the national
average price for a gallon of gasoline is $3.96.
The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, as it is
currently written, would increase the mileage, and I'm appreciative of
that. It would increase the reimbursement rate from 28.5 cents up to
41.5 cents per mile. And I support this increase, but the Act does not
address the subsequent required increase in the deductible.
Under law, each time the mileage reimbursement rate is increased, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs is required to proportionately increase
the deductible veterans must pay to receive this benefit. The amendment
offered by myself and the gentleman from Georgia would freeze the
deductible and prevent the secretary from increasing it when mileage
reimbursement is increased.
In these times of rising gas prices, it's hard to justify an increase
in the deductible veterans are required to pay for mileage
reimbursement they receive. While I support the mileage reimbursement
included in the bill, we need to make sure that the required increase
in the deductible doesn't eliminate the benefit the veteran would
receive from this policy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the co-author of this amendment.
Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend Mr. Stupak for his work
on this issue over the years. Like Mr. Stupak, I have been working to
restore the full veteran mileage reimbursement benefits since I got to
Congress, and the deductible is a big part of the problem. I won't be
satisfied until we get rid of the deductible altogether, and this is a
big step in the right direction.
Last year the House adopted my bill, the Disabled Veterans Fairness
Act, as an amendment to the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act. My bill
would completely eliminate the deductible and fully restore the
reimbursement rate to the level paid to Federal civil servants. But the
other body wouldn't go along. As a result, the reimbursement rate was
raised from 11 cents per mile to 28.5 cents per mile, the first
increase in 30 years. However, the secretary of the VA increased the
deductible from $6 a round trip to $15 a round trip.
Under this bill, all veterans who currently get a travel expense
reimbursement will get an increase from 28.5 cents per mile to 41.5
cents per mile. This amendment will prevent the secretary of the VA
from taking any of that back by increasing the deductible. We ought to
do a better job taking care of those who gave us the best years of
their lives taking care of us.
This change won't completely close the gap between what has been
promised and what has been delivered, but it will definitely help.
That's what our amendment will do, that's why it's a good idea, and
that's why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. STUPAK. With that, I would yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Stupak and
Mr. Barrow. This is a glitch in the writing of the law done in years
past that causes a problem when we increase the miles reimbursement
rate for veterans who need to travel, in some cases, hundreds of miles
to get to a VA hospital. It actually increases the deductible. That is
not the intention of the VA. That is not the intention of the Congress.
This amendment corrects that.
I hope we can take this principle and talk about it as we go into
conference

[[Page 17556]]

committee, and I have even had some brief conversations with the VA. My
hope is that we could actually address this issue, fix it, so that we
don't have veterans who, in effect, even though we have a 41.5 cent
reimbursement rate, after deductible is considered, some of them might
have a 10 cent-per-mile rate or a 20 cent-per-mile rate.
The reason we need to fix that completely is that for many veterans--
while this may not sound like a lot of money to others, for veterans
this is a difference truly between being able to afford to drive to a
clinic or drive to a hospital and get the health care they desperately
need and deserve.
So I know Mr. Wamp, who takes a back seat to no one in his caring for
veterans, and anyone who's heard him speak tonight on the floor knows
why I have such great respect for his commitment to our veterans, I
know that he and I can work closely together with Mr. Stupak, with Mr.
Barrow, with the VA and see if we can't take the principle embodied in
this amendment and move it even further.
The gentlemen have done a great benefit for hundreds of thousands of
veterans out there.
Mr. WAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'd be glad to.
Mr. WAMP. I, too, want to commend Mr. Stupak and Mr. Barrow, two of
the finest Members in this House, outstanding, a perfect example of how
Members that aren't on our committee can bring improvements to the
floor for the bill. Certainly we'll work with you the whole way. We'll
support your amendment subject to the chairman and his call tonight.
But we will work together with you either way.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Barrow.
I yield back.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment 36 Offered by Mr. Wamp

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment 36 offered by Mr. Wamp:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to modify the standards applicable to the
determination of the entitlement of veterans to special
monthly pensions under sections 1513(a) and 1521(e) of title
38, United States Code, as in effect pursuant to the opinion
of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in
the case of Hartness v. Nicholson (No. 04-0888, July 21,
2006).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
My amendment is very simple. It says that the VA can not modify
current standards that are used to make special monthly benefit
payments and therefore protects that benefit payment for U.S. veterans
who are eligible for it.
Earlier tonight the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee
offered and withdrew two amendments that would have decimated the
information technology budget at the VA to fund a new entitlement
program for Filipino veterans. Had those amendments passed, it would
have stopped key VA initiatives dead in their tracks.
We're trying to get the VA to streamline operations, reduce the time
it takes to process claims, and increase interoperability between VA
and DOD medical records, not to mention that the VA is going to need
all of the $2.4 billion that the President requested to help it roll
out or new GI Bill.
Earlier in the year the chairman of the authorizing committee tried
to pay for this bill by proposing to cut special monthly pension
benefits to U.S. veterans currently receiving these benefits. Now,
let's be clear here. We support those Filipino veterans who fell
alongside U.S. forces in World War II. But to provide them with a new
benefit to be paid for out of an account that our veterans will
immediately feel the impact of is wrong.
An ``aye'' vote on my amendment will tell our veterans that their
benefits will not be cut and let them know we are trying to do
everything we can to get their claims processed as quickly as possible.
I yield back.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I'm glad to support this amendment and thank
Mr. Wamp for bringing it to the floor.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment 37 offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut:
Add at the end of the bill (before the short title) the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce section 3, Policy of VHA Directive 2008-
25.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise to offer this amendment along with my good friend from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) that will help restore access to voter
registration for America's veterans.
You see, Mr. Chairman, on April 25, 2008, the Veterans Health
Administration issued a directive stating the VA's clear policy to
assist veterans, patients of VA facilities who seek to exercise their
right to register and vote. And I believe all of us would agree here
that such a policy is extraordinarily appropriate given that these men
and women served by the VA are the very people who put their lives on
the line to protect that right to vote.
Inexplicably though, on May 5, 2008, the VA withdrew this directive
and issued a contrary directive. This new instruction made a similar
commitment regarding voter assistance but it included a policy
statement which prohibits nonpartisan voter registration drives on VA
property.
Mr. Chairman, the mission of the VA is, in its own words, to ``care
for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan''
by functioning ``as a single, comprehensive provider of seamless
service to the men and women who have served our nation.''
It's disappointing that the VA would not consider assistance with
voter registration as one of the fundamental components of offering
this seamless service to veterans. Many of these soldiers have been
wounded in combat and have disabilities that make traditional voting
difficult. The VA should be ready to provide these men and women with
any and all assistance that they might need to make their voices heard
in this democracy, whether that be delivering an absentee ballot to an
amputee or filling out a ballot for a soldier who has lost his sight.
Secretaries of States and election officials all over the country
will tell you that the registration drives that historically have been
a critical portion of this outreach for veterans in these facilities
has done a great service for our veterans. Over 20 bipartisan
secretaries of State have joined us in expressing their disappointment
over this policy.
We're not here today, of course, to restrict the VA's ability to
manage their facilities and the care of their patients. On the
contrary, they need that ability, and nothing in this amendment would
diminish it. However, we believe it's the duty of the VA to work
closely with nonpartisan veterans groups and elections officials to
ensure that veterans have the ability to exercise that basic
fundamental right to vote.
So our amendment is simple. It would not allow the VA to use any
funds appropriated through this legislation to carry out that policy
section of the May Directive. And while we hope the VA will still
reverse this decision on its own, with this congressional

[[Page 17557]]

action today we are sending a clear signal that this House believes
that all veterans should have access to and the right the vote.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for his assistance
in putting this amendment before the House. I would also like to thank
Robert Brady and Congresswoman Watson for their persistence and
advocacy on this issue which has brought it to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment's adoption, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to express gratitude to Mr. Murphy and also to Mr. Murphy of
Pennsylvania.
I think what he just said was so important. Our veterans have given
their lives to protect our right to vote as citizens of this country.
Many others have made sacrifices, have physical and mental wounds that
they will pay for to the last days of their lives. And I just don't
think it is right or proper for the VA to be making it more difficult
for veterans who've done so much to protect our right to vote to make
it more difficult for them to vote.
Many of our veterans in our VA hospitals are long-term patients there
with significant disabilities. Our country ought to be doing outreach
to make it possible for them to cast the vote that they fought for in
combat.
So for all of those reasons, I salute the gentleman for this
amendment. I strongly support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 0000

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Elimination of Military Construction
Congressional Earmarks.--None of the funds provided in this
Act shall be available from the following Department of
Defense military construction accounts for the following
projects, and the amount otherwise provided in this Act for
each such account is hereby reduced by the sum of the amounts
specified for such projects from such account:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount (in
Account State Location Project Title thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................. Alabama............. Anniston Army Depot. Lake Yard Railroad $1,400
Interchange.
Army............................. Alabama............. Fort Rucker......... Chapel Center....... $6,800
Air Force........................ Arizona............. Luke AFB............ Repair Runway $1,755
Pavement.
Army............................. Arizona............. Fort Huachuca....... ATC Radar Operations $2,000
Building.
Army NG.......................... Arkansas............ Cabot............... Readiness Center.... $10,868
Air NG........................... Arkansas............ Little Rock AFB..... Replace Engine Shop. $4,000
Navy............................. California.......... Monterey............ Education Facility.. $9,990
Air Force........................ California.......... Edwards AFB......... Main Base Runway Ph $6,000
4.
Navy............................. California.......... North Island........ Training Pool $6,890
Replacement.
Navy............................. California.......... Twentynine Palms.... Lifelong Learning $9,760
Center Ph 1.
Air NG........................... Connecticut......... Bradley IAP......... TFI Upgrade Engine $7,200
Shop.
Air Force........................ Florida............. Tyndall AFB......... 325 ACS Ops Training $11,600
Complex.
Army NG.......................... Florida............. Camp Blanding....... Regional Training $20,907
Institute Ph 4.
Air Force........................ Florida............. MacDill AFB......... Combat Training $5,000
Facility.
Navy............................. Florida............. Mayport............. Aircraft Refueling.. $3,380
Air NG........................... Georgia............. Savannah CRTC....... Troop Training $7,500
Quarters.
Navy............................. Georgia............. Kings Bay........... Add to Limited Area $6,130
Reaction Force
Facility.
Air Force........................ Georgia............. Robins AFB.......... Avionics Facility... $5,250
Army............................. Hawaii.............. Pohakuloa TA........ Access Road, Ph 1... $9,000
Air NG........................... Illinois............ Greater Peoria RAP.. C-130 Squadron $400
Operations Center.
Army NG.......................... Indiana............. Muscatatuck......... Combined Arms $6,000
Collective Training
Facility Ph 1.
Air NG........................... Indiana............. Fort Wayne IAP...... Aircraft Ready $5,600
Shelters/Fuel Fill
Stands.
Army NG.......................... Iowa................ Camp Dodge.......... MOUT Site Add/Alt... $1,500
Army NG.......................... Iowa................ Davenport........... Readiness Center Add/ $1,550
Alt.
Air NG........................... Iowa................ Fort Dodge.......... Vehicle Maintenance $5,600
& Comm. Training
Complex.
Army NG.......................... Iowa................ Mount Pleasant...... Readiness Center Add/ $1,500
Alt.
Army............................. Kansas.............. Fort Leavenworth.... Chapel Complex Ph 2. $4,200
Army............................. Kansas.............. Fort Riley.......... Fire Station........ $3,000
Air Force........................ Kansas.............. McConnell AFB....... MXG Consolidation & $6,800
Forward Logistics
Center Ph 2.
Army NG.......................... Kentucky............ London.............. Aviation Operations $7,191
Facility Ph III.
Navy............................. Maine............... Portsmouth NSY...... Dry Dock 3 $1,450
Waterfront Support
Facility.
Navy............................. Maine............... Portsmouth NSY...... Consolidated Global $9,980
Sub Component Ph 1.
Navy............................. Maryland............ Carderock........... RDTE Support $6,980
Facility Ph 1.
Army NG.......................... Maryland............ Dundalk............. Readiness Center.... $579
Navy............................. Maryland............ Indian Head......... Energetics Systems & $12,050
Tech Lab Complex Ph
1.
Air NG........................... Maryland............ Martin State Airport Replace Fire Station $7,900
Air NG........................... Massachusetts....... Otis ANGB........... TFI Digital Ground $1,700
Station FOC Beddown.

[[Page 17558]]

Air Reserve...................... Massachusetts....... Westover ARB........ Joint Service $943
Lodging Facility.
Army NG.......................... Michigan............ Camp Grayling....... Live Fire Shoot $2,000
House.
Army NG.......................... Michigan............ Camp Grayling....... Urban Assault Course $2,000
Army NG.......................... Minnesota........... Arden Hills......... Infrastructure $1,005
Improvements.
Air NG........................... Minnesota........... Duluth.............. Replace Fuel Cell $4,500
Hangar.
Air NG........................... Minnesota........... Minneapolis-St. Paul Aircraft Deicing $1,500
IAP. Apron.
Navy............................. Mississippi......... Gulfport............ Battalion $5,870
Maintenance
Facility.
Army............................. Missouri............ Fort Leonard Wood... Vehicle Maintenance $9,500
Shop.
Air Force........................ Missouri............ Whiteman AFB........ Security Forces $4,200
Animal Clinic.
Army............................. Missouri............ Fort Leonard Wood... Chapel Complex...... $3,500
Air NG........................... New Jersey.......... Atlantic City IAP... Operations and $8,400
Training Facility.
Air Force........................ New Jersey.......... McGuire AFB......... Security Forces $7,200
Operations Facility
Ph 1.
Army............................. New Jersey.......... Picatinny Arsenal... Ballistic Evaluation $9,900
Facility Ph 1.
Air Force........................ New Mexico.......... Cannon AFB.......... CV-22 Flight $8,300
Simulator Facility.
Air NG........................... New York............ Gabreski Airport.... Replace Pararescue $7,500
Ops Facility Ph 2.
Army............................. New York............ Fort Drum........... Replace Fire Station $6,900
Air Reserve...................... New York............ Niagara Falls ARS... Dining Facility/ $9,000
Community Center.
Air NG........................... New York............ Hancock Field....... Upgrade ASOS $5,400
Facilities.
Army............................. North Carolina...... Fort Bragg.......... Access Roads Ph 1 $8,600
(Additional Funds).
Army NG.......................... North Carolina...... Camp Butner......... Training Complex.... $1,376
Army............................. North Carolina...... Fort Bragg.......... Mass Casualty $1,300
Facility.
Army............................. North Carolina...... Fort Bragg.......... Chapel.............. $11,600
Army NG.......................... Ohio................ Camp Perry.......... Barracks............ $2,000
Army NG.......................... Ohio................ Ravenna............. Barracks............ $2,000
Air NG........................... Ohio................ Springfield ANGB.... Combat $12,800
Communications
Training Complex.
Air Force........................ Ohio................ Wright-Patterson AFB Security Forces $14,000
Operations Facility.
Army............................. Oklahoma............ McAlester AAP....... AP3 Connecting Rail. $5,800
Air Force........................ Oklahoma............ Tinker AFB.......... Realign Air Depot $5,400
Street.
Army NG.......................... Pennsylvania........ Honesdale........... Readiness Center Add/ $6,117
Alt.
Army NG.......................... Pennsylvania........ Honesdale........... Readiness Center Add/ $504
Alt.
Army NG.......................... Pennsylvania........ Pittsburgh.......... Combined Support $3,250
Maintenance Shop.
Army............................. Pennsylvania........ Letterkenny Depot... Upgrade Munition $7,500
Igloos Phase 2.
Navy............................. Rhode Island........ Newport............. Unmanned ASW Support $9,900
Facility.
Air NG........................... Rhode Island........ Quonset State Replace Control $600
Airport. Tower.
Army NG.......................... South Carolina...... Hemingway........... Field Maintenance $4,600
Shop Ph 1.
Army NG.......................... South Carolina...... Sumter.............. Readiness Center.... $382
Air Force........................ South Carolina...... Shaw AFB............ Physical Fitness $9,900
Center.
Air NG........................... South Dakota........ Joe Foss Field...... Aircraft Ready $4,500
Shelters/AMU.
Army NG.......................... Tennessee........... Tullahoma........... Readiness Center.... $10,372
Army Reserve..................... Texas............... Bryan............... Army Reserve Center. $920
Army............................. Texas............... Camp Bullis......... Live Fire Shoot $4,200
House.
Air NG........................... Texas............... Ellington Field..... ASOS Facility....... $7,600
Army............................. Texas............... Fort Hood........... Chapel with $17,500
Education Center.
Air Force........................ Texas............... Lackland AFB........ Security Forces $900
Building Ph 1.
Air Force........................ Texas............... Laughlin AFB........ Student Officer $1,440
Quarters Ph 2.
Air Force........................ Texas............... Randolph AFB........ Fire and Rescue $972
Station.
Navy............................. Texas............... Corpus Christi...... Parking Apron $3,500
Recapitalization Ph
1.
Army............................. Texas............... Fort Bliss.......... Medical Parking $12,500
Garage Ph 1.
Air NG........................... Texas............... Fort Worth NAS JRB.. Security Forces $5,000
Training Facility.
Navy............................. Texas............... Kingsville.......... Fitness Center...... $11,580
Air Force........................ Utah................ Hill AFB............ Three-Bay Fire $5,400
Station.
Army NG.......................... Vermont............. Ethan Allen Range... Readiness Center.... $323
Army NG.......................... Virginia............ Fort Belvoir........ Readiness Center and $1,085
NGB Conference
Center.
Army............................. Virginia............ Fort Myer........... Hatfield Gate $300
Expansion.
Army............................. Virginia............ Fort Eustis......... Vehicle Paint $3,900
Facility.
Navy............................. Virginia............ Norfolk NS.......... Fire and Emergency $9,960
Services Station.
Navy............................. Virginia............ Norfolk NSY......... Industrial Access $9,990
Improvements, Main
Gate 15.
Navy............................. Virginia............ Quantico............ OCS Headquarters $5,980
Facility.
Navy............................. Washington.......... Kitsap NB........... Saltwater Cooling & $5,110
Fire Protection
Improvements.
Air NG........................... Washington.......... McChord AFB......... 262 Info Warfare $8,600
Aggressor Squadron
Facility.

[[Page 17559]]

Navy............................. Washington.......... Whidbey Island...... Firefighting $6,160
Facility.
Army NG.......................... West Virginia....... Camp Dawson......... Shoot House......... $2,000
Army NG.......................... West Virginia....... Camp Dawson......... Access Control Point $2,000
Army NG.......................... West Virginia....... Camp Dawson......... Multi-Purpose $5,000
Building Ph 2.
Air Force........................ Guam................ Andersen AFB........ ISR/STF Realign Arc $5,400
Light Boulevard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Elimination of VA Congressional Earmark.--None of the
funds provided in this Act shall be available from the
following Department of Veterans Affairs account for the
following project, and the amount otherwise provided in this
Act for such account is hereby reduced by the amount
specified for such project from such account:

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is really a simple amendment. It simply
says that all earmarks in this bill will be taken out. This is
consistent with the Republican budget that was passed. So I'd remind my
colleagues on this side of the aisle that you have already voted, in
essence, for this amendment. We passed a budget which said that we
should have a moratorium on earmarks this year. That's what this
amendment would do with regard to this bill. It would simply say that
there would be no earmarks, Republican or Democratic, for this
legislation. Now, supporters of earmarks will often say that this will
lead to a more Democratic allocation of Federal resources and funds,
but I'd like to draw your attention to a chart here.
This is the MilCon bill that we're looking at right here. If you took
the dollar amount of the earmarks in this legislation, which is just
north of $600 million, and spread it evenly across all House districts,
it would mean about $1.4 million across each district in this country,
but that, obviously, is not what we have in this legislation.
If you'll look, the majority leadership is associated with an average
of $6.2 million in earmarks in this legislation. That's about four
times the average of rank-and-file Members in the House. Vulnerable
Members, so-called vulnerables, identified by each party receive $7.7
million, or associated with that much, in earmarks. That is, I think,
four or five times more than the rank-and-file Member. If you're on the
Appropriations Committee, you get about $10.5 million. Now, that's
about, I think, seven times as much as a rank-and-file Member in this
body will get.
So I guess you could make the argument or try to make the argument
that those military installations or those facilities across this
country that happen to be in districts represented by an appropriator
are more needy or are somehow in greater need of Federal funds than
those facilities located in rank-and-file Members' districts. I don't
think you could make that argument with a straight face. You simply
can't. This is consistent with bill after bill after bill.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be the only appropriations bill that
we have this session. We're not likely to get to the others, so this is
our only chance to actually speak up and say that we know that this
process isn't working very well and that we have to fix it.
There has been a lot of talk about earmark reform over the last
couple of years, as well there should have been, both when we have
controlled this body and when those across the aisle have controlled
it, but very little has changed, and this chart shows it. Very little
has changed. It is very much a spoil system. It's not a system where--
I'm sure we'll be told in just a few minutes--these earmarks were
vetted by the Pentagon and that this is a different process than we
have for other bills, but let me tell you:
Did the Pentagon vet this process and say, ``You know, we think that
those who are in appropriators' districts deserve seven times more than
those who are in a rank-and-file district''? I don't think the Pentagon
went through that vetting process.
Now, if we don't like the way that the administration and the
Pentagon award Federal grants--and I agree there may be problems with
it--let's exercise the oversight that we're supposed to exercise in
this body. Under article I, we have the power of the purse, and we
should conduct oversight, but simply saying ``we don't like the way the
administration allocates funds, so we're going to pile on 130 earmarks
in this bill, as skewed as the allocation will be, and somehow we'll
fix it'' is not an appropriate way to do it, and we know it. We know
that this process is broken. Yet we're continuing this year, just like
in other years, and we can't continue to go on.
Let me just bring that chart out again. Again, what we have is, if
the money were to be spread out among districts, it would be about an
allocation of $1.4 million. Instead, we have up here those facilities
in appropriators' districts that receive seven times more than others.
That's simply not right. There is no way you can make with a straight
face an argument that those districts, that those facilities in those
districts, somehow need more Federal funds. There is no way with a
straight face you can make the argument that this hasn't become a spoil
system where we're doling out by favor to just those who are in a
powerful position. That's what this process has become, and we should
stand up today and say, by golly, we're going to fix it, that we're
going to do something different for a change, that we're going to vote
until we can fix this process, until we can say we have a sound process
where these earmarks are vetted either in the Appropriations Committee
or elsewhere, and that we're just not going to continue with this
anymore.
Let me tell you that this institution has had as its hallmark over
the centuries the process of authorization, appropriation and
oversight. We have short-circuited that process with earmarking, the
contemporary practice of earmarking in particular. So we do too little
authorizing, very little oversight and simply too much appropriating.
When you deal with, as the Appropriations Committee did last year, I
think, 36,000 earmark requests, there is absolutely no way that this
body can adequately vet those earmark requests, let alone exercise
oversight over the rest of the Federal budget as is our purview and as
we should be doing.
So I would appeal to the Members both on this side and on the other
side of the aisle. Let's fix this system before we go on. A great way
to do it is to say let's adopt this amendment and say we'll have no
earmarks in this bill this year until we can come up with a better
process.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page 17560]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that projects in this bill
are allocated on the basis of one's power and influence. Well, I think,
when it comes to the appropriations process and since I'm the chairman
of the committee--and I'm a fairly powerful or influential person
except when I'm at home with my wife--I would, nonetheless, say that I
have no projects whatsoever in this bill--none, zip. I would also say
that, whether you like the reforms that have been instituted in the
last 2 years or not, just about the only reforms that have been
instituted on the earmarking process have been sponsored by me, and I
think the House knows what they are. We wouldn't even be on the floor
tonight, dealing with these in this way, had it not been for those
reforms.
I want to make a point: Regardless of what individual Members think
about earmarking, there are certain appropriations which by their very
nature require earmarking. There are other bills that by their very
nature do not. This is one of the three that does. You've got the
Military Construction bill; you've got the energy and water bill, and
you've got the interior bill. Large portions, if not all of those
bills, are simply construction accounts. When it comes to construction
accounts, those projects are in the main, requested and defined by the
administration. The overwhelming majority of projects in this bill are
selected by the executive branch.
This bill includes 518 total earmarks: 408 earmarks, 79 percent of
them, were included at the request of the administration. Of the 110
other earmarks, on its own initiative, the committee added seven
earmarks to improve better training barracks and medical facilities for
soldiers, marines and their families. They were not added at the
request of particular Members, but they are in this bill, nonetheless,
and the committee makes no apology for them.
I would also point out that 103 of these projects were added at the
request of a Member. One hundred two of them are military construction
projects, and one is a VA project. All of the military construction
earmarks, including the quality of life projects, were also included in
the authorization bill, and the VA earmark is included subject to
authorization.
There is no difference between what the Congress does in earmarking
military construction and what the White House does when it requests
earmarks for military construction. For example, five different
Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, asked the committee to
provide the second phase of a facility, $7.5 million, to support a
facility for a pararescue unit at the Gabreski Air National Guard base
in New York. Now, the sponsors of this amendment, evidently, are going
to crow about cutting 103 earmarks. Let's look at what they will
actually be cutting.
They will be cutting Air Force runways, aircraft refueling stations,
training facilities, maintenance facilities, fire stations, chapels,
barracks, control towers, firing ranges, and so on. You would be hard-
pressed to find a substantive difference between these projects and the
other 408 contained in the bill. The only difference is that they have
not been blessed by the White House.
Now, apparently, the sponsors of this amendment believe that the only
spending that is legitimate is that which is blessed by the executive
branch. Well, this document, the Constitution, reads as follows: ``No
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of
appropriations made by law.'' It doesn't say, ``only in consequence of
funds requested by the executive.'' It doesn't say, ``Only spending by
the executive is sacrosanct.'' It says that Congress has the
responsibility of making these decisions.
Now, Congress may make some wise choices. It may make some bad
choices. So may the executive branch. I would submit that, regardless
of your attitude about earmarks in general, it is ludicrous to say that
you cannot have the Congress using its judgment on occasion to decide
where money ought to go in the development of facilities on military
bases, just as it would be ludicrous to say that, for the Army Corps of
Engineers in the energy and water bill, the only projects that are
worthwhile proceeding with are those which are requested by the
executive branch.
I invite you to take a look at the way a number of accounts in the
executive branch have been turned into political slush funds. Take the
Reading First program. Look at the major job training program in the
Department of Labor. There are ample examples of abuse of the
earmarking process in the executive branch and in the legislative
branch. Our obligation, in my view, is not within the process of trying
to dig those out to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I think this committee has done a responsible job in making its
judgments about what those projects ought to be. If the gentleman is
concerned about members of the Appropriations Committee who he feels
have an inordinate number of earmarks, well, I have none. Yet I stand
here tonight, defending this process, because at least, on this bill, I
think there is very little to be said for the idea that only the
executive branch may make choices about whether barracks or hospitals
or daycare centers are built to facilitate the convenience of military
families. This bill is an example of Congress' meeting its
responsibilities and controlling the power of the purse.

{time} 0015

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment
for one fundamental reason, it would do harm to America's service men
and women and our military families during a time of war.
I would not, at any time, question the motives of the gentleman from
Arizona. He is a person of integrity, he has been consistent in his
principled position on the issue of earmarks, but the best of
intentions can't stop the worst of results. And the worst of the worst
would be to undermine our military readiness and the quality of life
for our troops and their families at any time, but especially so during
a time of war.
Let me list some of the harm that would be done. And this isn't a
full list, but just some:
Nine quality of life facilities, such as chapels and community
centers in our military bases, bases from which forces are being
deployed for the second and third time to Iraq and Afghanistan, those
would be eliminated.
Fifteen Guard and Reserve training facilities would be eliminated.
Seven active duty training facilities would be eliminated. These are
facilities that, on a bipartisan basis, after careful thought, this
subcommittee worked with the Department of Defense to say that, you
know what, we have been dishonoring our 18- and 19-year-old military
recruits. Because when they come in, instead of thanking them, we put
them in barracks that we would be ashamed to have our sons and
daughters living in. This amendment would stop those new barracks from
being built.
Seven fire stations would be eliminated. Isn't it enough that our men
and women have to be in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan? Must they
and their families also be put in greater harm's way back at home
because we can't build fire stations that are desperately needed?
And I know something about this because at one time I represented the
largest Army installation in the world, Fort Hood, Texas. It has had
one division continually in Iraq since this war began. And their base
commander came to me and said, you know what, the bureaucratic process
at the Pentagon and OMB killed our desperate need for a new fire
station. I'm glad Congress, in that case, exercised its constitutional
authority to do what was right to protect those great Americans and
their families.
Let me give you some more specifics of what harm this amendment would
do.
It would kill a new communications facility at a naval base for a
security force unit that is in charge of safeguarding nuclear weapons.

[[Page 17561]]

It would kill funds to expand and upgrade a readiness center for a
National Guard engineer battalion that has deployed soldiers to Iraq to
disarm IEDs.
It would kill new housing for an Air and National Guard unit. The
current housing has mold, leaking roofs, poor ventilation, and numerous
code violations.
I reject the notion outright that some unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrat sitting in an office in the basement of the White House
Budget Office has a monopoly on wisdom because they do not. And many
times, even despite their good efforts, the fact is administration
budgets, Mr. Chairman, are often started and put together a year or
year and a half before we come to this floor. I think it would be wrong
to deny us, this Congress, with our constitutional duty to fund
appropriations bills, to say that we can't benefit from the judgment of
time and changing needs during a time of war to provide for training
facilities and quality of life facilities for our troops.
This is a bad amendment. But worse than that, it is an amendment that
would do great harm to our service men and women, the quality of their
housing, the quality of their training. And for that reason, I ask my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle--in all due respect to the author
of this amendment, who is a decent and honorable man who cares about
our military and our armed forces--I ask Members on both sides of the
aisle to soundly reject this ill-advised, dangerous amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I've heard the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee talk about that
the appropriations process is about allocation of resources. Because
resources, even in the United States Federal Government, are not
unlimited, and so we always have to make choices of where money goes
and where money doesn't go. And that's what this discussion and that's
what this particular amendment are about.
There are, in the United States, excluding the territories, excluding
overseas, there are 4,402 military sites, 4,402. Here we have, in this
bill, Member earmarks that picked 103 of these sites--excluding the
other, roughly, 4,300--and send those $622 million of taxpayers' money.
And the question before us really is, why those 103? Why not the other
4,300?
Now, as much as the speakers before me have criticized the executive
branch or the Department of Defense or, in fact, military leaders,
Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, Department of the
Navy, Department of the Air Force have a responsibility for their share
of all of these. Department of the Army has 1,768 sites. So they have
responsibility for all of those.
When left the construction budget for them, they will, we presume,
try and put the money where they believe it is most needed, where they
believe it is the greatest warranted use. You might disagree with that,
but they have a perspective over the entire country.
We are each elected to represent our individual districts. And
although all of us are here and care about the entire country, clearly,
our first responsibility is often to our individual districts.
So I would argue that those who have a perspective of the entire
country are perhaps in a better position to look at the proper
allocation than this. And if these 103 were fairly allocated, then I
would ask, why does Mr. Flake's chart come out the way it is? Is that
simply coincidence that the greatest need of these facilities happens
to be in districts that are represented by appropriators? Is that
purely coincidence? I think not.
And when we examine how and where all this money will go, the other
thing is, what does the Defense Department think? Well, we didn't call
all 103, but we did call a few. We called up the Defense Department and
asked them about a few of these; did you request this? Did you think
this was a need? Did you think this was important for the military to
spend this on this particular site, this particular facility, this
particular area? And the answer we got was no in all the cases in which
we asked.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is a process that
does not work, that is not fair, that is not the best allocation of
what are always limited resources. And that is why, Mr. Chairman--I am
a cosponsor with Mr. Flake of this amendment--and that is why I hope
our colleagues will look at this and remember, as he said, this is
likely the only chance anyone in this Chamber is going to have to
express their opinion on earmarks. And if you think the earmark process
is broken, if you think there are problems with it, if you think there
are abuses, if you think we need to reform it, this is your
opportunity; this is the opportunity for Members to send a message and
vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield some time to my chair, Mr.
Edwards. But I just want to say how bothered I am by the attacks on
this particular bill.
This is about military construction. And there are construction
projects in here--and not many--but when you're dealing with a lot of
construction, there's a lot of slippage. And what happens, if you have
an opportunity to move one project ahead of another, it makes a lot of
sense. And these aren't projects that are invented by Members of
Congress that come here and know the specifics, these are projects that
come from the military itself.
For example, Mr. Flake's amendment would cut out, in Arizona, the
State that he comes from, in Fort Huachuca, the Air Tactical Command
Radar Operations Building. Now, I don't think a Member of Congress
thought that we have to go and add this in here. What happens is the
opportunity, Fort Huachuca that's seeking this, comes and says if there
is an opportunity buy, let's be able to use it. That's what strikes me,
that there's some kind of devious action going on here, and it's just
not true.
And the other gentleman's discussion in California alone, Edwards Air
Force Base near his district, to strike out a main base runway repair
that's in this bill. And that wasn't some legislator coming along and
thinking about, we've got to add this in as an earmark. No, this came
out of the Air Force saying, we need this; if it's possible, can we put
it in the bill? That's how we discuss these things in committee.
These are priority opportunity buys. And I resent the fact that this
amendment is a reckless amendment and just strikes it across the board,
regardless of the impact.
And so as Mr. Edwards so eloquently said, it does a lot of havoc to
the men and women who are serving our country in uniform and to the
bases that they operate out of.
I would like to yield the remainder of my time to my chairman, Mr.
Edwards.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I heard a few minutes ago a description of an ideal world where every
decision made by the executive branch is perfectly motivated. I wish
that were the real world, but I certainly wouldn't want to bet the
family nest egg on it.
Let me explain, Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues, how the real
world works. And I did represent the largest Army installation for 14
years; I worked closely with them. And what would happen is some
bureaucrat at OMB would turn down a high-priority project requested by
the top military commander--at Fort Hood, that was a Three Star
General. So when I would meet with that Three Star General at Fort
Hood, I would say, what are your greatest unmet needs? One year it was
a fire station. This year it was a chapel that Congressman Carter and I

[[Page 17562]]

worked on. We responded to the highest priority needs of the military
commanders with their boots on the ground. I put a lot more faith in
that commander's judgment than in some unaccountable, unnamed
bureaucrat. I would like to hear the names of these bureaucrats at OMB
that are so perfect in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their
homework.
Let me give you a specific real world example where this committee,
on a bipartisan basis, took an initiative. We hear in our hearings each
year from the top noncommissioned officers. We ask, what are your top
quality of life needs? For 3 years in a row our top noncommissioned
officers testified before Mr. Wamp and me and said, it is day care
centers. We have spouses who are deployed one, two, three times to Iraq
and Afghanistan. The remaining spouse is left at home with small
children and desperately needs affordable, accessible day care for
their kids.
But you know what? There weren't a lot of lobbyists over there at OMB
fighting for young mothers that are, in effect, single mothers while
their husbands are in Iraq, or young, single dads while their wives
were serving in Afghanistan. And our committee exercised its authority
under the Constitution to say that that's not right, we're going to
support these military families.
I reject this amendment, again, as I said, as being harmful to our
military families. In this case, you know what happened on day care
centers? After we added $134 million in a congressional initiative in
the FY08 supplemental bill, the Pentagon came back and said, you're
right, we made a mistake, we want to add to that.
We should reject this amendment and support our troops.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAMP. I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. And Mr.
Chairman, now it is late. It's 12:30, we've got two more amendments. I
will speak, and then I assume Mr. Hensarling will speak.
But let me say briefly why three senior members of the Appropriations
Committee from our side--Mr. Wolf, Mr. Kingston and myself, people I
believe have very high integrity--offered a proposal to have a 6-month
moratorium, no earmarks from either side, while we establish a select
committee to reform the way that earmarks are carried out because the
earmark system is broken, and there have been abuses on both sides. And
I do think that job one is to define what is an earmark. Because under
article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution, the Congress
does have the authority and the responsibility to direct the funding on
behalf of the taxpayers, not the unelected bureaucrats in the executive
branch. And this is now way out of kilter, but there have been abuses
and it needs to be cleaned up. So we said we should have a time out,
let's redo this.
I'm hopeful that this still happens because both major Presidential
candidates have indicated they would like to see sweeping reforms in
this process. But you've got to define what is it and then go from
there, and then change the rules for everybody--authorization
committee, tax, trade, earmarks from the executive branch, anywhere
would all come under the same rules, both bodies, bicameral, sweeping
reforms. Let's start over and define what is a congressional direction
that's acceptable.

{time} 0030

But I think these gentlemen tonight have picked the wrong bill to
come and attack on earmarks. Let me tell you why. One of the problems
with earmarks out there is there's a cottage industry of lobbyists
bringing requests to the Congress on behalf of clients. Are there
lobbyists on MilCon earmarks? There is no lobbyist for a National Guard
or a Reserve or a military base asking for money from the Congress. Are
there campaign contributions flowing based on earmark requests from the
National Guard, the Reserve, or military bases? No.
Now, I don't know where you get your numbers, but let me tell you
that there's not a request in this bill in my district, but there's one
in my State, and it's in a Democratic Member's district, Mr. Davis. He
may be on that vulnerable list, but he ain't vulnerable. I would say at
9 percent approval we are all vulnerable. What kind of a rating is
that, vulnerable?
Now, my name was also on that request because it was my State and
protocol is we put our names on it. But it's not in my district. So
facts are whatever you present them to be, but the military
construction bill is a perfect example of where the Congress has the
right and the responsibility to say this needs to be done.
We are the ones who had the 19 hearings about quality of life in
child care centers, not the executive branch. They don't have any
hearings. Why do we even exist to have hearings if we're not going to
say these need to be funded?
Let me tell you I was born at Fort Benning. My dad was on active
duty. They needed a new hospital. Mr. Bishop is going to get nailed for
getting an earmark because he represents Fort Benning, and he probably
went to this subcommittee of Appropriations because he represented Fort
Benning, Mr. Flake. Duh. That's how the numbers work that way. Good
gracious.
Defeat this, but then reform the process. Clean up the mess. But
coming through here with a chainsaw on everything, treating them all
like they're the same thing is no way to run a train.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to all
the speakers on both sides of the aisle, and I have no doubt that those
who may still be viewing this at 12:30 a.m. east coast time may be a
little bit confused.
We have heard a couple of speakers say that bureaucrats have no
monopoly on wisdom and that we as Members ought to be exercising our
prerogatives, and, certainly, Mr. Chairman, we have that right.
But at the same time, we have heard other speakers say, well, Members
of that same bureaucracy are actually requesting these particular
earmarks. So I could see how some might be confused. On the one hand,
if they're requesting it, I am kind of curious why it wasn't in their
budget in the first place.
So I am not really sure who has the monopoly on wisdom. My assumption
is that each and every one of these earmarks is probably a very good
expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I don't necessarily know if it's
the best expenditure of the taxpayers' money. But I know the Members
who serve. They're very serious. They're very diligent. I have no doubt
that they have done very good work.
I also heard my friend the gentleman from Texas say that this
particular amendment would harm our troops or military readiness, harm
our veterans, families, and a very long laundry list of others who
might be harmed. The underlying assumption is that I believe that this
money would somehow disappear. Well, I find that interesting because
usually when we debate somebody on the point of earmarks, they tell us
don't you realize you're not saving any money? That money stays in the
bill, and it's going to get used for some other purpose. So, again, I
could see, Mr. Chairman, how people who are watching this debate might
be a little bit confused. Which is it? Does the money disappear or does
the money stay and maybe fund other readiness centers, other barracks,
other military projects? Which is it? We seemingly hear speakers on
both sides or several sides on that issue.
But if the money does disappear, I would say to my friends on the
other side of the aisle you had an opportunity to support the
Republican budget on which, last I looked, had a billion extra dollars
more to help our veterans than the Democrat budget did. I know that in
the Budget Committee there

[[Page 17563]]

were amendments to strike earmarks and add to the veterans funding. So
if you spent less money, maybe the gentlemen on the other side of the
aisle harmed our veterans or their families or their military
readiness.
I think at some point, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example. And
although I have no doubt, again, that these earmarks are good
expenditures of the taxpayers' funds, the system is broken. It's not
just that there are a few bad apples in the barrel. The barrel is full
of rotten apples. And all too often--and maybe not in this bill, and I
certainly accept the passion with which the gentleman from Tennessee
spoke, and I know his sincerity in wanting to reform this process, and
I regret the fact that under the Democrat majority this appears to be
the only bill that we can debate earmarks. But what I know about the
system and what the American people know about the system is that it's
broken and that all too often it represents the triumph of secrecy over
transparency. All too often it represents a triumph of the special
interests over the national interests. All too often it represents the
triumph of seniority and privilege over merit.
Mr. Chairman, when my party was in the majority, there were a lot of
abuses in earmarks. But when the Democrats took over, they said they
would do it different. They said they would cut the earmarks in half,
and yet last year we had the second highest number of earmarks we've
ever had. They claimed there would be no more secrecy in the process,
but if we look to the New York Times recently, if I can quote from an
August, 2007, news clip: ``Despite promises by Congress to end the
secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of
Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to
specific hospitals and health care providers.''
The Democrats said that there would be across-the-board reform, and
yet we had bills initially come to the floor that we were expected to
vote on and the earmarks were to come later. The Speaker of the House
said she would just as soon do without them, and yet she is on the top
20 list of those who request them.
The American people want something different. It is time to join the
Republican proposal that the gentleman from Tennessee spoke about and
have a moratorium on earmarks, reform this process, start it tonight.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in deference to the passion and
conviction that the gentleman from Arizona brings to the floor, I would
yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words that have been spoken. I
appreciate the passion of those who are defending the bill as it is.
And let me just say this is not my favorite bill to come and propose
earmark amendments to. Not at all. But this is the only chance we have
got. I'd love to come here with Labor-HHS. I'm glad that the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee mentioned that there are a couple of
bills where earmarks are legitimate, but maybe for the rest they're
not. I have heard him say before that when he left as chairman in 1994,
there were no earmarks in the Labor-HHS bill; yet today I think last
year there were close to 2,000. There were a couple of years, I know,
and we are not breaking that trend very much. And we are likely to see
that again later this year, but we won't have an opportunity to come to
the floor and debate that. It's likely to be stuffed into an omnibus
bill and we take it or leave it with no vetting whatsoever. At least
here we have a chance on one bill to point out the flaws in the system,
and the flaws I pointed out.
The gentleman from Texas made a great point. He said that not all
wisdom resides with the executive, that somebody in a basement
somewhere in some Federal office hasn't had some epiphany about how to
spend money. I accept that completely. But it stands to reason as well
that some lowly rank-and-file Member who is getting an average of $1.4
million in this bill doesn't have any less knowledge than a vulnerable
Member, a Member who is in a swing district, in a tough district, in a
tough race. Does that somehow imbue you with some knowledge about how
much money would be spent in the MilCon bill or if you're on the
Appropriations Committee? And it may not be. These numbers may be off a
little. I accept that. It's not perfect. But how in the world with a
straight face can you say this is not a spoils system, this has not
become a spoils system?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Does the gentleman know that less than one-half
of 1 percent of this bill is made up of earmarks, less than one-half of
1 percent of the funding in this bill is made up of earmarks?
Mr. FLAKE. I am so glad he mentioned that. That may be the case. I'm
not sure. That may well be.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. For the record, that is correct.
Mr. FLAKE. My largest complaint with the earmark process is not what
we spent in the waste in some bills, maybe not in this one, maybe in
others, a lot in others. My biggest complaint has always been with the
earmark process; that we, as Members of Congress, give up our authority
under article I because we ignore, with our zeal to earmark 2 percent
or 1 percent of the Federal budget, we have basically called a truce
with the administration saying we will ignore your willy-nilly spending
if you ignore ours.
So we let bills like the Department of Homeland Security bill, $32
billion, very little of it earmarked, but so much of it wasted because
we are so intent on earmarking our little portion that we just don't do
the oversight that we're supposed to do under article I, and you can
look at empirically, anecdotally, any way you look at it.
I commissioned the GAO awhile ago to look at the Appropriations
Committee, since 1994, since the contemporary practice of earmarking
really got started, under Republicans. I concede that. And if you look
at the number of witnesses called, the number of hearings held, any way
you slice it or dice it, we aren't doing the oversight that we once
did, since the contemporary practice of earmarking started. And I would
submit that that's true across the board. But if you look specifically
at this bill, there is no way that you can say that this isn't a spoils
system.
When facilities residing in appropriators' districts get about seven
times as much. Maybe it's six. Maybe it's five. Maybe it's eight. But
with that kind of average, something is wrong. And that's what we are
saying here. We have got to fix this system. We should fix it before we
move on.
I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for the
work that he has done and for cosponsoring this amendment and for those
who have spoken on it. And I would just say again this is our only
chance. This looks like this is it for the year to actually have a
voice on earmarks and to say enough is enough, it's time to change the
process.
So I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment, and I appreciate the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for his commitment to fiscal
responsibility of this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY. I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 17564]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 408. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to take private property
for public use without just compensation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment to
H.R. 6599, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009, and to ask my colleagues to
support the amendment.
A little over a month ago, property rights advocates across the
country spoke out on the third anniversary of the now infamous Kelo
decision by the Supreme Court.

{time} 0045

I, along with Representative Maxine Waters of California, Jim
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, mark the date by introducing a resolution
that expresses congressional support for the private property rights
protections guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the Constitution.
Today, we in the Congress have an opportunity to demonstrate our
commitment to the preservation of these rights. My amendment would
ensure that none of the Federal funds appropriated by this act can be
used in the taking of private property without just compensation.
Ideally, Mr. Chairman, eminent domain should never have to be used,
but even the Constitution provides for its application in instances
involving public use, such as construction of a road or a public
school. Public use also includes the common defense, which is a central
focus of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations
bill. Accordingly, from time to time the needs of our military may
require the use of eminent domain. However, even when the Federal
Government exercises the power of eminent domain on behalf of the
military, private property owners must always receive just
compensation.
The taking of private property is among the toughest decisions a
government should ever have to make. A government should only make that
decision when it is absolutely necessary and only after working with
property owners to try to reach a mutual agreement.
The sanctity of private property rights and the security they afford
are among the greatest blessings this country offers its citizens.
Individual liberty and freedom are at the very root of our property
rights and therefore we must ensure that these rights are never abused
and they are always protected.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it seems the protections of the fifth
amendment do not apply to the wallets of hardworking Americans who are
now struggling at the gas pump. The inaction of this Congress to
address in a real way these historically high gas prices, I believe,
also constitutes unjustified taking, but it seems that this Congress
has little interest in justly compensating the American consumer by
increasing domestic energy production, creating new American jobs, and
lowering the price of gasoline. In fact, it seems to me the fear of
even a vote on domestic energy production has led the Democratic
majority to essentially shut down the appropriations process, the
process with which we fund the entirety of our Federal Government, from
the Pentagon to the schoolhouses across the country.
With only 17 legislative days left until the next fiscal year, seven
of the 12 appropriations bills have not even been considered by the
full Appropriations Committee, and this is the first appropriations
bill considered on the House floor. So while Speaker Pelosi and the
Democratic leadership continue to refuse pleas for at least a vote on
increasing domestic supply and lowering the price of gasoline, House
Republicans will continue to fight to open up American energy and to
prevent the unjust taking occurring every day at the gas pump.
From wallets to homesteads to family businesses, this Congress has an
obligation to protect the property rights of all Americans. So I again
call upon my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I support this
amendment. It does state the obvious: We should not take private
property for private use without just compensation.
Also, Mr. Chairman, because we had no other Members on our side to
finish our discussion on the previous debate, let me just say briefly
in response to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), his comments,
there was no confusion about that amendment. It was very clear that the
direct impact of that amendment would have been to hurt our troops. It
would have killed fire stations designed to protect our soldiers, our
sailors, our airmen, and marines and their families.
It would have cut out training facilities, it would have cut out
daycare centers, it would have cut out all sorts of important
facilities to help our troops have a better quality of life and to
train effectively during a time of war, and it's because of that and
because of the responsible process that our subcommittee has gone
through to vet these projects carefully, that I am confident that later
this morning when the House votes on that amendment, that that
amendment will be soundly defeated for all the right reasons.
This process in this subcommittee has been a good one, a solid one,
and I think the protest to the contrary will be made clear tomorrow
when Republicans and Democrats alike join to overwhelmingly reject the
Flake amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Insert after section 407 the following:
Sec. 408. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon
Act).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that has
come to this floor in different fashions in the past, and it deals with
the Davis-Bacon federally mandated wage scale. The amendment simply
says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to
enforce the Davis-Bacon Act.
Davis-Bacon is a federally mandated wage scale that was established
in about 1932, and the motivation for it was New York contractors that
wanted to keep black American workers out of the trade unions as they
began to bid projects such as Federal buildings in New York and reach
down to places like Alabama to get cheaper labor, bring that labor in,
and undercut the trade unions in New York. Congressman Davis and I
believe it was Senator Bacon, or vice versa, came forward with this
legislation.
It is, Mr. Chairman, the last vestige of the Jim Crow laws we have
had in this country designed to keep African Americans out of this
work. That is the legacy of it. The fact of it is that it's a federally
mandated union wage scale. It is not prevailing wage. I worked under it
all of my life, and the people that report these wage scales to the
survey are people that report union scale. Merit shop employers do not
report those wage scales very often because they know that the union
will show up to organize them, and there is a penalty for filing those
report that

[[Page 17565]]

has to do with fight off union organizations.
The effect of it is a high cost to taxpayers, Mr. Chairman. A high
cost to the taxpayers, by my calculations of being 28 years in
construction business and dealing with these wage scales on a regular
basis, that ranges, depending on how much of your project is labor
versus how much is material, my own calculations range between 8
percent on the low side of inflated price, to 35 percent on the higher
side.
It inflates wages by about the 22 percent, according to a Beacon Hill
study of 2008. Their studies shows a 9.91 percent increase in the
overall cost of the projects that is anchored to this federally
mandated union scale.
It raises public constructions costs by about $8.6 billion a year.
According to a CBO estimate, the Federal Government could save $10.5
billion in construction costs if Davis-Bacon were repealed. I am
committed to the overall repeal of Davis-Bacon, and taking a bite at it
every chance I get.
The small business burden is another component. Small employers avoid
Davis-Bacon wage scale jobs, and I know and those of us in the business
know that if there are federally mandated wage scales on projects,
there are fewer bidders. Larger contractors that are union contractors
bid those jobs without much competition from smaller contractors
because the bureaucracy is so heavy, the reporting is so heavy. In
fact, I myself have sat in there hours and hours, way into the night,
filling out minute paperwork so that it can go gather dust in some
bureaucrat's desk until something comes wrong and then they come back
and bring charges against you. I put it all on an Excel spreadsheet and
track every motion of every man, every machine that operates or
maintain or moves the machine so that we can file a report that will be
full and complete. In fact, that strategy was adopted by the
regulators.
The small business burden is too great, the taxpayer burden is too
great. This is a union-mandated scale. We don't need to be building
less projects or less work on our bases for military. We need to build
more. We don't needless bang for the taxpayers' buck, we need more, Mr.
Chairman.
So imposing a Davis-Bacon wage scale in the MilCon appropriations
bill here moves us backwards from a progress standpoint. It will make
sure that we produce fewer projects and it will mean that it will
inflate the cost of the projects that we do some place between 8 and 35
percent. My number that I use is 20 percent, to pick an average. The
number that Beacon Hill uses 9.91 percent increase in prices. Why would
anybody buy into that?
By the way, their measurements measure a calculation compared to
today's merit shop employers, but today's merit shop employers, and the
union scale employers, but those wages do not reflect the actual supply
and demand, like labor is a commodity like any other commodity. They
reflect already the impact of federally imposed wage scales in the
neighborhood. So there is no real measure of those wages from a
competitive standpoint.
I want to get back to free market. I want the merit shop employees,
who do a great job, to receive their reward for the work they do. It
also is an impediment to an employer, like I have been for most of my
adult life, because under the scale that you pay in the merit shop, you
can put people on payroll for all 12 months of the year, and I put them
in the shop when I need them, hand them a shovel, or put them on a
crane or excavator when I need them there and I don't have to dance
through all this paperwork. It's an impediment to bring people in that
are low skilled because you can't afford to pay them those imposed wage
scales it.
It keeps us from bringing people up through the process. It is
inflationary. It's unjust, it's un-American, and it's the last vestige
of Jim Crow.
I urge adoption of my amendment and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I rise in opposition to this amendment. In my
opinion, the gentleman's amendment would weaken the protections that
the Davis-Bacon Act provides to American workers. For myself, I'd like
to ensure that construction workers who are building barracks for our
troops or hospitals for our veterans are there because they are
motivated and skilled at their trade, not because think were the
cheapest workers that a contractor could find somewhere.
I heard the gentleman offer some estimates that he came up with. I
don't know the source of all of those. I am sure there are differences
of opinion, but I do know the Economic Policy Institute has done a
study that found a growing body of evidence suggesting that ending
Davis-Bacon will not reduce costs on government contracts.
I guess one could make the argument that if we could mandate--this is
government money--we mandate that these jobs all be paying minimum
wage, perhaps we could save some money. I don't think that would be
very good policy for our Veterans Administration, for our Department of
Defense, or for our country.
Finally, on I think a broader point, there may be some that think
that our country's present day economic problems are that the middle
class is just making too much money. I couldn't disagree more. The
problem with our economy today is that men and women who are willing to
get up and go work hard every single day are struggling to just make
enough money to help educate their children, buy clothes for their
family, and put food on the family table.
I don't see an amendment that would take money out of the pockets of
a lot of these hardworking middle class families that are the backbone
and heart and soul of our American economy and our private market
system. I don't see taking money out of their pockets helping them or
our economy.
So, with great respect for the gentleman, who has been consistent in
this arena, I must strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Briefly.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Just one point, and not to belabor this at all. But
a thought occurred on the study, the Economic Policy Institute. If
Davis-Bacon didn't increase the cost of projects, then what would be
the point in Davis-Bacon?
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, the point of Davis-Bacon, reclaiming my
time, is to see that the workers, American workers, who build our VA
hospitals, renovate our Department of Defense facilities, build new
barracks and housing for our troops that are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan today, that they are paid a fair wage, a livable wage.
We can have honest differences on this. I tend to believe from my
vantage point that providing that kind of honest wage brings in better
workers and more quality work.

{time} 0100

The gentleman might disagree with that, but we will agree to disagree
on that.
The bottom line is I think the middle class is the strength of our
Nation's economy, and the sooner we put dollars back into the pockets
of those families willing to work hard for that living, the sooner we
will get this economy off the wrong track and back on the right track.
For all of those reasons, I again oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FARR. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am not going to
take the 5 minutes, but I just want to point out that Davis-Bacon has
been part of Federal law for almost 80 years, and what that law has
done is every public project, all the roads in America, schools,
courthouses, buildings, harbors, airports, train stations, libraries,
Smithsonian buildings, you look

[[Page 17566]]

around America, the entire infrastructure in this country built in the
last 80 years has been built under the provisions of a prevailing wage
paid to the employees, prevailing for the area in which the buildings
are being constructed.
What is wrong? What is broken that needs fixing? I have never had a
constituent in the 32 years that I have been in elective office come up
and say, you know what? This library or this road or this school was
built wrong because it was built under Davis-Bacon.
This is an annual thing, people coming up and complaining about it,
because the prevailing wage oftentimes is what the unions pay, and that
can get the union contract. And what is wrong with union labor? This
effort to amend this is essentially just another strike against
organized labor in America, against a fair, decent wage, at a time when
the cost of living is almost at an all-time high. It is always tried,
it always fails, because there is no need to fix it, because it ain't
broken.
Reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is late at night, now early in
the morning actually, so I am going to be brief. But I want to end as I
began, by thanking Mr. Wamp, the ranking member of this VA
Appropriations and Military Construction Subcommittee.
There are a lot of people in Washington and a lot of people in
America who think that bipartisanship is not only an endangered
species, but an extinct species in Washington. I think this process,
over 100 hours of hearings, 19 different hearings, the product tonight,
a good product, is perfect proof that bipartisanship for the most
important of causes is still alive and well in Washington, D.C.
I want to again salute Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Obey and Mr. Spratt, as
well as the second ranking Democrat on our subcommittee, Mr. Farr of
California, who has been there every step of the way for our veterans,
our troops and their families. He has made a great contribution to this
bill.
Finally, I would just finish by saying my hope and prayer is that
what we have before this House is a bill that is worthy of the
sacrifice of our service men and women and their families.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Farr) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6599)
making appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________

REAPPOINTMENT AS MEMBER TO COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 201(b) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 USC 6431 note), amended
by section 681(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Year 2003 (22 USC 2651 note), and the order of the House of January 4,
2007, the Chair announces the Speaker's reappointment of the following
member on the part of the House to the Commission on International
Religious Freedom for a 2-year term ending May 14, 2010:
Ms. Elizabeth H. Prodromou of Boston, Massachusetts, to succeed
herself.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER AND HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN TO ACT AS
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC,

July 31, 2008.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer and the
Honorable Chris Van Hollen to act as Speaker pro tempore to
sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions through September
8, 2008.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the appointment is
approved.
There was no objection.

____________________

REVISIONS TO ALLOCATION FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, under section 208 of S. Con. Res. 70, the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby
submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the
budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for
fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee
budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and
311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in
response to consideration of the conference report to accompany the
bill H.R. 4137 (Higher Education Opportunity Act). Corresponding tables
are attached.
Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget
allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under
consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the
measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70
is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

BUDGET AGGREGATES
[On-budget amounts, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------
2008 \1\ 2009 \1\ \2\ 2009-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Aggregates:
Budget Authority............................. 2,456,198 2,462,553 (\3\)
Outlays...................................... 2,437,784 2,497,436 (\3\)
Revenues..................................... 1,875,401 2,029,653 11,780,263
Change in the Higher Education Opportunity Act
(H.R. 4137):
Budget Authority............................. -10 -9 (\3\)
Outlays...................................... 0 -114 (\3\)
Revenues..................................... 0 0 0
Revised Aggregates:
Budget Authority............................. 2,456,188 2,462,544 (\3\)
Outlays...................................... 2,437,784 2,497,322 (\3\)
Revenues..................................... 1,875,401 2,029,653 11,780,263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current aggregates do not include spending covered by section 301(b)(1) (overseas deployments and related
activities). The section has not been triggered to date in Appropriation action.
\2\ Current aggregates do not include Corps of Engineers emergency spending assumed in the budget resolution,
that will not be included in current level due to its emergency designation (section 301(b)(2)).
\3\ Not applicable because annual appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 will not be considered
until future sessions of Congress.

[[Page 17567]]

DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES
[Fiscal Years, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2009-2013 Total
House Committee -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA Outlays BA Outlays BA Outlays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current allocation:
Education and Labor................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Change in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (H.R.
4137):
Education and Labor................................. -10 0 -9 -114 36 -60
Revised allocation:
Education and Labor................................. -10 0 -9 -114 36 -60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________

REQUESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT FOCUS APPROPRIATE ATTENTION ON
NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY POLICING, AND COORDINATE
CERTAIN FEDERAL EFFORTS TO PARTICIPATE IN NATIONAL NIGHT OUT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in requesting
that the President focus appropriate attention on neighborhood crime
prevention and community policing, and coordinate certain Federal
efforts to participate in National Night Out, which occurs the first
Tuesday of August each year, including by supporting local efforts and
community watch groups and by supporting local officials, to promote
community safety and help provide homeland security. This important
resolution will work to make America a safer place by recognizing the
importance of community policing and crime prevention.
National Night Out, ``America's Night Out Against Crime,'' is a
program designed to heighten crime prevention and drug prevention
awareness; generate support for, and participation in, anti-crime
programs; strengthen neighborhood spirit and police community
relations; and send a message to criminals that neighborhoods are
organized and fighting back. This is an opportunity to bring citizens,
law enforcement agencies, civic groups, businesses, neighborhood
organizations and local officials together to fight crime where we
live. Last year, over 35 million people celebrated the National Night
Out with activities such as traditional ``lights on'' and front porch
vigils, block parties, cookouts, parades, contests, youth programs, and
visits from local police and sheriff departments. This event is
celebrating its 25th anniversary on Tuesday, August 5, 2008.
National Night Out supports the Department of Homeland Security's
Ready campaign by handing out materials and educating and empowering
the public on how to prepare for, and respond to, potential terrorist
attacks or other emergencies. Additionally, this event supports the
National Child Identification Program, a joint partnership between the
American Football Coaches Association and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, to provide identification kits to parents to help locate
missing children. The National Sheriffs Association, the United States
Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities have all
officially expressed support for National Night Out.
Neighborhood crime watch groups, such as National Night Out,
contribute to the Nation's war on drugs by helping to prevent
communities from becoming markets for drug dealers. They play an
integral role in combating domestic terrorism by increasing vigilance
and awareness and encouraging citizen participation in community safety
and homeland security. Additionally, community-based programs involving
law enforcement, school administrators, teachers, parents, and local
communities work effectively to reduce school violence and crime and
promote the safety of children.
The neighborhoods we once knew as places of peace and harmony are now
engaged in the fight against the rising tide of crime and violence. One
of the saddest results of this increasing crime is that neighbors fear
for their safety and become alienated from one another. Through this
National Night Out celebration, people in the neighborhood are brought
closer together, overcoming the atmosphere of fear and mistrust that
comes with changing times. National Night Out gives people a sense of
neighborhood pride and positive community spirit.
This is why I strongly support the goals and ideals of National Night
Out and request that the President issue a proclamation calling on the
people of the United States to conduct appropriate ceremonies,
activities, and programs to demonstrate support for National Night Out;
focus appropriate attention on neighborhood crime prevention, community
policing, and reduction of school crime by delivering speeches,
convening meetings, and directing the Administration to make crime
reduction an important priority; and coordinate the efforts of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the USA Freedom Corps, the Citizen
Corps, the National Senior Service Corps, and AmeriCorps to participate
in National Night Out by supporting local efforts and neighborhood
watches and by supporting local officials, including law enforcement
personnel, to provide homeland security and combat terrorism in the
United States. I urge my colleagues to support the National Night Out,
which effectively works to protect Americans from crime across the
nation.

____________________

SUNSET MEMORIAL

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 stand once again before this
House with yet another Sunset Memorial.
It is July 31, 2008 in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, and before the sun set today in America, almost 4,000 more
defenseless unborn children were killed by abortion on demand. That's
just today, Madam Speaker. That's more than the number of innocent
lives lost on September 11 in this country, only it happens every day.
It has now been exactly 12,974 days since the tragedy called Roe v.
Wade was first handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this
Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of its own
children. Some of them, Madam Speaker, cried and screamed as they died,
but because it was amniotic fluid passing over the vocal cords instead
of air, we couldn't hear them.
All of them had at least four things in common. First, they were each
just little babies who had done nothing wrong to anyone, and each one
of them died a nameless and lonely death. And each one of their
mothers, whether she realizes it or not, will never be quite the same.
And all the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity
are now lost forever. Yet even in the glare of such tragedy, this
generation still clings to a blind, invincible ignorance while history
repeats itself and our own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the
most helpless of all victims, those yet unborn.
Madam Speaker, perhaps it's time for those of us in this Chamber to
remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said,
``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is
the chief and only object of good government.'' The phrase in the 14th
Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says, ``No State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law.'' Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and
their constitutional rights is why we are all here.
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the clarion declaration of
the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Every conflict and battle our Nation has
ever faced can be traced to our commitment to this core, self-evident
truth.
It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world. Madam
Speaker, it is who we are.
And yet today another day has passed, and we in this body have failed
again to honor that foundational commitment. We have failed our sworn
oath and our God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly
4,000 more innocent American babies who died today without the
protection we should have given them.
So Madam Speaker, let me conclude this Sunset Memorial in the hope
that perhaps

[[Page 17568]]

someone new who heard it tonight will finally embrace the truth that
abortion really does kill little babies; that it hurts mothers in ways
that we can never express; and that 12,974 days spent killing nearly 50
million unborn children in America is enough; and that it is time that
we stood up together again, and remembered that we are the same
American that rejected human slavery and marched into Europe to arrest
the Nazi Holocaust; and we are still courageous and compassionate
enough to find a better way for mothers and their unborn babies than
abortion on demand.
Madam Speaker, as we consider the plight of unborn America tonight,
may we each remind ourselves that our own days in this sunshine of life
are also numbered and that all too soon each one of us will walk from
these Chambers for the very last time.
And if it should be that this Congress is allowed to convene on yet
another day to come, may that be the day when we finally hear the cries
of innocent unborn children. May that be the day when we find the
humanity, the courage, and the will to embrace together our human and
our constitutional duty to protect these, the least of our tiny, little
American brothers and sisters from this murderous scourge upon our
Nation called abortion on demand.
It is July 31, 2008, 12,974 days since Roe versus Wade first stained
the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own children; this
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

____________________

CORRECTION TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008 AT
PAGE 17263

______

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO HOUSES

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a
privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

H. Con. Res. 398

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House
adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, July 31, 2008,
Friday, August 1, 2008, or Saturday, August 2, 2008, on a
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2
p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2008, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate
recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, August 1, 2008,
through Friday, September 5, 2008, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on
Monday, September 8, 2008, or such other time on that day as
may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until
the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on House
Concurrent Resolution 398 will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions
to suspend the rules on H.R. 5892 and on House Resolution 1370.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 212, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 537]

YEAS--213

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--212

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[[Page 17569]]

NOT VOTING--10

Barrow
Blunt
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Hulshof
Levin
Meeks (NY)
Rush
Udall (CO)
Waters

{time} 1304

Mr. SESTAK changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FOSTER, HARE, PASTOR and SHULER and Ms. HOOLEY changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yes.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote
was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. Kilpatrick (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today after 7 p.m.
on account of personal business.
Mr. Young of Alaska (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today and the
balance of the week on account of business in the district.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Edwards of Texas) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Skelton, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Spratt, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Perlmutter, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

A JOINT RESOLUTION AND BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House reports that on July 28, 2008
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following joint resolution.

H.J. Res 93. Approving the renewal of import restrictions
contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House reports that on July 29, 2008
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bill.

H.R. 3221. To provide needed housing reform and for other
purposes.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 8 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, August 1, 2008, at 9
a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

7891. A letter from the Executive Director, Commodities
Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule -- Amendments Pertinent to Registered Entities and
Exempt Commercial Markets (RIN: 3038-AC39) received July 31,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7892. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting a copy of draft legislation to
amend the Argicultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to collect and retain user
fees for enforcement activities related to mandatory country
of origin labeling (COOL); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7893. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting a copy of a daft bill entitled,
``to remove the prohibition against the rescission of certain
unadvanced telecommunications loan balances''; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
7894. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Altrazine; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2006-0192; FRL-8364-1] received July 2, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7895. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0871; FRL-8370-2] received July 2, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7896. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- 1-Methylcyclopropene; Pesticide
Tolerance; Technical Correction [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0511; FRL-
8372-9] received July 25, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7897. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2006-0857; FRL-8370-7] received July 25, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7898. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Gentamicin; Pesticide Tolerance for
Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0234; FRL-8370-8]
received July 25, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Agriculture.
7899. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Inert Ingredients; Extension of
Effective Date of Revocation of Certain Tolerance Exemptions
with Insufficient Data for Reassessment [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-
0230; FRL-837207] received July 25, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7900. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0214; FRL-8373-2] received July 25, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7901. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Ammonium Soap Salts of Higher Fatty
Acids (C8-C18 saturated; C8-C12) unsaturated; Exemption from
the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0571;FRL-
8372-2] received July 7, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7902. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0416; FRL-8371-9] received July 7, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7903. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Gamma-cyhalothrin; Pesticide
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0096; FRL-8372-6] received July
7, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
7904. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Sethoxydim; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0893; FRL-8370-9] received July 7, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7905. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerances
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0475; FRL-8367-1] received July 7, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7906. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Bacillus thuringiensis Modified Cry1Ab
Protein; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-1204; FRL-8371-6] received July 11, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7907. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, mono [2-[2-(2- butoxymethylethoxy)
methylethoxy]methylethyl] ehter; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0254; FRL-8371-7] received July 11, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7908. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Dichlorvos (DDVP); Order Denying
NRDC's Objections and Requests for Hearing [EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-
0302; FRL-8372-5] received July 17, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7909. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2
protein; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0346; FRL-8369-4] received June 26, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7910. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental

[[Page 17570]]

Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule --
Residues of Quanternany Ammonium Compunds, Didecyl Dimethyl
Ammonium Carbonate and Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Bicarbonate;
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-1024; FRL-8368-1] received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7911. A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, Department
of Defense, transmitting the Secretary's determination and
findings that it is in the public interest to use other than
competitive procedures for a specific procurement, pursuant
to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(7); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7912. A letter from the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General John F.
Goodman, United States Marine Corps, and his advancement to
the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
7913. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense,
transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Vice
Admiral John G. Cotton, United States Navy Reserve, and his
advancement to the grade of vice admiral on the retired list;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
7914. A letter from the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General Charles E.
Croom, Jr., United States Air Force, and his advancement to
the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
7915. A letter from the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on
the approved retirement of Lieutenant General John W.
Bergman, United States Marine Corps Reserve, and his
advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired
list; to the Committee on Armed Services.
7916. A letter from the Principal Deputy Under Secretary
for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense,
transmitting authorization of Rear Admiral (lower half)
Garland P. Wright, Jr., United States Navy Reserve, to wear
the insignia of the grade of rear admiral in accordance with
title 10, United States Code, section 777; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
7917. A letter from the Chief, Programs and Legislation
Division, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense,
transmitting Notice of the decision to conduct a single
function standard competition of the Civil Engineer Function
at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
2461; to the Committee on Armed Services.
7918. A letter from the Deputy Under Secretary for
Logistics and Material Readiness, Department of Defense,
transmitting the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) Annual
Materials Plan for Fiscal Year 2009, along with proposed
plans for FY 2010 through 2013, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 98h-
2(b); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7919. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received July
30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7920. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-8031]
received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Financial Services.
7921. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Community
Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, transmitting the Department's third annual
Homeless Assessment Report for 2007; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
7922. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a report on transactions involving
U.S. exports to the Republic of Ghana pursuant to Section
2(b)(3) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to
the Committee on Financial Services.
7923. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Services, Department of Education, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research -- Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program --
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) --
Technologies for Successful Aging With Disabilities --
received July 17, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
7924. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 202 Base-Year Inventory for
the Susquehanna County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182; FRL-8687-
1] received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7925. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:
Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and
Boilers [Docket No. EE-RM/STD-01-350] (RIN: 1904-AA78)
received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7926. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's FY 2007 annual
performance report to Congress required by the Medical Device
User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
7927. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Mgmt. Staff, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- New Animal Drugs;
Cephalosporin Drugs; Extralabel Animal Drug Use; Order of
Prohibition [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0326] received July 31,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
7928. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Revisions to Emission
Reducation Market System [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0183; FRL-8575-3]
received July 2, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7929. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Direct Final Approval of Revised
Municipal Waste Combustor State Plan for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Indiana [EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0952;
FRL-8688] received July 2, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7930. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- US Filter Recovery Services, Inc.
Under Project XL [FRL-8687-6] (RIN: 2090-AA15) received July
2, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
7931. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the
Administrative Rules of Montana -- Air Quality, Incinerators
[EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0806, FRL-8683-5] received July 25, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
7932. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District [RPA-R09-OAR-2008-0237; FRL-8695-7] received July
25, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
7933. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Standards of Performance for Petroleum
Refineries [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011; FRL-8698-3] (RIN: 2060-
AN72) received July 25, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7934. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Virginia: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [EPA-R03-RCRA-
2008-0256: FR-8698-9] received July 25, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7935. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management
District, Including Nevada County Air Pollution Control
District Portion, Plumas County Air Pollution Control
District Portion, and Sierra County Air Pollution Control
District Portion [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0186, FRL-8569-6] received
July 7, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7936. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution
from Volatile Organic Compunds [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-1029; FRL-
8689-7] received, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7937. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Affirmative Defense
Provisions for Malfunctions; Common Provisions Regulation
[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1030; FRL-8573-5] received July 11, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
7938. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation

[[Page 17571]]

of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonably
Available Control Technology Requirements for Marine Vessel
and Barge Loading [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120; FRL-8693-5]
received July 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7939. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for the Juniata County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0184; FRL-8693-
4] received July 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7940. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for the Lawrence County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0185; FRL-
8693-1] received July 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7941. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for the Northumberland County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0186;
FRL-8693-3] received July 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7942. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for the Snyder County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0188; FRL-8692-
9] received July 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7943. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138; FRL-8693-9] (RIN: 2060-AO99)
received July 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7944. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-House Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Bae-Year Inventory
for the Pike County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0187; FRL-8694-7]
received July 17, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7945. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Determination of Attainment for the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Nonattainment Areas in Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0109;
FRL-8694-8] received July 17, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7946. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan; Pesticide Element; Ventura County [EPA-
R09-OAR-2008-0313, FRL-8694-1] received July 17, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
7947. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, transmitting the FY 2007 Superfund Five-
Year Review Report to Congress, in accordance with the
requirements in Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7948. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 202 Base-Year Inventory for
the Somerset County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181; FRL-8686-9]
received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7949. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 202 Base-Year Inventory for
the Warren County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0183; FRL-8685-5]
received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7950. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans: Washington; Vancouver Air Quality
Maintenance Area Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance
Plan [EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0998; FRL-8684-1] received June 26,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
7951. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Nevada; Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline
Rule; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program;
Redesignation of Truckee Meadows to Attainment for the Carbon
Monoxide Standard [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0561; FRL-8555-1]
received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7952. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quaity Management
District [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0337; FRL-8565-2] received June
26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
7953. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for the Crawford County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0180; FRL-
8687-3] received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7954. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for the Columbia County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178; FRL-
8687-2] received June 26, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7955. A letter from the Deputy Division Chief, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule -- In the Matter of The Commercial Mobile Alert
System [PS Docket No. 07-287] received July 18, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
7956. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a six-
month periodic report on the national emergency with respect
to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that was
declared in Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, and
continued by the President each year, most recently on
November 8, 2007, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7957. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting a six month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to Lebanon that was declared
in Executive Order 13441 of August 1, 2007, pursuant to 50
U.S.C. 1641(c); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7958. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting a six month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to Cote d'Ivoire that was
declared in Executive Order 13396 of February 7, 2006,
pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
7959. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7960. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7961. A letter from the Acting 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. 08-67 concerning the
Department of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to the Kingdom Saudi Arabia for defense articles
and services; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7962. A letter from the Acting 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. 08-98 concerning the
Department of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Iraq for defense articles and services; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7963. 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. 08-35 concerning the
Department of the Navy's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to

[[Page 17572]]

Iraq for defense articles and services; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
7964. A letter from the Acting 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. 08-37 concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Morocco for defense articles and services; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7965. 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. 08-76 concerning the
Department of the Air Force's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Israel for defense articles and services; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7966. 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. 08-91 concerning the
Department of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Iraq for defense articles and services; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7967. A letter from the Acting 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. 08-95 concerning the
Department of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Iraq for defense articles and services; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7968. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control
Act, certification regarding a proposed license agreement for
the manufacture of military equipment abroad and the export
of defense services, and defense articles to the Government
of Turkey (Transmittal No. DDTC 016-08); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
7969. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 3(d) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification regarding the proposed transfer of major
defense equipment from the Government of Canada (Transmittal
No. RSAT-03-08); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7970. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification of a proposed agreement for the sale of major
defense equipment to the Government of Singapore (Transmittal
No. DDTC 050-08); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7971. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification of an application for a license for the export
of defense articles and services to the Government of Germany
(Transmittal No. DDTC 036-08); to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
7972. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification of a proposed manufacturing license for the
export of defense articles and services to the Government of
Japan (Transmittal No. DDTC 031-08); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
7973. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification regarding a proposed technical assistance
agreement for the export of defense services, technical data,
and defense articles to the Government of the United Kingdom
(Transmittal No. DDTC 078-08); to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
7974. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification of a proposed agreement for the export of
defense articles or defense services to the Government of
Romania (Transmittal No. DDTC 084-08); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
7975. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the
2007 Annual Report on United Nations voting practices,
pursuant to Public Law 101-246, section 406; to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
7976. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, transmitting the Inspector General's
semiannual report for the period October 1, 2007 through
March 31, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act)
section 5(b); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
7977. A letter from the District of Columbia Auditor,
Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, transmitting a
report entitled, ``Letter Report: Sufficiency Certification
for the Washington Convention Center Authority's Projected
Revenues and Excess Reserve to Meet Projected Operating and
Debt Service Expenditures and Reserve Requirements for Fiscal
Year 2009,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 47-117(d); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
7978. A letter from the Executive Director, Christopher
Columbus Fellowship Foundation, transmitting pursuant to the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act, the Foundation's Form and
Content Reports/Financial Statements for the Third Quarter of
FY 2008 ended June 30, 2008, as prepared by the U.S. General
Services Administration; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
7979. A letter from the Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's annual
report for FY 2008 prepared in accordance with Section 203 of
the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
7980. A letter from the Acting Director, Grants Management
Division, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Department of Commerce
Implementation of OMB Guidance on Nonprocurement Debarment
and Suspension [Docket No. 060830228-6311-02] (RIN: 0605-
AA23) received July 8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
7981. A letter from the Assistant Inspector General,
Communications and Congressional Liaison, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's 2007 inventory of
activities that are not inherently governmental functions as
required by Section 2 of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, Public Law 105-270; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
7982. A letter from the Assistant Inspector General,
Department of Defense, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
7983. A letter from the Director, Office of Management,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's Year 2007
Inventory of Commercial Activities, as required by the
Federal Activities Reform Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-270; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
7984. A letter from the Acting Associate General Counsel
for General Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
7985. A letter from the Acting Associate General Counsel
for General Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
7986. A letter from the Director, Holocaust Memorial
Museum, transmitting the Museum's 2006 through 2007 Annual
Report; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
7987. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Office of
National Drug Control Policy, transmitting a report pursuant
to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
7988. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- PROGRAMS
FOR SPECIFIC POSITIONS AND EXAMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS) (RIN:
3206-AL67) received July 17, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
7989. A letter from the Secretary and Director, Postal
Regulatory Commission, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
7990. A letter from the Chief, Division of Management
Authority, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Revisions of Regulations
Implementing the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Import
and Export of Sturgeon Caviar [[FWS-R9-IA-2008-0003][96000-
1671-0000-P5]] (RIN: 1018-AV70) received July 17, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7991. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Migratory Bird
Permits; Addresses for Applications for Eagle and Migratory
Bird Permit Applications (RIN: 1018-AV63) received July 18,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7992. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment to the Total Allowable Catch
of Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder from the United States/
Canada Management Area for Fishing Year 2008 [Docket No.
071004577-8124-02] (RIN: 0648-XI64) received July 30, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.

[[Page 17573]]

7993. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Northern Rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf
of Alaska [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] (RIN: 0648-XI93)
received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
7994. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery; Suspension of the Primary Pacific Whiting Season for
the Shore-based Sector South of 42 degrees North Latitude
[Docket No. 080408542-8615-01] (RIN: 0648-XI87) received July
30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
7995. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea
Scallop Fishery; Framework Adjustment 19; Announcing OMB
Approval of Information Collection [Docket No. 070817467-
8744-03] (RIN: 0648-AV90) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
7996. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 071011590-7591-01] (RIN: 0648-XD38) received July 30,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7997. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 030221039-7043-42; I.D. 022707B] received July 30, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7998. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 030221039-7044-43; I.D. 022707C] received July 30, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7999. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 071220869-7871-01] (RIN: 0648-XE62) received July 30,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8000. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 0612242865-7168-01; I.D. 092506A] (RIN: 0648-AU90)
received July 31, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
8001. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
Regulations [Docket No. 0612242977-7216-01; I.D. 120304D]
(RIN: 0648-AS01) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8002. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 071221883-7885-01] (RIN: 0648-XE66) received July 30,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8003. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 071018614-7615-01] (RIN: 0648-XD56) received July 30,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8004. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 071030629-7630-01] (RIN: 0648-XD72) received July 30,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8005. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 030221039-7038-41; I.D. 021407E] received July 30, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8006. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan [Docket
No. 070703251-7261-01] (RIN: 0648-XB28) received July 30,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8007. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Sea Turtle Conservation; Observer Requirement for
Fisheries [Docket No. 070712318-7318-01; I.D. 110306A] (RIN:
0648-AU81) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8008. 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 Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Allowance of New Gear (Haddock Rope
Trawl, Previously Referred to as the Eliminator Trawl) in
Specific Special Management Programs [Docket No. 080306389-
8810-02] (RIN: 0648-AW53) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8009. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Greenland Turbot in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area [Docket No. 071106673-8011-02] (RIN: 0648-
XJ02) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8010. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Ocean Perch in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.
071106671-8010-02] (RIN: 0648-XJ07) received July 31, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8011. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Ocean Perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the
Gulf of Alaska [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] (RIN: 0648-
XJ09) received July 31, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8012. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Northern Rockfish in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.
071106671-8010-02] (RIN: 0648-XJ10) received July 31, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8013. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Closure of the
Trimester II Fishery for Loligo Squid [Docket No. 070717340-
8451-02] (RIN: 0648-XJ06) received July 31, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8014. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator For
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Bottomfish and Seamount
Groundfish; Permit and Reporting Requirements in the Main
Hawaiian Islands [Docket No. 071211828-8826-03] (RIN: 0648-
AU22) received July 31, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8015. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination
on a petition on behalf of a class of workers from the Sandia
National Laboratory, Livermore, California to be added to the
Special

[[Page 17574]]

Exposure Cohort (SEC), pursuant to the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
8016. A letter from the Rules Administrator, Department of
Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Intensive Confinement Center Program [BOP-1141-F] (RIN: 1120-
AB39) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
8017. A letter from the Rules Administrator, Department of
Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Inmate
Work and Performance Pay Program: Reduction in Pay for Drug-
and Alcohol-Related Disciplinary Offenses [BOP Docket No. BOP
1132-F] (RIN: 1120-AB33) received July 30, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
8018. A letter from the Pricipal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting two legislative
proposals relating to the implementation of treaties
concerning maritime terrorism and the maritime transportation
of weapons of mass destruction; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
8019. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting notification that funding
under Title V, subsection 503(b)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, has
exceeded $5 million for the cost of response and recovery
efforts for FEMA-3287-EM in the State of California, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 5193; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8020. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's feasibility study undertaken to evaluate
hurricane and storm damage reduction opportunities for
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey; to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8021. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Oxon Hill, MD and
Alexandria, VA [USCG-2008-0207] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received
July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8022. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Regulated
Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Romeoville, IL [Docket No. USCG-2008-0470] (RIN: 1625-
AA11) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8023. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Anchorage
Regulations; Stonington Maine, Deer Island Thorofare,
Penobscot Bay, ME [Docket No. USCG-2007-0198] (RIN: 1625-
AA01) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8024. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Anchorage
Regulations; Weymouth, Massachusetts, Weymouth Fore River
[Docket No. USCG-2007-0199] (RIN: 1625-AA01) received July
18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8025. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
100th Anniversary Chicago to Mackinac Race Fireworks, Lake
Huron, Mackinac Island, MI. [Docket No. USCG-2008-0631] (RIN:
1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8026. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Mackinac Bridge Birthday Fireworks, Lake Huron, St. Ignace,
MI. [Docket No. USCG-2008-0630] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received
July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8027. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zones;
Fireworks Displays within the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of
the Port Zone [Docket No. USCG-2008-0590] (RIN: 1625-AA00)
received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8028. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Tahoe CIty Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Tahoe City, CA.
[Docket No. USCG-2008-0516] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July
18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8029. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone; Red,
White, and Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV. [Docket No.
USCG-2008-0511] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8030. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July Fireworks
Display, Pittsburg, CA. [Docket No. USCG-2008-0509] (RIN:
1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8031. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks
Spectacular, Redwood City, CA. [Docket No. USCG-2008-0504]
(RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8032. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone; City
of Martinez Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Martinez, CA
[Docket No. USCG-2008-0502] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July
18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8033. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone; City
of Berkeley Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Berkeley, CA.
[Docket No. USCG-2008-0494] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July
18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8034. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zones;
Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, Atlantic Ocean, MA and
Security Zone; Liquified Natural Gas Carriers, Massachusetts
Bay, MA [Docket Nos. USCG-2008-0372 and USCG-2008-0301] (RIN:
1625-AA00 and RIN: 1625-AA87) received July 18, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8035. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Regattas and
Marine Parades; Great Lake annual marine events. [Docket No.
USCG-2008-0031] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received July 18, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8036. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Regattas and
Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events. [USCG-2008-
0220] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8037. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone;
USCGC EAGLE, Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington [Docket No.
USCG-2008-0558] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8038. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone;
Thea Foss Waterway, Tacoma, Washington [Docket No. USCG-2008-
0539] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8039. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone;
Escorted Vessels, Savannah, Georgia, Captain of the Port Zone
[Docket No. USCG-2007-0157] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received July
18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8040. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's report on the
National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory, pursuant
to Public Law 109-59, section 1119(f); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8041. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Olcott, NY Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY. [Docket No.
USCG-2008-0589] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 18, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8042. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental

[[Page 17575]]

Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule --
Amendment to the Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring
Initiative Funds under Section 106 Grants to States,
Interstate Agencies, and Tribes [FRL-8693-8] received July
17, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8043. A letter from the Chief, Trade and Commercial
Regulations Branch, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- UNITED STATES-
BAHRAIN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT [Docket No. USCBP-2007-0063 CBP
Dec. 08-28] (RIN: 1505-AB81) received July 22, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science and
Technology.
8044. A letter from the Director of Regulations Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Supplemental Statement of the Case (RIN: 2900-
AM49) received July 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
8045. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a semi-annual
report concerning emigration laws and policies of Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan, as required by Sections 402 and 409 of the 1974
Trade Act, as amended, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2432(c) and (d);
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8046. A letter from the Program Manager, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Child Support Enforcement Program; Medical
Support (RIN: 0970-AC22) received July 29, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8047. A letter from the Acting SSA Regulations Officer,
Social Security Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule -- Technical Changes to the Title
II Regulations [Docket No. SSA-206-0086] (RIN: 0960-AG43)
received July 30, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
8048. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the
2007 annual report on the operation of the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative and the Tropical Forest Conservation Act;
jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and Foreign Affairs.
8049. A letter from the Program Manager, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Medicare and State Health Care Programs: Fraud
and Abuse; Issuance of Advisory Opinions by the OIG --
received July 29, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and
Means.
8050. A letter from the Program Manager, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation
Facility Prospective Payment System for Federal Fiscal Year
2009 [CMS-1554-F] (RIN: 0938-AP19) received July 31, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees
on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
8051. A letter from the Inspector General, Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, transmitting the
July 2008 Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 3001(i) of
Title III of the 2004 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and
Afghanistan (Pub. L. 108-106) as amended by Pub. L. 108-375,
Pub. L. 109-102, Pub. L. 109-364, Pub. L. 109-440, Pub. L.
110-28, and Pub. L. 110-181; jointly to the Committees on
Foreign Affairs and Appropriations.
8052. A letter from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement
Board, transmitting the Board's 2008 report for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of
section 7(b)(6) of the Railroad Retirement Act and section
12(l) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act; jointly to
the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways
and Means.
8053. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting a copy of a draft bill entitled,
the ``Multilateral Child Support Convention Implementation
Act of 2008''; jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means
and the Judiciary.
8054. A letter from the Regulation Coordinator, Department
of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
``Major'' final rule -- Medicare Program; Hospice Wage Index
for Fiscal Year 2009 [CMS-1548-F] (RIN: 0938-AP14) received
July 31, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to
the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.
8055. A letter from the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting the annual
report on the National Security Education Program (NESP) for
2007, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1906; jointly to the Committees
on Intelligence (Permanent Select) and Education and Labor.
8056. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, Department
of Defense, transmitting a copy of legislative proposals as
part of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal
Year 2009; jointly to the Committees on Oversight and
Government Reform, Education and Labor, and Armed Services.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 or rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 1907. A
bill to authorize the acquisition of land and interests in
land from willing sellers to improve the conservation of, and
to enhance the ecological values and functions of, coastal
and estuarine areas to benefit both the environment and the
economies of coastal communities, and for other purposes;
with an amendment (Rept. 110-811). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 2535. A
bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study on the feasibility and suitability of constructing a
storage reservoir, outlet works, and a delivery system for
the Tule River Indian Tribe of California to provide a water
supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural
purposes, and for other purposes (Rept. 110-812). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3437. A
bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out
the Jackson Gulch rehabilitation project in the State of
Colorado; with an amendment (Rept. 110-813). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 6041. A
bill to redesignate the Rio Grande American Canal in El Paso,
Texas, as the ``Travis C. Johnson Canal'' (Rept. 110-814).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5293. A
bill to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of
the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation in
Nevada, to require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out
the settlement, and for other purposes; with an amendment
(Rept. 110-815). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. McGOVERN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1399. A
resolution providing for proceedings during the period from
August 1, 2008, through September 4, 2008 (Rept. 110-816).
Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. ELLSWORTH:
H.R. 6684. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to apply the exceptions process for
tiered formulary drugs to specialty tier drugs and to limit
to 25 percent the Medicare cost-sharing for specialty tier
drugs; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LYNCH:
H.R. 6685. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to provide an annual grant to facilitate an iron
working training program for Native Americans; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. McNERNEY (for himself, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Hall of New York, and Mr. Bishop of
New York):
H.R. 6686. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to
increase the maximum monthly rate for the military special
pay known as hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, or
hazardous duty pay, to increase the maximum monthly rate for
the family separation allowance paid to deployed members of
the Armed Forces, and to increase other special and incentive
pays to recognize the service of members of the Armed Forces
and encourage recruitment and retention; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. MITCHELL (for himself, Mr. Shuler, and Mr.
Shays):
H.R. 6687. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to calculate the cost of fuel expenses for vehicles
of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
according to gasoline prices reported by the Energy
Information Administration Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update;
to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts,
and Mr. Moore of Kansas):
H.R. 6688. A bill to amend section 5313 of title 31, United
States Code, to reform certain requirements for reporting
cash transactions, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
By Mr. BAIRD:
H.R. 6689. A bill to restore Federal recognition to the
Chinook Nation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.

[[Page 17576]]

By Mr. POE:
H.R. 6690. A bill to stimulate the economy and provide for
a sound United States dollar by defining a value for the
dollar, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and
Means, and the Budget, 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. CHILDERS (for himself, Mr. Altmire, Mr.
Cazayoux, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Ross, Mr. Tanner, Mr.
Stupak, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr.
Melancon, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Lincoln Davis of
Tennessee, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Matheson, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Carney, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Shuler, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Hill, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Space,
Mr. Barrow, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr.
Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Boren, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Walz of
Minnesota, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Souder, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Sali, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Patrick
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Berry, Mr. Davis of Alabama,
Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Mahoney of Florida,
Mr. Marshall, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Sessions,
and Ms. Shea-Porter):
H.R. 6691. A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the
District of Columbia; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BOSWELL (for himself and Mr. Terry):
H.R. 6692. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
provide loan guarantees for projects to construct renewable
fuel pipelines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, 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. ARCURI (for himself, Ms. Edwards of Maryland,
and Mr. Van Hollen):
H.R. 6693. A bill to establish the Harriet Tubman National
Historical Park in Auburn, New York, and the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Caroline,
Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. Gary G.
Miller of California, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Shays):
H.R. 6694. A bill to revise the requirements for seller-
financed downpayments for mortgages for single-family housing
insured by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
under title II of the National Housing Act and to authorize
risk-based insurance premiums for certain mortgagors under
such mortgages; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. WALZ of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. Courtney,
Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Hill, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Kuhl of
New York, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Space, Ms.
Sutton, and Mr. Peterson of Minnesota):
H.R. 6695. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
conform the mileage reimbursement rates used under the
beneficiary travel program administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to the mileage reimbursement rates for
Government employees on official business who use privately
owned vehicles, to eliminate all deductibles under the
beneficiary travel program, to ensure that all veterans can
participate in the beneficiary travel program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. POE:
H.R. 6696. A bill to authorize the American Battle
Monuments Commission to establish a memorial, in the District
of Columbia or its environs, to honor members of the Armed
Forces who served in World War I, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. BOREN (for himself and Mr. Conaway):
H.R. 6697. A bill to provide for marginal well production
preservation and enhancement; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, 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. BAIRD:
H.R. 6698. A bill to provide for nondiscrimination by
eligible lenders in the Robert T. Stafford Federal Student
Loan Program; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. LATHAM:
H.R. 6699. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to reform Medicare payments to physicians and
certain other providers and improve Medicare benefits, to
encourage the offering of health coverage by small
businesses, to provide tax incentives for the purchase of
health insurance by individuals, to increase access to health
care for veterans, to address the nursing shortage, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, Ways
and Means, Veterans' Affairs, and Armed Services, 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. HALL of Texas (for himself and Mr. Sam Johnson
of Texas):
H.R. 6700. A bill to recognize those astronauts who
participated in missions to the moon in the Apollo program of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by
authorizing their appointment to the grade of major general
or rear admiral on the retired list, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the
Committee on Science and Technology, 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. WATT (for himself, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Honda, and Ms. Waters):
H.R. 6701. A bill to provide for a program for circulating
quarter dollar coins that are emblematic of prominent civil
rights leaders and important events that have advanced civil
rights in America; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. ENGEL (for himself and Mr. Paul):
H.R. 6702. A bill to impose requirements with regard to
border searches of digital electronic devices and digital
storage media, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland
Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DENT:
H.R. 6703. A bill to assist in the establishment of an
interpretive center and museum in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to
protect and interpret the history of the industrialization of
the United States; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself and Mr. LaTourette):
H.R. 6704. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to provide for the treatment of institutions of
higher education as voter registration agencies; to the
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and Labor, 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. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr.
Blunt, and Mr. Hunter):
H.R. 6705. A bill to provide for habeas corpus review for
terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Gordon,
Mr. Goode, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Grijalva, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Butterfield, and Mr. Cummings):
H.R. 6706. A bill to provide for enhanced retirement
benefits for administrative law judges; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Ms. Bean, Mrs. Biggert,
Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Foster, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Roskam,
Mr. Hobson, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Thompson
of California, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Kind, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, Ms. Castor, Ms. Berkley, Ms. Hooley, Mr.
Braley of Iowa, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr.
LaHood, and Mr. Cramer):
H.R. 6707. A bill to require Surface Transportation Board
consideration of the impacts of certain railroad transactions
on local communities, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. FOSTER (for himself and Mr. Pomeroy):
H.R. 6708. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that no loan may be made from a qualified
employer plan using revolving credit arrangements and to
limit the number of loans that may be made from a qualified
employer plan to a participant or beneficiary; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Costa, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
Lampson, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Walz of Minnesota,
Mr. Hayes, Mr. Foster, Mrs.

[[Page 17577]]

Capito, Mr. Boren, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Tim
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Sali, Mrs. Boyda of
Kansas, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Cazayoux, Mr.
Lewis of California, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr.
Marshall, Mr. Mica, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. McCarthy of
California, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr.
Terry, Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Souder, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Pence, Mr.
Melancon, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, and Mr. Taylor):
H.R. 6709. A bill to greatly enhance the Nation's path
toward energy independence and environmental, energy,
economic, and national security, by amending Federal policy
to increase the production of domestic energy sources, to
dedicate fixed percentages of the royalties received for
conservation programs, environmental restoration projects,
renewable energy research and development, clean energy
technology research and development, increased development of
existing energy sources, and energy assistance for those in
need, and to share a portion of such royalties with producing
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, Ways and Means, Science and Technology, Education
and Labor, the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Farr,
Mr. Filner, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Woolsey):
H.R. 6710. A bill to prohibit certain activities relating
to the petroleum resources of Iraq, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HENSARLING:
H.R. 6711. A bill to provide for increased funding for
veterans health care for fiscal year 2009 by transferring
amounts from the National Endowment for the Humanities and
the National Endowment for the Arts, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and Labor, 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. HENSARLING:
H.R. 6712. A bill to provide for increased funding for
veterans health care for fiscal year 2009 by transferring
funds from the Legal Services Corporation and certain title X
family planning funds, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the
Committees on the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself and Mr. Davis of
Alabama):
H.R. 6713. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide for more effective enforcement of the Federal
prohibition on the interstate shipment of stolen property,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BACA:
H.R. 6714. A bill to establish the National Commission on
State Workers' Compensation Laws; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mrs. BACHMANN:
H.R. 6715. A bill to open Federal Bureau of Land Management
and National Forest lands to leasing for exploration,
development, and production of oil shale resources, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pence, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr.
Manzullo, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Issa):
H.R. 6716. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to reduce the recovery periods for certain energy
production and distribution facilities; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. Akin, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lamborn, Mr.
Latta, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Shimkus,
and Mr. Westmoreland):
H.R. 6717. A bill to terminate or provide for suspension of
the application of Federal laws that restrict exploration,
development, or production of oil, gas, or oil shale, to
facilitate the construction of new crude oil refineries, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources,
and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Ms. BEAN:
H.R. 6718. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide accelerated depreciation for computer
equipment placed in service by small businesses; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. BEAN:
H.R. 6719. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow hardship distributions from 401(k) plans to
prevent the insolvency of a trade or business of the
employee; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself, Mr. Cummings,
Mr. Hare, Mr. Hill, Mr. Israel, Mr. Murphy of
Connecticut, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr.
Baird, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts):
H.R. 6720. A bill to establish the Commission on
Comprehensive Strategies for the Placement of Natural Gas
Infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York:
H.R. 6721. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow an unlimited exclusion from transfer taxes for
certain farmland and land of conservation value, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, and Ms. Waters):
H.R. 6722. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to limit the application of tax exempt bond financing
relating to newly included counties in the Gulf Opportunity
Zone to property, neither the acquisition of which occurred,
nor the construction, reconstruction, or renovations began,
prior to the enactment of the Housing Assistance Tax Act of
2008; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BRALEY of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Kline of
Minnesota, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Latham, Mr.
King of Iowa, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Ramstad, and Mrs.
Bachmann):
H.R. 6723. A bill to provide benefits under the Post-
Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program for certain
periods before the implementation of the program; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mrs. Drake, and Mr. Wittman
of Virginia):
H.R. 6724. A bill to terminate prohibitions on expenditures
for, and withdrawals from, offshore oil and gas leasing off
the coast of Virginia, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. Rogers of Michigan,
Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Schwartz, and Ms.
Berkley):
H.R. 6725. A bill to establish budget neutral demonstration
projects to study and improve the quality and cost
effectiveness of cancer care services provided to Medicare
beneficiaries; to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 6726. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
to make technical corrections to the segment designations for
the Chetco River, Oregon; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. DELAHUNT:
H.R. 6727. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to promote charitable donations of qualified vehicles;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida:
H.R. 6728. A bill to provide for the resolution of several
land ownership and related issues with respect to parcels of
land located within the Everglades National Park; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. DINGELL (for himself and Mr. Boucher):
H.R. 6729. A bill to encourage greater energy efficiency in
building codes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Brady
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Altmire, Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Sestak,
Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, Mr.
Carney, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Murtha, Ms. Schwartz, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Dent, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Holden, Mr. Tim
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts, and Mr. Walsh of
New York):
H.R. 6730. A bill to establish the Fort Presque Isle
National Historic Site in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
to the Committee on Natural Resources.

[[Page 17578]]

By Mr. FILNER (for himself, Mr. Buyer, Ms. Herseth
Sandlin, and Mr. Boozman):
H.R. 6731. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
extend certain home loan guaranty demonstration programs
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. HALL of New York (for himself, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Filner, Mr. Ellison, Mr.
Hare, Mr. Courtney, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Donnelly, and Mr.
Rodriguez):
H.R. 6732. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
clarify the meaning of ``combat with the enemy'' for purposes
of service-connection of disabilities; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. HARE (for himself, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Latham, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, and Ms.
Schakowsky):
H.R. 6733. A bill to provide assistance to local
educational agencies in areas of the Midwest adversely
affected by storms and severe flooding that occurred in May
and June, 2008, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself and Mr. Shimkus):
H.R. 6734. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to encourage increased access to alternative fuels; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOBSON:
H.R. 6735. A bill to terminate the application of
restrictions on exploration, development, and production of
oil and gas in areas of the outer Continental Shelf adjacent
to Cuba; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA:
H.R. 6736. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a tax credit for the installation of
residential wind systems; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Mr. Walberg, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Feeney, and Mr.
Shadegg):
H.R. 6737. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individuals with children attending an
elementary or secondary school a deduction for each child
attending a public school equal to 25 percent of the State's
average per pupil public education spending and, for each
child attending a private or home school, a deduction equal
to 100 percent of such average; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky,
Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
Smith of Washington, Mr. Baird, Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Bishop of New
York, and Mr. Perlmutter):
H.R. 6738. A bill to establish a National Bioenergy
Partnership; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Welch of Vermont):
H.R. 6739. A bill to encourage stronger building energy
efficiency codes, promote renewable energy technology
deployment, and protect the United States from the effects of
climate change, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Smith of
Washington):
H.R. 6740. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act
to provide for a study of the Cascadia Marine Trail; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. ISRAEL:
H.R. 6741. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to modify and extend certain energy-related tax credits;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Ms.
Watson, and Ms. Lee):
H.R. 6742. A bill to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980
to prescribe certain qualifications to be eligible to serve
as an ambassador; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. JONES of North Carolina:
H.R. 6743. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a pilot program under which the Secretary may
furnish a service dog to any member of the Armed Forces with
a qualifying disability; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. KAGEN (for himself and Mr. Petri):
H.R. 6744. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to
require that certain laminated woven bags be marked with the
country of origin; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. KIND (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and
Mr. Petri):
H.R. 6745. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act reestablish the Social Security Administration's
experiment and demonstration project authority regarding the
Social Security Disability Insurance Program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself, Mr. Dicks,
and Mr. Inslee):
H.R. 6746. A bill to reauthorize and expand the Northwest
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act to promote the
protection of the resources of the Northwest Straits, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia:
H.R. 6747. A bill to improve the safety of motorcoaches, to
allow a credit against income tax for the cost of
motorcoaches complying with Federal safety requirements, for
other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy
and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Small Business, 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. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Engel,
and Mr. Smith of New Jersey):
H.R. 6748. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to limit the number of Urban Area Security Initiative
grants awarded and to clarify the risk assessment formula to
be used when making such grants, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mrs. LOWEY:
H.R. 6749. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow retail businesses a credit against income tax
for a portion of the cost of recycling plastic carry-out bags
and certain other types of plastic; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York:
H.R. 6750. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to modify the terms of
the community disaster loan program, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. MELANCON (for himself, Mr. Taylor, and Mr.
Jefferson):
H.R. 6751. A bill to provide additional funds for
affordable housing for low-income seniors, disabled persons,
and others who lost their homes as a result of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. Waxman):
H.R. 6752. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide grants or contracts for prescription drug education
and outreach for healthcare providers and their patients; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. PALLONE:
H.R. 6753. A bill to provide for the issuance of a
commemorative postage stamp on the subject of inflammatory
bowel disease; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. PASTOR:
H.R. 6754. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to provide a loan to the White Mountain Apache Tribe for use
in planning, engineering, and designing a certain water
system project; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin):
H.R. 6755. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the alternative tax liability limitation for
small property and casualty insurance companies; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. POMEROY (for himself and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky):
H.R. 6756. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide tax incentives for clean coal technology, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. Shuster, and Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida):
H.R. 6757. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to carry out programs and activities to improve highway
safety; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. ROGERS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Everett, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
Hayes, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Westmoreland,
Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Rehberg, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Price of
Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Deal of
Georgia, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Conaway, Mrs.
Musgrave, Mr. Goode, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Turner, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Dent, and Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida):
H.R. 6758. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to promptly commence an oil and gas leasing program for
public lands within the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SPACE:
H.R. 6759. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the renewable electricity production credit
and to require

[[Page 17579]]

the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to provide for
workforce training and education, at institutions of higher
education, in the fields of renewable energy and efficiency,
green technology, and sustainable environmental practices; to
the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and Labor, 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. STUPAK:
H.R. 6760. A bill to pay a one-time bonus to members of the
Armed Forces who serve in a combat zone designated for
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services, and
in addition to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. STUPAK (for himself and Mr. Burgess):
H.R. 6761. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to enter into negotiated rulemaking to
modernize the Medicare part B fee schedule for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi:
H.R. 6762. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a credit against tax for increased homeowners
insurance premiums suffered by certain coastal homeowners
subject to increased risk from hurricane events, and for
homeowner mitigation expenditures for natural catastrophic
events; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Costello,
and Mr. Ehlers):
H.R. 6763. A bill to amend the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 to extend the
expiration date of digital-to-analog converter box coupons
from 3 months to 6 months; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. TSONGAS (for herself, Mr. Michaud, and Mr.
Miller of Florida):
H.R. 6764. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to
Congress quarterly reports on vacancies in mental health
professional positions in Department of Veterans Affairs
medical facilities; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. TSONGAS (for herself, Mr. Michaud, and Mr.
Miller of Florida):
H.R. 6765. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to carry out a pilot program to provide outreach and
training to certain college and university mental health
centers relating to the mental health of veterans of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr.
Perlmutter):
H.R. 6766. A bill to amend the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to
expand the category of individuals eligible for compensation,
to improve the procedures for providing compensation, and to
improve transparency, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee
on Education and Labor, 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. UDALL of Colorado:
H.R. 6767. A bill to facilitate the establishment of
additional or expanded public target ranges in certain
States; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico:
H.R. 6768. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to
develop water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to
approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the
Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos;
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.R. 6769. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to strengthen State and local government efforts to
investigate and prosecute fraud and abuse in the Medicaid
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. WEINER (for himself, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
and Mr. King of New York):
H.R. 6770. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to
provide Federal aid and economic stimulus through a one-time
revenue grant to the States and their local governments; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia (for himself and Mrs.
Drake):
H.R. 6771. A bill to require the Office of Management and
Budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration
activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, to require the
Environmental Protection Agency to develop and implement an
adaptive management plan, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. Hodes, Mrs. Jones
of Ohio, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Mr. Waxman, Ms. DeLauro, Ms.
Solis, Mr. Rothman, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Norton, Ms.
Castor, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Ms.
Shea-Porter, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms.
Baldwin, and Mr. Stark):
H. Con. Res. 400. Concurrent resolution expressing the
support of the Congress regarding the need to ensure health
care for women and health care for all in national health
care reform; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself, Mr. Cantor, Mr.
Thornberry, Mr. Pence, and Mr. Pitts):
H. Con. Res. 401. Concurrent resolution expressing the
support of Congress for enhancing energy independence through
the usage of existing resources and technology; to the
Committee on Natural Resources, 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. PETERSON of Pennsylvania:
H. Con. Res. 402. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
historical significance of the discovery of oil and the birth
of the petroleum and natural gas industries on the banks of
Oil Creek, Venango County, near Titusville, Pennsylvania on
August 27, 1859, and designating the year 2009 as the
``Sesquicentennial of Oil''; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mrs. Christensen, Ms.
Lee, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Al
Green of Texas, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr.
Towns, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
Mr. Carson, Ms. Richardson, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Cleaver, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Watt, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Clay, Mr. Payne, Mr. Clyburn, Ms.
Waters, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Davis of
Alabama, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Rush, Mr. Meeks
of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms.
Watson, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Snyder, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Solis, Mr. Grijalva, Ms.
Hooley, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weiner, Ms.
Eshoo, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Stark, Mr. Moran of Virginia,
Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Honda, Mr. Miller of
North Carolina, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Spratt, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr.
Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Capuano, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Berkley,
and Ms. DeGette):
H. Con. Res. 403. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
important contributions of African-American doctors on the
event of the apology of the American Medical Association to
the National Medical Association, an association of African-
American doctors, for over a century of racial prejudices and
wrongdoings, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GRAVES:
H. Con. Res. 404. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of Complaint Free Wednesday; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself and Mr. Boustany):
H. Con. Res. 405. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
first full week of April as ``National Workplace Wellness
Week''; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. LANGEVIN:
H. Con. Res. 406. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that any effort to reengineer the health
care system in the United States should incorporate
sustainable wellness programs that address the underlying
causal factors associated with chronic disease; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. Mica, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Platts, Mr.

[[Page 17580]]

Saxton, Mr. Pallone, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr.
Hare, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Ryan of
Ohio, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Scott of Virginia,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Patrick Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Costello, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Holt, Mrs. Maloney of New York, and
Ms. DeLauro):
H. Con. Res. 407. Concurrent resolution commemorating the
500th anniversary of the birth of Italian architect Andrea
Palladio; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Moran of Kansas, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Pickering, Mr.
McCarthy of California, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Melancon, Mr.
Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Ross, Mr. Marchant,
Mr. Shuster, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Neugebauer,
Ms. Granger, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Mica, Mr.
Fortenberry, Mr. Terry, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Ms.
Foxx, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Ehlers,
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Baird, Mr. Walden of Oregon,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. McHenry, and Mr. Sessions):
H. Con. Res. 408. Concurrent resolution recognizing North
Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms.
Clarke, Mr. Weiner, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Nadler, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms. Solis):
H. Res. 1394. A resolution applauding organizations that
engage in the prevention of domestic violence and provide
outreach and support services for victims; to the Committee
on Education and Labor.
By Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. Thompson
of California, Mr. Honda, and Mr. Butterfield):
H. Res. 1395. A resolution expressing concern over the
current Federal policy that allows the exportation of toxic
electronic waste to developing Nations, and expressing the
sense of the House of Representatives that the United States
should join other developed Nations and ban the exportation
of toxic electronic waste to developing Nations; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BOEHNER:
H. Res. 1396. A resolution raising a question of the
privileges of the House; which was laid on the table.
By Mr. POE (for himself and Mr. Costa):
H. Res. 1397. A resolution commending the important
achievements of the National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence as it celebrates 30 years of service to local
domestic violence shelter and service programs and the
victims of domestic violence; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Mr. ACKERMAN:
H. Res. 1398. A resolution expressing the grave concern of
Congress regarding the continued gross violations of
political, civil, and human rights of the Syrian people by
the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, calling on the
Government of Syria to immediately and unconditionally
release prisoners of conscience and other political
prisoners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. Filner, and Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina):
H. Res. 1400. A resolution expressing the Nation's
sincerest appreciation for the service of the World War II
Filipino veterans who fought in the Armed Forces on the 67th
anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's military
order; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Cardoza, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr.
McGovern):
H. Res. 1401. A resolution commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the Azorean Refugee Act of 1958 and
celebrating the extensive contributions of Portuguese-
American communities to the United States; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr.
Weiner, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Payne, Ms. Watson,
Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Bishop of
New York, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr. Serrano, Mr.
Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Chandler,
Mr. Nadler, Mr. Engel, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Gordon,
Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Honda, Mr. Carney, Mr. Tanner, Mr.
Shuler, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Sires, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. McGovern, Ms.
Schakowsky, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas,
Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Berman, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr.
Scott of Georgia, and Mr. Blumenauer):
H. Res. 1402. A resolution supporting a transition to
democracy through free, fair, credible, peaceful, and
transparent elections in Bangladesh; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. LaTOURETTE (for himself, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Regula, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Hobson):
H. Res. 1403. A resolution recognizing the 65th anniversary
of the Bolton Act of 1943, creating the Cadet Nurse Corps; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. POE:
H. Res. 1404. A resolution recognizing the 50th Anniversary
of the Country Music Association and its contributions to
music, culture, history, and patriotism; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Gallegly, and Mr. Wexler):
H. Res. 1405. A resolution congratulating the Republic of
Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of
independence; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. SOLIS (for herself, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Reyes, Mr.
Rodriguez, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms.
Bordallo, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Waxman, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Doggett, Mr. McGovern, Ms.
Schwartz, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Towns):
H. Res. 1406. A resolution recognizing and supporting the
work of Community Health Workers; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. TERRY (for himself and Mr. Inslee):
H. Res. 1407. A resolution recognizing the importance of
increasing renewable and alternative fuel use in reducing
imports of foreign oil; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
H. Res. 1408. A resolution recognizing the benefits of bus
rapid transit and the transportation improvements along the
United States Route 36 Corridor to communities, individuals,
and businesses in Colorado; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:

358. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of
the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 181
memorializing the Congress of the United States to take such
actions as are necessary to recognize the need for support of
the spouses of deceased veterans and the need for housing for
homeless veterans; to the Committee on Appropriations.
359. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 08-014
concerning the state implementation plan credits for remote
vehicle emissions testing programs; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
360. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 08-005
memorializing the Congress of the United States to enact
legislation preventing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services from enforcing rules that would adversely affect
Colorado's health care safety net; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
361. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 08-020
supporting the membership of the Republic of China in the
United Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
362. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Arizona, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1046
supporting the designation of a ``National Day of the
Cowboy''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
363. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Florida, relative to Senate Memorial No. 1454 urging the
Congress of the United States to make forms for the United
States Decennial Census of 2010 available in the Creole
language for the Haitian population of Florida; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
364. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 08-001
memorializing the Congress of the United States to restore
funding for the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
365. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of New Jersey, relative to Assembly Resolution No. 97
requesting that the federal government establish funding
program for local communities establishing ``quiet zones''
along certain light rail lines; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 139: Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 197: Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
H.R. 219: Mr. Weldon of Florida and Mr. Poe.
H.R. 333: Mr. Hinchey.

[[Page 17581]]

H.R. 539: Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 688: Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Patrick Murphy of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 840: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 962: Ms. Bordallo.
H.R. 1153: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 1157: Mr. Turner.
H.R. 1229: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1331: Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 1419: Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H.R. 1527: Mr. Shuster.
H.R. 1540: Mr. Larsen of Washington.
H.R. 1552: Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1606: Mr. Boswell.
H.R. 1665: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H.R. 1671: Mrs. Boyda of Kansas and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 1673: Mr. Boren.
H.R. 1688: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 1783: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 1820: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Towns,
and Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 1927: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 1929: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1940: Mr. Walberg.
H.R. 1956: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 2032: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 2066: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 2074: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 2092: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 2123: Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 2188: Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 2216: Mr. Ellison and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 2279: Mr. Mica and Mr. Flake.
H.R. 2289: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 2332: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Radanovich, and Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 2371: Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 2380: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 2533: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
H.R. 2694: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 2702: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 2905: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 2915: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 2941: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 2993: Mr. Wexler and Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 3008: Mr. Holden and Mr. Ross.
H.R. 3045: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 3089: Mr. Keller.
H.R. 3175: Ms. Kaptur and Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 3212: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 3232: Mr. Cazayoux, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Rogers of
Michigan.
H.R. 3334: Mr. Carney.
H.R. 3484: Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 3485: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 3544: Mr. Israel and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 3663: Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 3666: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 3689: Mr. Poe.
H.R. 3697: Ms. Bordallo.
H.R. 3749: Mr. Wu and Mr. Hill.
H.R. 3834: Ms. Sutton and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 3926: Mr. Cuellar.
H.R. 3934: Mr. Feeney.
H.R. 3944: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3990: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 4054: Ms. Velazquez and Ms. Speier.
H.R. 4059: Mr. Upton.
H.R. 4131: Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Ms. Matsui, and Mrs.
Napolitano.
H.R. 4236: Mr. Serrano, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 4280: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr.
Salazar.
H.R. 4304: Mr. Bonner and Mr. Everett.
H.R. 4318: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 4450: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 4544: Ms. Granger, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Sali, Ms. Baldwin,
Mr. Carter, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Levin, Mr. Price
of Georgia, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Latham,
and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 5032: Mr. Poe and Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 5435: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 5454: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 5463: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 5513: Mr. Carter and Mr. Pence.
H.R. 5536: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 5564: Mr. Turner.
H.R. 5573: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
H.R. 5577: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 5591: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 5605: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 5608: Ms. Richardson, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Boren.
H.R. 5629: Mr. Petri.
H.R. 5632: Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Weiner, and Mr.
Pitts.
H.R. 5636: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 5646: Mr. Hall of Texas and Mr. Platts.
H.R. 5656: Mr. Keller.
H.R. 5734: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 5793: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 5808: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 5809: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 5823: Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 5825: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 5842: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 5854: Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 5884: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 5887: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Issa, Mr. Dreier, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Nunes, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, and Mr.
Sherman.
H.R. 5924: Mr. Cooper.
H.R. 5951: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 5954: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 5977: Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 6029: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota and Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 6032: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 6045: Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Feeney,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 6066: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 6078: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 6100: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 6108: Mr. Akin.
H.R. 6127: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 6138: Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 6156: Mr. Sherman and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 6163: Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and Mr.
Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 6178: Mr. Crenshaw.
H.R. 6180: Mr. Walz of Minnesota and Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 6185: Mr. Carney.
H.R. 6210: Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 6234: Ms. Sutton and Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 6268: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 6282: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 6283: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 6297: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 6311: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 6313: Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 6330: Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 6337: Mr. Klein of Florida and Ms. Waters.
H.R. 6367: Mr. Bonner.
H.R. 6379: Mr. Poe, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Cantor, and Mr. Cole
of Oklahoma.
H.R. 6411: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 6453: Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 6460: Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
H.R. 6461: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 6479: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 6483: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 6485: Mr. Skelton, Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Courtney, Mr. English of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 6491: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 6503: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 6508: Mr. Johnson of Georgia and Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 6530: Mr. Altmire, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Davis
of Alabama, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, and Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 6534: Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 6537: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 6539: Mr. Poe and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 6549: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 6559: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 6561: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 6563: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 6566: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 6567: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 6568: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Shays.
H.R. 6570: Mr. Sires, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr.
McCrery, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Ryan of
Ohio, and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H.R. 6573: Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, and
Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 6577: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin,
Mr. Walsh of New York, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Arcuri, and Mr.
Walberg.
H.R. 6579: Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 6581: Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Mr. Barrow.
H.R. 6594: Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Fortuno, and Ms.
Shea-Porter.
H.R. 6596: Ms. Giffords and Mr. Mahoney of Florida.
H.R. 6597: Ms. Lee, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Sutton,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 6598: Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Engel, Mr. Patrick Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. George Miller of California,
Mr. McGovern, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mrs. Maloney
of New York, and Ms. Giffords.
H.R. 6600: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 6605: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 6616: Mrs. Schmidt, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Space.
H.R. 6617: Ms. Solis and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 6622: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 6630: Mr. Rahall, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Filner, Mr.
LoBiondo, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Moran of
Kansas, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mrs.
Tauscher, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mr. Holden, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Poe, Mr.
Higgins, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Space,
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Carney, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Cohen, Ms.
Richardson, Mr. Sires, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Hulshof,
Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr.
Mollohan, and Mr. Baca.
H.R. 6632: Mr. Petri.
H.R. 6638: Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Cantor,
Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Mr. Goode, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Pence, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mrs. Bachmann, and Ms. Foxx.
H.R. 6652: Mr. Shuster and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 6664: Mr. Shays, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Castle, and Mr. Moran
of Virginia.

[[Page 17582]]

H.R. 6666: Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Hensarling, Mr.
Shadegg, and Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 6670: Mr. Ross.
H.R. 6680: Mr. Ellison, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Grijalva, Ms.
Schakowsky, and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H. J. Res. 89: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H. Con. Res. 70: Mr. Foster.
H. Con. Res. 81: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H. Con. Res. 137: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H. Con. Res. 223: Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H. Con. Res. 244: Mr. Upton.
H. Con. Res. 276: Mr. Pitts.
H. Con. Res. 284: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Davis of Alabama and Mrs. Cubin.
H. Con. Res. 342: Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Poe, and Mr. Smith of
Texas.
H. Con. Res. 345: Ms. Bordallo and Mr. Pence.
H. Con. Res. 357: Mr. McCotter and Mr. Upton.
H. Con. Res. 360: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Etheridge,
Ms. Norton, Mr. Wu, Mr. Obey, Mr. Watt, and Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 362: Mr. Blunt and Mr. English of
Pennsylvania.
H. Con. Res. 383: Ms. Sutton and Mr. Sires.
H. Con. Res. 388: Mr. Dent.
H. Con. Res. 393: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Paul, Mr. Honda, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr.
Jefferson.
H. Res. 671: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H. Res. 672: Mr. Aderholt.
H. Res. 758: Mr. Shuster.
H. Res. 988: Mr. Boucher.
H. Res. 995: Mr. Baca.
H. Res. 1042: Mr. Poe and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H. Res. 1056: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Kennedy, Ms.
Schakowsky, and Mr. Conyers.
H. Res. 1179: Mr. Wolf, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mr.
Marchant.
H. Res. 1200: Mr. Donnelly.
H. Res. 1227: Mr. McNerney.
H. Res. 1244: Ms. Lee, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms.
Schakowsky, and Ms. Watson.
H. Res. 1255: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Boozman, and
Mr. Carney.
H. Res. 1268: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Filner, Mr. Snyder,
and Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 1273: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H. Res. 1290: Ms. Berkley and Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
H. Res. 1302: Mr. Pitts.
H. Res. 1303: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California and Mr.
Gallegly.
H. Res. 1314: Mr. Pence.
H. Res. 1326: Mr. Capuano, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Mr. Fattah, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Kucinich.
H. Res. 1329: Mr. Kucinich.
H. Res. 1333: Mr. Baird.
H. Res. 1336: Mr. Wolf.
H. Res. 1338: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H. Res. 1346: Ms. Schwartz.
H. Res. 1352: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr. Souder.
H. Res. 1364: Mr. Bachus, Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky, Mr.
Smith of Washington, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mrs. Blackburn, and
Mr. Hayes.
H. Res. 1369: Mr. Moran of Virginia and Mr. Blumenauer.
H. Res. 1377: Ms. Berkley, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms.
McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Visclosky, Mrs. Christensen, and
Mr. Rothman.
H. Res. 1379: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Payne, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Bordallo.
H. Res. 1383: Mr. Wolf and Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H. Res. 1390: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 1391: Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Platts, Mr. Burgess,
Ms. Fallin, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Sullivan, Ms.
Foxx, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Kuhl of New
York, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Moran of Kansas,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Issa.

____________________

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. 5843: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.

____________________

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:

301. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the United States
Federation of Korea Veterns Organizations, relative to a
Resolution urging the Congress of the United States to
support the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
302. Also, a petition of the California State Lands
Commission, relative to a Resolution supporting the enactment
of the Ocean Conservation, Education, and National Strategy
for the 21st Century Act, H.R. 21; jointly to the Committees
on Natural Resources and Science and Technology.

[[Page 17583]]

SENATE--Thursday, July 31, 2008

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Loving God, our mighty rock and fortress, we have no secrets from
You. You know us far better than we know ourselves. Help the Members of
this body to humble themselves before You and find in Your love a very
present help in times of trouble. Touch every person in the Senate with
grace and love and healing. Forgive and restore wherever there is need
in heart and office and home. Help us to see that it is our weakness
that qualifies us for Your strength.
Lord, we commit this day to live and work for You, inviting the
indwelling power of Your spirit to control our minds and give us
discernment. We pray in the Name of Him who never fails to supply our
needs. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Mark L. Pryor led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, if any, there will
be a period of morning business until 10:30, for 1 hour, with Senators
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The majority will control
the first half, the Republicans the second half. Following morning
business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed
to S. 3001, the Department of Defense authorization bill. The time from
10:30 until 12:30 will be controlled in alternating 30-minute blocks of
time between the majority and Republican sides, with the Republicans
controlling the first 30 minutes. We hope to be able, later today, to
turn to the Consumer Product Safety Commission conference report and
the higher education conference report. We assume there could be votes
throughout the day.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business until
10:30 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the
two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak
therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the
first half of the time and the Republicans controlling the second half.
The Senator from Wisconsin.

____________________

SOMALIA

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about
the continued crisis in Somalia and my dismay at the failure of the
United States and also the international community to give this
situation the attention and resources it deserves.
Time and again, I have called for a comprehensive, coordinated U.S.
strategy to bring security and stability to Somalia. Yet despite
Somalia's continued collapse, the administration has clung to a clumsy
set of tactics that have done little to quell the relentless violence
or to enhance our own national security.
According to the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees and the U.N.'s
Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, the crisis in Somalia
has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Yes, let me repeat
that: the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Ongoing violence, a poor
harvest, drought, rising food prices, and skyrocketing inflation have
created a perfect storm. Over 2.6 million or 35 percent of Somalis are
currently in need of aid, with that number likely to increase to 3.5
million or nearly 50 percent of the population by the end of the year.
Simultaneously, the fighting has forced an estimated 1 million Somalis
from their homes into overcrowded and squalid camps both within the
country and in northern Kenya and Ethiopia.
In the midst of this disaster, those individuals working courageously
to provide aid to the battered population have themselves become
targets. I have been deeply troubled by the recent killings of aid
workers, including the head of the U.N. Development Program in
Mogadishu and three Somali elders who were shot while they were
distributing food to displaced communities. According to the New York
Times, at least 20 aid workers have been killed and 17 kidnapped since
January. This is unacceptable. The international community, with the
U.S. leading the way, must make clear that attacks on humanitarian
workers will not be tolerated. Moreover, we must make sure that aid
agencies, including the World Food Program, have sufficient resources
to respond to the escalating needs on the ground.
Humanitarian assistance, however, only stops the bleeding
temporarily. Transforming the underlying causes of Somalia's
instability requires a political solution leading to a national
government that is both representative and reconciliatory. As I said
shortly after it was brokered last month, the Djibouti agreement--
between the Transitional Federal Government and a moderate faction of
the opposition group for the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia,
ARS--was a positive step forward. I applaud the U.N. Representative of
the Secretary General for taking a lead role and the U.S. Special Envoy
for Somalia, Ambassador John Yates, for ensuring the U.S. was actively
involved--but now it is time to get down to business.
I am concerned by the slow progress of implementation. Rather than
moving quickly to shore up that agreement and injecting the necessary
diplomatic resources, the international community has remained in a
wait-and-see posture. This has allowed al-Shabaab and other spoilers to
undermine the legitimacy of the agreement and divide the opposition
party, rather than the other way around.

[[Page 17584]]

I have repeatedly called on the administration to develop a long-term
comprehensive regional strategy toward Somalia backed by sufficient
resources and political commitment. Our current approach is clearly not
working. Relying on reactive and short-term tactics has limited our
ability to change the security dynamics on the ground and in the wider
region. An effective strategy begins with refocusing on the bigger
picture and committing to our long-term goals, namely, helping Somalis
to build robust democratic institutions that can provide security and
undercut violent extremism--which poses a direct threat to the U.S.
It is not too late to salvage the opportunity presented by the
Djibouti agreement. To do so, the United States and our international
partners must move quickly with a coordinated diplomatic push to bring
more Somalis into the process as well as put forth the necessary
resources for implementation. An inclusive and vigorous political
process can marginalize the appeal of al-Shabaab and other violent
extremists, but only if we act now. Simultaneously, there must be a
more active effort to hold accountable all those who perpetrate
violence and violate human rights. This includes strengthening the
existing arms embargo and pressuring regional actors who undermine a
sustainable political solution. It won't be easy, but it is critical to
begin laying the groundwork for long-term peace and security.
The need to bring stability to Somalia is imperative not only to
avert humanitarian catastrophe, but also for our national security.
Next week, on August 7, we will commemorate the 10-year anniversary of
the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-
Salaam, which left 224 people dead, including 12 U.S. citizens and
dozens of other Embassy employees. That was a tragic day in American
history. While some of those responsible have been brought to justice,
there is still work to be done to ensure that the remaining suspects
are held to account for their involvement in these heinous acts and
that victims receive fair and just compensation.
Meanwhile, Somalia remains a safe haven for terrorists, as we know
from the recent designation of the al-Shabaab and periodic Defense
Department strikes against terrorist targets. But neither these
strikes, nor other ad hoc or fragmented actions, can substitute for a
sustained, comprehensive strategy. We must act aggressively against
terrorists who pose a threat to our country, but it will take more than
just military options alone to solve Somalia's problems. Instead of
helping to build a society committed to the development of legitimate
democratic institutions, we are effectively allowing Somalia to serve
as a recruitment tool for insurgents and extremists as they further
isolate various groups from the current political process. This is what
the State Department itself said this past April about safe havens in
places like Somalia:

Defeating the terrorist enemy requires a comprehensive
effort executed locally, nationally, regionally, and
globally. Working with partner nations, we must eliminate
terrorist leadership, but incarcerating or killing terrorists
will not achieve an end to terrorism. We must simultaneously
eliminate terrorist safe havens, tailoring regional
strategies to disaggregate terrorist networks and break
terrorist financial, travel, communications, and intelligence
links. Finally, and most challenging, we must address the
underlying conditions that terrorists exploit at the national
and local levels to induce alienated or aggrieved populations
to become sympathizers, supporters, and ultimately members of
terrorist networks. We can marginalize violent extremists by
addressing people's needs and grievances, by giving people a
stake in their own political future, and by providing
alternatives to what terrorists offer.

The problem is not so much that the administration doesn't recognize
what needs to be done, but that it doesn't have the will or the
commitment to do it. Basically, our bark is bigger than our bite. Ten
years after those attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, it appears we have
missed the larger lesson of that tragic day, and our front-line
diplomats continue to pay the price as they scramble to respond to the
problems of weak states caught up in a vicious and turbulent cycle of
collapse. They aren't the only ones paying the price, however, as those
failed states breed insecurity and conditions favorable for terrorism.
Ten years on, the United States still does not have a long-term
strategy to bring peace and stability to the Horn of Africa. We have
tremendous diplomatic, military, intelligence, and foreign assistance
resources at our disposal, but they are ineffective in the absence of a
coordinated and balanced strategy that incorporates both the short- and
long-term goals. This is no more evident than in Somalia.
It is not too late to chart a new path and prevent future suffering,
but we must act decisively. As we remember those who lost their lives
10 years ago, many doing diplomatic work in some of the most demanding
postings in the world, let us commit to honor their legacy by ensuring
that our country is no longer vulnerable to the terrorists who attacked
us a decade ago.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

____________________

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

Specialist Jason E. Ames

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my home State of Kentucky is mourning
the loss of a brave young soldier. On August 31, 2005, SPC Jason E.
Ames was killed while serving his country in Mosul, Iraq. Hailing from
Cerulean, KY, Specialist Ames was 21 years old.
For his valor in uniform, Specialist Ames received several medals,
decorations, and awards, including the Army Commendation Medal, the
Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Combat
Infantryman Badge.
Jason was taken from his loved ones much too soon. But those closest
to him know he packed his 21 years with all he could. ``Jason was
always a happy-go-lucky person,'' says his mom Susan Foust. ``Whatever
he encountered . . . he did it with a lot of life and a lot of
laughter.''
Born in Illinois to a military family, Jason moved around a lot as a
kid and saw many parts of the world. Wherever he went, he made his own
fun.
Susan recalls:

Jason loved to play Army as a child and played it often
with kids in the neighborhood. He made a suit out of
camouflage netting, sticks, and leaves. Using the military
acronym for Battle Dress Uniform--

She says--

he would also wear his mother's BDUs.

Susan also says:

Another favorite of Jason's was riding in his mother's
Dodge convertible with the top down, no matter the weather,
and listening to ``Danger Zone'' from ``Top Gun.''

Young Jason could also rely on the companionship of man's best
friend. As Susan explains it:

Jason would often play in the woods for hours while trying
to hide from the family dog named Moocher. I would tell
Moocher to find Jason, and no matter how well hidden Jason
thought he was, Moocher would find him.

Jason eventually settled in Cerulean, a town in Trigg County, in the
southwestern part of my State. He attended Trigg County High School in
Cadiz and graduated in 2003.
Even before reaching high school graduation, however, Jason felt
strongly that he wanted to serve his country. Perhaps he was influenced
by the respect for duty and service that ran deep in his family. At the
age of 17, while still in high school, he asked his mother to grant her
permission for him to enlist. Susan wanted Jason to wait until he
turned 18, but Jason was so eager he convinced his mom to let him go
ahead and sign up.
``We supported him with whatever decision he made,'' Susan says.
Jason enlisted and became an infantryman. By the time he was deployed
to Iraq in October 2004, he was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 21st
Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, based in Fort
Lewis, WA.

[[Page 17585]]

Sadly, Jason's life was taken just a few weeks shy of when he was due
to return home and shortly before his 21st birthday.
The Reverend Ron Hicks, a close friend of the Ames family, officiated
at the services, and Jason was buried with full military honors at the
Kentucky Veterans Cemetery West in Hopkinsville, the Commonwealth's
first State veterans cemetery.
Many beloved family members and friends across the country mourn
Jason's loss, including his mother, Susan Arlene Ames Foust, and his
sister Krystal Dawn Knight. Our thoughts turn to them as they are
confronted with this great loss.
Jason's mom Susan says:

Jason had just turned 21 years old when he was taken. For
the 21 years that he was with us, those years are priceless.

Susan and all of Jason's family are certainly right to treasure those
21 precious years. It is my hope they are also comforted by the
knowledge that this country and this Senate honors SPC Jason E. Ames as
a patriot and as a hero. He left his Nation stronger by his service and
his sacrifice.

Staff Sergeant Nicholas R. Carnes

Additionally, Mr. President, I rise because another Kentucky family
is missing a husband, son, and brother, and our great State is missing
a patriot who loved his country. SSG Nicholas R. Carnes was tragically
killed on October 26, 2007, in Afghanistan while in combat with the
enemy. A native of Dayton, KY, he was 25 years old.
Staff Sergeant Carnes had volunteered for the mission that would be
his last, stepping in for another soldier on leave. For his bravery and
service, he received several medals, awards, and decorations, including
the Combat Action Badge, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Kentucky
Distinguished Service Medal, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star
Medal.
Because of a letter he sent to his wife Terri, we know why Nick chose
to serve and place himself in harm's way. This is what he wrote in
November 2006, a few weeks after he deployed to Afghanistan. He said:

Dear Terri . . . If the other soldiers who came before me
did not stand up for freedom, then we would not have freedom.
So I feel that I am obliged to stand up for freedom to ensure
that everyone else after me has the same freedoms we do
today.

Nick's family and friends remain inspired to this day by that young
man's courage. His mother, WrayJean, puts it simply:

My son has been a hero from the second he was born. He
became a bigger hero when he did the job he did over there.

Nick grew up in Dayton, and WrayJean and his father, Gove, recall he
had a fun-filled and active childhood. He loved to hunt and he loved to
fish. Gove taught him how to shoot. He played football in high school
and practiced martial arts.
Nick loved country music, especially Johnny Cash, George Jones, and
Hank Williams, Jr. ``I have a country band and Nicholas would sing with
us,'' Gove remembers.
His sister, Amanda Manasra, remembers: ``We went four-wheeling often
and got a little muddy.''
She also remembers the time she and Nick built a treehouse, a
treehouse Amanda was too scared to climb. ``I never went up there,''
she says.

Nick helped me overcome my fear. He always pushed me over
my limits. He always had a can-do attitude. He said:
``can't'' isn't in your vocabulary.

Gove and Gove's uncle were both in the Kentucky National Guard, and
Nick grew up climbing on Army trucks. In 1999, when he was 17, he
entered a Guard training program and by his senior year at Dayton High
School, Nick was in the Guard. ``It was in his blood,'' WrayJean said.

There was no stopping the desire. He would say, ``Who would
keep us free if I don't do this?''

Nick graduated from high school in 2000 and went to work for BB
Riverboats, a company that runs riverboat cruises along the Ohio River.
It was there he met Terri, the woman he would ask to become his wife.
``We ran off to Las Vegas for my 30th birthday,'' Terri says.

When we were there, we went to Lake Mead . . . he got on
his knee and asked me to marry him. I said, ``Sure! Let's
go!'' It was meant to be.

With a happy life and friends and family who loved him, Nick still
felt the call to duty. WrayJean remembers what Nick said to her on the
day of the worst terrorist attack in this Nation's history.
``When 9/11 happened, Nicholas and I sat side by side on the couch,''
she says.

We both sat there with tears rolling down our face. He
said, ``This is what I want to do.''

Terri also remembers how her husband was eager to serve. ``He could
not wait to go overseas,'' she says.

He would say, ``Can you imagine preparing for your whole
life and never getting to fight for your country?'' He loved
what he was doing over there . . . I know he would do it
again.

Nick's Guard unit was activated and he was eventually deployed to
Afghanistan with Battery A, 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery, based
out of Carrollton, KY. His friend, Brian Sawyer, who served alongside
him, remembers Nick's dedication to his training and to his mission.
``Nick was by the rulebook,'' Brian says.

When he graded my physical training test, if it wasn't a
push-up by the books, he didn't count it. . . . With
everybody, he was by the book. Not mean, but fair. Fair and
firm. . . . He knew pushing me to do the push-up the right
way was better for me.

Nick believed he had been sent to Afghanistan to make people's lives
better, and he did it even in his downtime. He asked Terri to send him
toys and gifts he could distribute to the kids there.
``Everything he did was sweet,'' Terri says.

It was rare, because mainly guys typically aren't caring
and understanding. He was different than all the rest.

Nick's work ethic also impressed everyone. His commanding officer,
MAJ Walt Leaumont, had this to say:

When Nick came into the National Guard originally, I was
his battery commander. He was this little chubby 18-year-old
who had a spirit that wouldn't quit. He had a positive
attitude. He was a dream to command.

Sadly, Major Leaumont was also the officer charged with the sad task
of telling Nick's family he would not be coming home. ``The night I
notified his family was probably the toughest time I have ever worn
this uniform,'' the major recalls.
Our prayers are with the Carnes family after their terrible loss. We
are thinking of his wife Terri Bernstein-Carnes; his mother WrayJean;
his father Gove; his sisters, Amanda Manasra and Sarah Carnes; his
brother Brian Carnes; his grandmother, Frankie Glascock; his
grandfather, Gove Carnes, Jr.; his stepmother Charlotte Carnes, and
many other beloved family members and friends.
Nick was predeceased by his grandfather, Earl Glascock, and his
grandmother, Hazel Carnes.
Before Nick shipped out, he and his family threw a birthday party for
his wife Terri. Nick's sister, Amanda, jokingly told him:

You don't have to go. I can break your legs.

But Nick would have none of it. He told his little sister:

Just always know that I did it for us and I did it for
them. This was my destiny given by God and I have to fulfill
it.

SSG Nicholas R. Carnes represented the very best his town, his State,
and his Nation have to offer. His service and his sacrifice prove it.
The Senate is proud to honor men like him who see that America needs
defending and bravely step forward to defend it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii is
recognized.

____________________

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS IN THE 110TH
CONGRESS

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we prepare to return to our home States,
I believe it is important to remind our colleagues about the work we
have done for the veterans of this Nation. As Chairman of the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, I have had the privilege of working with almost
every entity

[[Page 17586]]

and level of Government, veterans and military service organizations
across the Nation, and every branch of the military, in an ongoing
effort to better serve those who have served us.
In the past 19 months, the committee has held over 50 hearings,
taking testimony from over 320 witnesses. The committee staff has
carried out over 140 days of investigations and visits across the
country. I commend the hard-working members of our committee, on both
sides of the aisle, for their work this session.
After years of underfunding veterans programs, I wish to remind
everyone that this Congress appropriated the largest increase in the
history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. These funds are helping
to provide better health care to veterans and enabling the Veterans
Benefits Administration to hire thousands of new employees. It is my
profound hope this investment will produce marked improvements in care
and in reduced backlog of veterans' disability claims. Last year, in
connection with the disclosures about Walter Reed, America learned of
the disgraceful treatment of some of our disabled servicemembers and
veterans. Congress responded promptly and the Armed Services and
Veterans' Affairs Committees collaborated in an unprecedented manner to
address the issues at Walter Reed and elsewhere. One result of this
cooperation was the wounded warrior provisions included in last year's
National Defense Authorization Act.
I take special pride in one particular wounded warrior provision
which more than doubled the period of automatic VA health care
eligibility for returning troops. Servicemembers returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan are now eligible for 5 years of VA health care upon
separation from service.
I am also pleased with the work we have done in seeking an expanded
outreach to veterans of the National Guard and Reserve. It is vital
that the growing role they play in our all-volunteer military be
recognized and that those who have been deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan be recognized and helped.
Congress also enacted the 21st Century GI bill of rights. Like others
who served in World War II, I personally know how that GI bill changed
our country for the better. I hope this improved benefit will provide
similar help for today's and tomorrow's troops.
But for all we have done, much remains unfinished in these waning
weeks. Important legislation is pending in both the House and the
Senate. To name two bills, we are still waiting for action on S. 1315
and S. 2162.
S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007, would
provide needed assistance to veterans young and old, including the
Filipino veterans of World War II who served under U.S. command but
were denied veterans status for over 60 years.
S. 2162 is the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements
Act of 2008. This bill responds to the growing need among veterans for
high quality mental health care. Many veterans return from war
suffering from invisible wounds. If left untreated, these wounds can
infect a veteran's life and livelihood, with dire consequences. The
bill represents a tribute to Justin Bailey, a young Iraq veteran who
overdosed while under VA care. We must not let other veterans suffer a
similar tragedy.
Both of these bills passed the Senate with unanimous or nearly
unanimous support, and both count strong supporters in the House. I
hope that before this session ends, we will see both become law.
I do not report today that our work for veterans is anywhere near
done, but I do say it is work in progress. I thank my colleagues in
both Chambers and both parties for their support and cooperation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM BREW

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I normally come to the Senate floor and speak on various
veterans issues--I advocate for increased screening and treatment and
mental health issues for our veterans; I remind my fellow Senators that
veterans of their home States must file income taxes for 2008 in order
to receive their tax rebates; I argue for increased funding for VA's
vital mission; and I urge the Senate to approve a new GI bill. Today,
however, I come to the Senate floor to speak about one particular
veteran--a Vietnam veteran who has dedicated his long career, enormous
talents, and tireless efforts to better the treatment and the lives of
all who have served our Nation in uniform. Today, I will speak of my
staff director, William Brew.
Bill has just completed 20 years of service to the Senate. His entire
tenure in the Senate has been at the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Bill started in the Senate on April 3, 1978. At that time, his desk was
in what is now the committee's hearing room. The chairman was Alan
Cranston of California. The major issues were Agent Orange, judicial
review, and the emerging medical condition that had newly been labeled
post-traumatic stress disorder. As a former naval officer, and a
lawyer, Bill was thrown right into these issues, and his presence made
a huge difference.
An immediate and pressing need was to provide psychological
counseling to Vietnam veterans at a time when the war and, sadly, even
those who fought in it, remained a divisive issue for our Nation. Men
and women who had served during that conflict did not return to heroes'
welcomes, yellow ribbons, and joyous neighborhood celebrations we so
often see today. In 1980, in Van Nuys, CA, one of the very first vet
centers opened and offered a means of providing community-based
counseling and outreach services to those who were returning from
Southeast Asia. Now, there are 232 scattered around the country.
Millions of veterans and their families from all wars have received
counseling and support through these centers. Bill was instrumental in
developing the legislation that established these facilities and was
present at the creation of vet centers.
Bill was deeply involved in the debates surrounding Agent Orange and
quickly became an expert on an issue whose vocabulary resolved around
dioxin, defoliation, Ranch Hand, and a variety of health problems and
concerns. His efforts contributed to the development of wide-ranging
initiatives designed to address the needs of those who believe their
exposure has adversely affected their health.
Bill was instrumental in the passage of legislation in 1996, which
fundamentally changed the law with regard to eligibility for VA health
care. Eligibility Reform, as this law is known, eradicated the line
between inpatient and outpatient care. VA, for the first time, was
authorized to provide a standard benefits package of services in the
most appropriate care setting. This seemingly simple change enabled VA
to open up community-based clinics all across this country. Veterans
care has been dramatically improved because of the increased access to
the now 700 clinics dotting the landscape.
Assisting disabled veterans to reenter civilian life has always been
a high priority for the committee. Bill worked on legislation to revamp
federally assisted State vocational rehabilitation programs, giving
priority to the most seriously disabled.
Bill was instrumental in the establishment of the Court of Veterans
Claims, which gave judicial review to veterans' benefit determinations,
and the committee recently approved legislation to expand the Court.
It is little known that Bill has served on both sides of the aisle,
working not only for Chairmen Cranston and Rockefeller, and now myself,
but also working for Chairman Alan Simpson, my Republican colleague
from Wyoming. In 1980, when the Democrats entered the minority, Bill
remained a majority staff member under Chairman Simpson for 9 months
before returning to Ranking Member Cranston's staff.
I congratulate Bill for his service and tell him that I am grateful
for that, and to thank him for his 20 years of dedicated and faithful
service to the Senate and to our Nation's veterans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

[[Page 17587]]

____________________

ENDING THE GAS PRICE CRISIS

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am here today to point out what I believe
everybody in this body knows, certainly everybody back in the
heartland, where the occupant of the chair and I live: America is
suffering a gas price crisis. I regret to tell the people back home
that the Senate is in a crisis of its own.
It appears that Democrats are desperate to deny real gas price
relief. They are apparently united behind the misguided policy of the
presumptive Democratic nominee for President who says: Don't provide
any new sources of supply. They are doing anything they can to block
the one real solution to this gas price.
Opening new offshore drilling will bring suffering American families
18 billion barrels of new oil supplies. News of America's commitment to
new supplies will drive prices down immediately. We saw with the
suggestion that we would be opening offshore when the President lifted
the Executive moratorium on offshore drilling, that the prices came
down immediately $10 and then came down roughly $20 because the price
of oil today is influenced by the long-term judgment of what the price
will be in the future.
Airlines, trucking companies, and others have to go out in the
futures market to buy the oil they need in the future. Those who bought
futures contracts at $90 turned out to be prescient. They saved money
from the $145 a barrel oil we see today. But right now there are too
many hedgers, too many investors, and, yes, even some speculators, too
many investors, including the Public Employee Retirement Systems of
California, and of local governments that are saying: Hey, if we don't
open oil supplies, we are going to see that $145 a barrel oil go to
$175 and $200 and $250.
Regrettably, if the policy of the Democrats being acted on in the
Senate today holds, we will see those oil prices going above $200 a
barrel and over $5 at the gas pump. The Democrats, in lockstep with
their Presidential nominee, are doing anything they can to block the
one real solution: News of America's commitment to new supplies and oil
will drive down the prices immediately. New supplies, 10 years' worth
in the case of offshore reserves, will drive prices lower for years to
come.
Some may say it will take a long time to bring it on line. That is
what President Clinton said in 1995 when he vetoed the authorization to
open ANWR, which could have been producing a million barrels of oil a
day. He said it wouldn't happen for 10 years. Well, it is now 13 years
past that veto. We surely could use that additional million barrels of
oil a day.
The Democratic leader, when it comes to lowering gas prices with new
offshore supplies, says: ``No, we can't.'' Actually, in the case of the
Senate Democrats, it is ``No, we won't,'' reflecting the views of their
Presidential nominee.
Earlier this month, I tried to join with my colleagues to repeal the
legislative moratorium preventing new offshore drilling off our
Atlantic and Pacific coasts. With the high gas prices facing our
families, it is time to end the offshore drilling ban included each
year on the annual appropriations bill for the Department of the
Interior.
Much to my surprise and regret, the Democratic leadership canceled
the planned business meeting to consider and write the Interior
appropriations bill. We thought we would succeed. We thought people
would understand that bringing gas price relief to America's families
by reversing the current ban on offshore drilling could meet the cry
from our people back home to do something about the price of gas. But
the Democratic leadership canceled the meeting to prevent the will of
the people through their Senators from being heard.
Now we have confirmation. We have seen a statement from the
Appropriations Committee that the Democrats thought they would lose the
vote and fail in their attempt to keep new oil supplies from the
American people. It came from the Appropriations Committee itself
saying they did not want to see the offshore opened for drilling. That
is not the way this body is supposed to work.
We disagree with a lot of things, but we at least ought to come to
the floor and have a vote. Those who are for it and those who are
against it, let them take their stand in public and let the people
judge.
Now we are on the floor of the Senate trying to move to a bill
supposedly on energy. We have asked for a debate and a vote on measures
in addition to their measure on speculation, because speculation is a
small part. What we need to do is get more supplies.
The plan of Republican Senators and our presumptive nominee for
President, the Senator from Arizona, is to enact additional measures
that will lower gas prices through additional supplies from offshore
oil reserves, tap billions of barrels of oil in Rocky Mountain oil
shale deposits, provide clean nuclear-powered electricity that can
drive our next generation of hybrid cars and trucks, and give financial
help to jump-start our U.S. manufacturing supply base for hybrid car
batteries to bring their prices down and put people in America to work.
But now the Democratic leadership has gone back on this offer. They
have reneged on this offer. It is like Lucy with the football. The
American people, we feel like Charlie Brown and the football is
lowering gas prices. They are offering to let Charlie Brown kick the
football to get a vote on opening offshore oil reserves and see if he
can score a goal for lower gas prices. But, wait, the leadership of the
Democratic Party on this floor has yanked the oil supply football away,
only to let the American people swing and miss. The Democratic
leadership apparently instead wants to move the goalposts back to pay
for new wind and solar incentives.
I support wind and solar incentives. The whole Senate voted for wind
and solar incentives earlier this year, adopting an amendment by over
80 votes. How many times do you have to do that? But the Democrats
yanked the football away as well. They added new taxes to that measure.
I guess they figured something so popular would be a good opportunity
to raise taxes. That seems to be the policy of their nominee for
President.
I can tell you that the people of Missouri do not want higher taxes.
They do not want us to make it harder to find and produce oil. More
wind and solar power is not going to get gas prices down now or anytime
in the future. Not a single trucker in Missouri will pay less for
diesel because we pass a bill for wind power. Not a single Missouri
family will suffer less pain at the pump because we pass a bill for
solar power. Not a single farmer will pay less to run his tractors or
less to send his produce to market.
The only real thing that will work to get gas prices down is
fundamental--more oil supplies to scare away the speculators and meet
the demand.
Missouri does not need more hot air from the Democrats. Energy
summits where Washington politicians talk about how much they claim
they care about families will not get the gas prices down. And yet, the
Senator from Illinois, the Democratic presumptive nominee for
President, was in Missouri, and he had a solution for the gas price
crisis. He said we need to keep our tires fully inflated.
I agree with keeping our tires fully inflated. I am told by the
studies of the Department of Transportation that can save 6 to 12
gallons of gasoline a year. So please keep your tires inflated. But
suggestions to inflate our tires fully are not going to make a
significant difference in the gas price.
America deserves more than Democratic hot air. Here it is hot air to
inflate our tires. On the floor of the Senate, it is hot air to tell us
everything else but increasing supplies may have an impact.
America deserves real action with real solutions. We should not
abandon the American people to this gas price crisis. We need to move
back to the bill on speculation and include amendments that will bring
real gas price relief.
I have an amendment, No. 5121, to open 18 million barrels of oil
reserves off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts--10

[[Page 17588]]

years of new oil supplies for the American people.
My amendment would also authorize more than $1 billion a year to
jump-start a U.S. manufacturing supply base for hybrid car and truck
batteries. Funding would go to hybrid battery research and development,
battery manufacturing equipment and capabilities, and re-equipping,
expanding, and establishing U.S. domestic manufacturing facilities or
hybrid vehicle batteries.
Why do we need it? We need it to get the supply of batteries. I have
visited factories in Missouri where they are producing battery-powered
cars, hybrid cars, such as the Ford Escape, the Claycomo plant. General
Motors is working on these products. These are tremendous gas savers.
We need to move to more plug-in vehicles.
In my hometown of New Mexico, MO, my good friend who sells modified
golf carts is selling street-ready vehicles now, and they are popular.
We can have full-size vehicles if we have the batteries to power them.
But most of those batteries are being made in Asia, and American car
manufacturers get second call. We need to have those batteries
manufactured in America to supply our automobile industry.
This amendment would force gas prices down, find more oil and use
less. The amendment would provide new oil supplies and new sources of
oil conservation. But the Democratic leadership doing the will of the
Senator from Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is blocking
consideration of this amendment and all amendments.
As I said before, this is very disappointing to me, to the people of
Missouri, and to the people of America. Missouri and America deserve
more than half measures that will only produce a few days or months
more of oil supplies. We deserve more than the Senate attempting to
abandon them in the gas price crisis by moving on to other issues.
Missouri and America deserve real action now to lower gas prices.
That means new offshore supplies to get prices down. That is the
position the Republican Senators and the Republican Senator from
Arizona, our nominee for President, are pushing for: new offshore oil
supplies for American families, new offshore supplies for our farmers,
new offshore supplies for our truckers. That is the only real hope for
gas price relief.
I beg the Senate leadership to let us move now. Failure to do so will
assure the American people that they will go another month while we are
out of session and have done nothing but talk hot air and suggest
putting hot air into car tires.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Martinez, the Senator from Florida, Senator Gregg, the Senator from New
Hampshire, and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Let me interrupt the Senator from
Texas for a moment. There are less than 8 minutes remaining in morning
business.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was under the impression there was a
longer period of time. May I ask what the order of business is
following the expiration of morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thirty minutes of debate controlled
by the minority on the motion to proceed to the Defense bill.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, we are going to have a vote on the motion to proceed
to the Defense authorization bill. The distinguished occupant of the
chair, myself, and Senator Martinez all sit on the Armed Services
Committee. We know how important this legislation is. I have every
confidence that we will ultimately--at least I sure hope--get to and
pass a Defense authorization bill.
I will point out that for the last 2 weeks, we have had a series of
attempts by the majority to get us off the single most important issue
facing the country today, and that is high energy prices, particularly
high gasoline prices. My expectation is that this attempt, which will
now make this No. 7 instead of 6, will fail as well because on this
side of the aisle we believe we should not leave here, we should not
adjourn for the August recess without addressing this pressing issue.
It touches everybody in the country, rich or poor, regardless of
circumstances in life. It is also driving up the price of food and
threatening inflation which is going to threaten our economy regardless
of what we do on housing and the subprime mortgage crisis.
I ask the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire if he has some
thoughts about what we ought to be doing between now and the time we
adjourn for the August recess.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I wanted to
join with him today in addressing this issue because at least in New
Hampshire--and I suspect it is true in Texas, too, even though maybe in
a different way--the No. 1 issue on the minds of the people is the cost
of energy. They are concerned about it when they fill up their car with
gasoline, but they are even more concerned about it heading into the
winter.
People in New Hampshire anticipate winters. We know it is coming.
There is not much we can do about it. It is coming. We also know that
60 to 70 percent of the homes in New Hampshire--maybe more--are heated
by oil. The price of oil that has to be put in the tanks in order to
heat homes has doubled or tripled. A lot of families in New Hampshire,
low-income families, but also moderate income families, are going to be
extraordinarily stressed to try to meet that energy need and the price
of that energy.
There are a lot of things that you can maybe do to change your
lifestyle. You can maybe drive a little less. Maybe you can take a bus;
not so much in New Hampshire because there are not a lot of city areas
that have bus districts, although we do have some. But you can adjust
your driving. You can downsize your car so you use less gasoline. But
if you have a home and you have a family, there is nothing you can do
about it. You have to heat that home. You have to stay warm in the
winter when the temperature is at zero or even minus degrees and the
wind chill is certainly at minus degrees. To do that takes a lot of
energy and takes oil. So people are scared. They are scared about how
they are going to heat their homes.
I believe my No. 1 responsibility as their representative in
Washington is try to do something about bringing down the price of that
energy. How do we do that? In my opinion, we do it by at least voting
in the Senate on the issue of expanding our supply in the United
States, with American energy, while also conserving more. Yet we have
been blocked now. As the Senator from Texas points out, this will be
the seventh time the Democratic Party and the Democratic leadership has
tried to move the Congress and the Senate off the issue of trying to
bring down oil prices, bring down gasoline prices by expanding American
sources and American production by allowing us to drill offshore, by
allowing us to use oil shale, by allowing us to expand nuclear power,
by allowing us to put an effort into the development of electric cars,
by doing a whole series of things.
Seven times now the Democratic leadership here has said, no, they do
not want to hear about this. They want to talk about issues that are
important, but they are nowhere near the importance, at least to my
constituents, of what it costs them to fill up their gasoline tanks and
what it is going to cost them to fill up their oil tanks this winter.
I cannot think of a higher priority as a Congress than to take up
this Energy bill and have some votes on these very important issues of
whether we open more drilling offshore, whether we use more oil shale,
whether we expand our efforts to try to bring online nuclear
powerplants, whether we continue our efforts to try to expand electric
cars.
The Senator from Texas hit the nail on the head. We need to act on
these issues, and we should stop this obfuscation which is occurring on
the other

[[Page 17589]]

side of the aisle on this issue. We should get to the essence of the
issue, which is produce more American energy.
Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire addressing
that issue. I have always been amazed that those who say we ought to do
something to help poor people who need help with their heating oil are
the same folks who seem to be the most resistant to opening America's
reserves of natural resources which would have the effect of bringing
down oil prices for everybody. It seems to me that would be one of the
most commonsense things we could do.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator makes a truly excellent point. If we want to
address the fear low-income people have about the cost of their energy
to heat their home, bring down the cost of energy. Address the
systematic problem.
LIHEAP is an important program. It is a critical program for us in
New England. But it is the bandaid. It is not going to the symptom. The
symptom is the price of the energy, so that is why we need to vote on
it.

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator will suspend,
morning business is closed.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--MOTION TO
PROCEED

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3001,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 732, S. 3001, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 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.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 12:30 shall be divided in alternating 30-minute blocks of time,
with Republicans controlling the first block.

Energy

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask if you would please notify us when
10 minutes remain in our time so the Senator from Georgia can take the
floor. We would like to continue with the colloquy.
I know the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, is here. I know
offshore drilling has been somewhat controversial in his State. I would
like him to address that. But I would also like him to help us
understand the bigger picture, and that is why the majority leader, who
controls the agenda on the floor of the Senate, a Member of the other
party, refuses to allow us to vote. I know Senator Obama has adamantly
opposed any additional offshore exploration and production. One
conclusion I guess you might draw is that the majority leader, by
refusing an opportunity for Senators to vote, is somehow protecting the
Presidential nominee, the presumptive Presidential nominee, from
perhaps an embarrassing split in his own political party.
I wonder if the Senator has any comments.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to comment on the situation in Florida and
also what I think is an observation you made accurately in the larger
political climate. They are related. The State of Florida has jealously
guarded its offshore resources because we have a tremendous tourism
economy, as does Texas in some parts of the State. However, $4 for a
gallon of gas has caused a transformation in thinking. It has allowed
us to see more clearly what is occurring. What is occurring to our
Nation is not just that the people, the families, American families,
are hurting at the pump when they go pump gas. Fortunately in Florida
our winters are mild, but I understand the situation in New Hampshire
and other cold States that is going to be coming up. This is hurting
families. This is a problem to the American family, particularly those
on fixed income, many of whom live in Florida.
The problem becomes more acute because this also merges into our
national defense, into our security as a nation. When the Persian Gulf
war took place, Alaska increased its production of oil, and at that
time they were producing at a capacity of 2.1 million barrels a day.
Today they are only producing 700,000 barrels a day because the supply
of oil in Alaska is dwindling because we are not allowed to develop
additional resources there.
What is occurring, essentially, is that the domestic supply of oil is
ever decreasing, our percentage of dependence on foreign sources is
ever increasing, while at the same time the price is going through the
roof. It is a supply-and-demand problem that cries out for a solution.
What has occurred? My own transformation has been that while I was
adamantly opposed to any form of drilling, my own Governor took a
forward-thinking position and decided maybe the time had come for us to
reconsider and think a little differently about it. We still want to
protect our coastline. We still want to protect our beaches. But at the
same time, we have to recognize a new reality. That new reality
requires us to adapt to the current circumstances. We are transferring
wealth to the extent of $700 billion a year to foreign sources. It is
unsustainable over a long period of time. America will be squandering
its wealth purely to satisfy our demand for oil.
Surely we have to do other things about renewables. We have to do all
that. But at the end of the day, we have to do more on our own
resources to produce more oil from America's soil.
What has occurred is, in fact, the presumptive nominee of the
Democratic Party and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party
have taken divergent points of view. Senator McCain, changing his
position much as I have, has said: Times have changed. We have to drill
in the offshore. Senator Obama remains stuck in the past. He is not for
change. He is against change when it comes to taking care of America's
oil resources. I believe what we are following is the dictates of
higher powers. At the same time, the business of the Senate has ground
to a halt. We have not been able to accomplish much because we have not
been allowed to have the thorough debate we need to have on this very
important issue.
When I hear from Floridians today, they want us to move the business
of Government, but they most of all want us to solve this problem. They
do not want us to put it aside. They know they are hurting.
They also realize, by the way, this is no panacea. We have no magic
wand we can wave and lower prices tomorrow, but we can begin a trend
that is going to trend in the downward direction if we begin to do
something about opening America's resources to more drilling.
Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Florida. In
the real world, when the facts change, people are free to change their
mind.
Mr. MARTINEZ. That is right.
Mr. CORNYN. I think $4 gasoline and $140-plus for a barrel of oil
have caused a lot of people to rethink their prior positions. Gasoline
was $2.33 when the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 but
now is hovering around $4 a gallon, and I think it is only reasonable
that people will reassess their decisionmaking. Indeed, I think we have
seen that happen with the American people, if you look at public
opinion polls, shifting to overwhelming support for exploration and
production from the Outer Continental Shelf.
I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I know, as the Senator from
Florida said, more oil is going to be a transitional step on our part
because production globally is declining. Yet demand, especially from
huge economies such as China and India, is going up. I know the Senator
from New Hampshire is a big proponent of clean nuclear power. I wonder
if he can comment on what he sees this transition looking like, in
terms of starting with more American production but with

[[Page 17590]]

conservation, with renewable energy, and developing nuclear power.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Texas has been one of the best advocates
on the floor for balance, which is what we need. The American people
understand the basic common sense of an issue, which is we need to use
all the different options we have at hand. We are a nation with great
creativity, great ability to be innovative. We are also willing to push
the envelope, to try to use technology to improve our situation.
Not only do we need to find more, we need to use less. We need also
to use our great strength in technology to advance our cause of
delivering more American energy.
Nuclear power is a classic example of that. We basically created
nuclear power, the concept of it, and how to use it in a positive way.
Yet for the last 27 years, because of the adamant and, in my opinion,
inappropriate opposition of the most activist environmentalist groups
in this country, we have not had a new nuclear powerplant application
approved.
New Hampshire, ironically, was the last State to bring online a
nuclear powerplant. That occurred in the late 1980s. That nuclear
powerplant was resisted by the Democratic leadership in the State and
by the activist environmentalists in the State at a level which was
basically civil disobedience. Thousands of people were arrested at the
site where the plant was being built. It was delayed for almost 15
years. The cost of it quadrupled--it went up by a factor of 10, I
think.
What happened in the end was the plant came online. What has happened
since the plant has been online? It has produced safe, clean, reliable
energy--not only for the people of New Hampshire but for the people of
all the Northeast because it is producing so much energy it actually
exceeds New Hampshire's needs. As a result, we have had an energy
source which has saved us from having to buy thousands and thousands--
millions of barrels of oil. We should be doing that across the country.
Mr. MARTINEZ. May I ask the Senator a question. This nuclear plant,
does it produce greenhouse gases? Does it, in any way, harm the quality
of air or produce the kinds of problems associated with global warming?
Mr. GREGG. That is a good question and it is very important. Nuclear
power is clean. It addresses the issue of global warming. It is the
most effective energy we have for that. It has no emissions which
basically go into the atmosphere and aggravate the issue of global
warming, so it is the type of power we want. It is safe and it is ours.
We do not have to buy it from some other country. It is very logical we
should be aggressively pursuing nuclear power. Again, you have to
appreciate the fact that the other side of the aisle and the leadership
of the other side of the aisle, especially Senator Obama, are opposed
to expanding the nuclear option for our Nation which, in my opinion, is
cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is a very safe and
usable form of energy which addresses the issue of global climate
change in a positive way by still giving Americans American-purchased
energy.
Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire, it does
not make sense to me. The U.S. Navy, of course, as we know, has been
using nuclear power for its aircraft carriers and submarines for, I
think, 50 years and is able to do so safely and without incident.
France generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power.
In France, the environmental activists have actually cut a deal, as I
understand it, with the nuclear power producers because they
understand. They get the point the Senator from Florida makes, and the
Senator from New Hampshire, that nuclear power is clean power. For
those who are concerned about climate change, that would be one of the
best things we could do to alleviate the pressure on the environment.
I wish to get back, if I can for a second, because there has been a
lot of talk, particularly the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is
talking about the need to develop new technology, to develop plug-in
hybrid cars, battery-operated cars. I know there is a little confusion
because right now we need transportation energy, which is basically oil
and gasoline--aviation fuel to fly our airplanes. People wonder how
does nuclear power or using coal in a clean way to generate electricity
figure into that? The point we are trying to make is we need all of the
above. We need to generate the electricity cleanly so we can use the
new technology that we think will bring us into a clean energy future.
I wish to ask both my colleagues to comment on a couple things. One
of my constituents, T. Boone Pickens, is in town. He is a remarkable
man. He has been very successful in the oil and gas business. He says
we need a different way of looking at our energy future. He is
advocating increased use of wind energy to generate electricity. He is
advocating more use of natural gas because he says we have found ways
to develop more of that here in America so we have to buy less--the
point of the Senator from Florida. That is less money we have to send
than the $700 billion we send overseas each year.
Mr. GREGG. He also said, did he not, that we need to use everything.
He didn't say don't use drilling; he said we have to drill everywhere
we can in the United States, we have to use wind, we have to use solar,
we have to use nuclear, we have to use everything, because we have to
stop sending $700 billion, as the Senator from Florida mentioned, to
people who do not like us--Venezuela and Iran. Let's keep it here,
where we can use it to build our economy.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I remember him being asked: What do you feel about
drilling? He said: I want to drill everywhere.
Now, I am not there, because I don't want to drill everywhere. I want
some beaches to be protected. But he was saying we need to drill,
drill, drill. That is part of the answer. It is not going to get us out
of the problem, but it is part of the solution.
Mr. CORNYN. I have two points, and I would like to hear from both
Senators. One is we hear from folks opposed to offshore drilling say we
can't drill our way out of this.
Other opponents of offshore exploration and production said: It is
going to take too long.
I wonder if the Senator from Florida and the Senator from New
Hampshire have some thoughts about those. I happen to believe those are
pulled out of context, particularly when it comes to Boone Pickens,
because, as you said, we need it all. What is the best answer to that?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I would say that, no, we cannot drill our way out of
the problem, but we can improve on the problem. Today, we use about 21
million barrels of oil, and 5 million of those come from overseas. That
is what turns into that $700 billion bill.
What if we could add another million barrels to that production
domestically? We will have ameliorated the problem by a significant
percentage. What if we did 2 million barrels? All of a sudden, the
equation is different and we can be more sustainable within our own
resources.
The second part of this is, it is not all about oil. It is about
other things, such as oil shale. The Democrats oppose looking into that
possibility. We have not been allowed to have a full discussion.
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming should be allowed to develop this resource.
I understand that we have an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil that
can be produced from oil shale. So maybe we can drill our way out of
this with enough creativity, enough technology, and enough resources
being employed.
So it is not going to just be about nuclear, although it ought to be
nuclear. Florida has three nuclear powerplants built in the 1970s and
1980s, and thank goodness for those because in Florida we cannot
produce any oil, we do not have any hydro, and we depend on those
nuclear powerplants to power ourselves. So thank goodness we have that.
We also need to look at more production offshore. We need to do more
oil shale, and the new technologies of wind

[[Page 17591]]

and solar and new battery technology--all of the above.
My point is, we cannot drill our way out of this, but part of the
solution is drilling. So it is not about suggesting that we should
forget everything else and just drill, but it is to say that drilling
as a component part of a comprehensive energy policy can move this
country ahead, can move us forward.
Mr. GREGG. Well, the point the Senator makes is extraordinarily
valid. But there is an ancillary issue here, which is, not only do we
need the energy to try to increase supplies and reduce the price, but
it seems incomprehensible that we would not want to put in place
programs which would relieve us from sending Americans' hard-earned
dollars, you know, folks who are working every day, sending those
dollars to Venezuela and Iran and other countries which hate us and
want to do us harm. It seems that common sense would want us to produce
American energy if we have American energy available to us and we can
produce it in an environmentally sound way rather than send the money
overseas.
Mr. CORNYN. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, the bill
that was on the floor about 2 weeks ago was a bill to deal with
speculation and the commodity futures market. Our point was, we should
not just deal with part of it, part of the problem, we ought to deal
with the whole problem. That is why we have insisted--in fact, we have
demanded and we said we should not leave here until we have had an
opportunity to vote on offshore production and those other good ideas.
But I wonder if the Senator would address why the speculation
component alone would be an insufficient response--may be part of the
answer but certainly not the complete answer to the problems we face
today?
Mr. GREGG. The simple answer is that it does not produce any more
energy. Yes, there is probably speculation in the market. Yes, we
should have more transparency and more enforcement to make sure the
market is not being abused. But that is not going to produce any more
energy.
We know there are 2.5 billion people between India and China, and
they are starting to have much more high-quality lives, and so they are
starting to buy cars, they are starting to buy motor scooters, they are
starting to use energy. As a result, the demand for energy is
accelerating dramatically. That is 2.2 billion more people than we have
in the United States. So the simple math of it shows us we have to find
more energy and we have to use less energy.
That is why amendments brought to the floor which are directed at
finding more energy--such as oil shale, drilling offshore, and
nuclear--need to be addressed. We need to discuss them. I cannot
understand why the other side of the aisle refuses to do that.
I asked my staff to put together a chart which would summarize this
in the most simple and stark way. Here is the chart. It is a big zero.
It is a zero. Zero amendments are being allowed here. Zero new oil is
being produced as a result of that. Zero new gas, zero new nuclear
plants. Until we have some amendments on this floor which allow us to
address these issues, we are still going to have zero as being the
answer of the other party to how you produce more oil and more energy.
It is not right. We should be getting down to the issue of what the
American people want, which is to get the price of energy down by
producing more and using less and producing more American energy rather
than buying it from other countries that do not like us.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTINEZ. The International Energy Agency painted a grim picture
about the future. The report estimated that over 3.5 million barrels a
day of new production will be needed each year just to hold the total
production steady. So as India, China, and these other countries are
rising in their demand, we need 3.5 million barrels a day of new oil
just to keep the current standards of what we have. That is not just a
U.S. problem, it is a global problem.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank my colleagues.
We are going to relinquish the floor to the Senator from Georgia for
the final comments.
I would say in closing that I can anticipate what the argument is
going to be when the majority leader comes out, and the whip--they are
going to say it is all about Republican obstruction.
But the problem is, we have insisted we are not going home, we are
not going to quit, we are not going to change the topic until we get an
opportunity to vote on what we believe will have the most direct impact
on reducing gas prices: increasing supply and offering all of the above
that we have discussed during this colloquy this morning. That is our
position, and we believe that should be a bipartisan position. We
invite our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in being
part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the Senators from
New Hampshire, Florida, and Texas, and would like to report an
interesting occurrence that took place yesterday that kind of verifies
exactly what Senator Cornyn said.
After the vote on the media shield motion to proceed, I went back to
my office and placed two phone calls, one to the president of the
Georgia Press Association, the other one to the president of the
Georgia Broadcasters Association. I told both of them: We have had
conversations about the importance of media shield, and I know both of
you are very interested in it. But I want to explain why a few minutes
ago I cast a ``no'' vote on a motion to proceed to media shield.
I said: The reason I did it, quite simply, is that for everybody in
my State--and I would submit most everybody in the United States of
America--the No. 1 issue is the high cost of energy and particularly
the high cost of gasoline.
Both men, both professional journalists, both presidents of their
associations, said: We understand.
The broadcasters said: Our talk shows are not calling in about media
shield; they are calling in about the gas.
The president of the press association said: Listen, I understand.
Read our letters to the editor. I listen at the coffee shop. I know
what Georgians are concerned about. It is the high price of energy and
the high price of gas.
So that is why I have remained committed to staying on the Energy
bill until we find some way to bring Republicans and Democrats
together. Both of us can give. I said in a speech the other day: We
ought to put our donkeys and elephants in the barn and sit down and
talk about ways to really meaningfully change the lives of the American
people, not 20 years from now but today.
The country is hungry for a Congress and for leadership that will say
yes to more production, yes to more conservation, yes to a better
environment, yes to a productive economy, all of which would be the
result of a comprehensive, balanced approach toward energy. But a
singular slingshot approach or a rifle approach, like just speculation
or just drilling or just something else--we have to do it all. We have
to do it comprehensively. We have it within our capabilities to do it
right.
As the Senators before me have stated, we have all kinds of
resources. Many of these resources are not only abundant but they are
cleaner than gasoline and they are cleaner than oil--nuclear energy,
for example. In America, 19 percent of our electric energy is produced
with nuclear; in France, it is 87 percent. Think about the difference
that makes not only in the reliability and the cost of energy but the
carbon-free emissions that come from nuclear versus the heavy carbons
that come from the burning of oil or gas or coal or other sources.
Ingenuity and innovation. The American people are a remarkable
people. When confronted with whatever challenge, we have almost always
come up with a solution. But sometimes those solutions either take
inspiration or they take encouragement. When we needed to go to the
Moon and win the space race, we had the inspiration of a great
President, John Kennedy, to declare a goal to land a man on the Moon

[[Page 17592]]

and bring him back again before the end of the decade. We did not know
how to do it, but we did it. We need a Congress that is just as bold
today to say that $4 a gallon is too much for gasoline, carbon is too
bad for our atmosphere, and fossil fuels are geopolitically not in our
interest.
It is time that we as America find ways through engineering and
ingenuity to invent and to develop and to process those sources of
energy that are clean, renewable, reliable, and less expensive. And we
can do it. But you cannot do it if you stand in gridlock on the floor
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, unwilling to talk about
all the issues.
We all have our biases and we all have our prejudices, but all of us
take an oath of office to represent the people of our State and to
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and defend the
domestic tranquility of our people. When your economy is tanking, when
your debt is going up because of your addiction to foreign oil, and
Congress sits here for 2 weeks and debates only one sliver of the
solution without everything, then we are not living up to our
responsibility.
So if the Georgia Press Association understands, if the Association
of Broadcasters understands, if the 17,488 people who communicated last
week with my office about one issue--and that was cost of energy--
understand, why can't we in the Senate understand? We are all in this
together. We are 100 coequals. We all have the same responsibility. And
we ought to all have the same goal; that is, to find a way to thread
the needle so we sit down and we develop a comprehensive energy program
for the people of the United States of America.
I did a talk show yesterday--actually, it was a television program
where I was asked about this energy question. I was asked about the
Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. I said that the Arab oil embargo of the
1970s was an early warning. It gave us a second chance to address the
energy question. But when prices went down in the 1980s and 1990s and
the price of gasoline was not that high, we did not take that chance.
Well, now prices have spiked to an alltime high.
This is not a second chance for us in America, this is a last chance
for us in America. A sustained cost of gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $120
to $150 a barrel will break the U.S. economy. It will destroy the value
of the U.S. dollar, and it will hurt the people of the United States of
America.
So it is time for us to put these prejudices aside, put them aside
and sit down and be willing to agree. I will be the first person to lay
on a table--I am willing to sit down and talk to anybody, anyplace,
anywhere, about any singular facet of the energy crisis if they are
willing to talk about the other facets of the energy crisis.
As Boone Pickens said, drilling will not solve it, but it will help.
Solar will not solve it, but it will help. Wind will not solve it, but
it will help. Renewables will not solve it, but they will help. What we
have to do is put together the pieces of the puzzle that are within our
grasp and make sure the people of the United States have abundant
energy at affordable prices. We are sitting on a ham sandwich, starving
to death. We are not developing the resources we have at our disposal,
and because of that, our citizens are paying a dramatic price.
Anytime, anyplace, anywhere, let's start talking about solutions
rather than continuing to perpetuate the problem.
I yield back any time we have remaining, and I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the
floor at 2 o'clock for the purpose of a colloquy between Senators
Durbin, Murray, Schumer, Dorgan, and Senator Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I don't think it will--we will have that happen at the half
hour. I don't think we will use all the time. That is the Democratic
time. We will just work the Republican time at 2:30 or 3 o'clock and
thereafter.
Is there an order in effect now as to what will happen after lunches
as to the allocation of time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current order provides allocation of time
until 12:30 p.m.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent--if I could have the attention of
the distinguished Republican leader, the time has been allocated until
12:30 today. So 11:30 is Republican time, from 12:30 to 1:00 would be
the Republican time again; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. So I ask that the time be allocated every half hour until 5
o'clock tonight, and that I be recognized at 2 o'clock for the half
hour of Democratic time under the conditions I mentioned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would also say that if we have any
conference reports that we can agree on, whoever's time it is, we will
interrupt and try to do that--if, in fact, we get an agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. If we are in a quorum call----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in a quorum call.
Mr. COBURN. I think I have until 11:45, I believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order as to time.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans control the time until noon.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, our side of the aisle has allowed me until
11:45 to speak.

Katy French

Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor for a lot of reasons at a lot
of different times, but today is extremely unusual. I wish to spend the
time talking about how important staff is in Washington. We are only
capable of doing and accomplishing what we accomplish because we have
staff here to help us.
I have had the great fortune over the last 3\1/2\ years to have
someone on my staff who has displayed character virtues like none other
I have seen in my career. She will be leaving my staff. Her name is
Katy French. She has a master's in public health from Harvard. She has
been on the front lines of HIV/AIDS since the epidemic came about. She
worked for both Senator Gregg and Senator Brownback. The
characteristics about her that make her great--in Oklahoma we would say
her ``plow runs deep.'' She is well-rooted in the principles of
liberty.
What she has done with that principle is recognize that if you are
free, and you have liberty and yet you don't spend your life helping
other people, the liberty is for naught. So she has been a great
example to me and my staff over the last 3\1/2\ years for her tireless
dedication--which all on our staff have--and for bringing with that
well-rootedness, that deep-rootedness, the ability to challenge a
Senator, to tell us what she thinks even though we may not like it, to
bring forth ideas that aren't in the conservative realm yet are
humanitarian, great ideas, the ideas to help people. The people who
know Katy French know she means business, but that business has always
involved taking care of people.
One of the first things she did as my staff director on the Federal
Financial Management Subcommittee was set up a hearing on malaria. What
we know is millions of people today in Africa are being cured of
malaria because we, in fact, changed that program. The oversight
hearings we held changed the direction. I know the Presiding Officer of
the Senate now, the Senator from Ohio, is very much interested in that
topic. Through her work, millions of Africans are alive today who would
not otherwise be alive because the program was changed where we
actually made a difference.
I can't think of any greater tribute to an individual who comes to
work to

[[Page 17593]]

help us in the Senate than to measure the value of what they have done
in terms of the lives that have been made better, made healthier, and
have forgone a serious disease and dread. She also conducted more
hearings in our subcommittee than any other committee or subcommittee
in the entire Senate in the 109th Congress. Most staff directors of
committees know--and subcommittees know--how hard it is to put together
and hold hearings.
Probably the greatest tribute to Katy is the fact that she didn't
stop with that. When the Pope was here in his visit this last year, he
called on America's youth to reach out and make a difference. Katy is
in the middle of her career. She has made a big difference in the
Senate for three separate Senators. She has made a big difference in
terms of the PEPFAR legislation--the original legislation and the
legislation that we just passed and the President has signed. She
listened to that call to make a difference. So it is both a sad time
and a happy time for me to know that Katy is joining a religious order
to further her life in giving to other people.
She is foregoing money. She is foregoing material things. In fact,
she will be in an order that was established some 30 years ago
associated with the Catholic Church out of Argentina that she will
dedicate the rest of her life to, making a difference--a real
difference--in other people's lives.
She will be focusing on troubled urban youth. Her characteristics and
multilingual talents will lead her in that direction. To me, the
greatest compliment you can have as a Senator is to have a staff member
leave for such a higher calling. For Katy and all of those who work in
our office and on behalf of the Senate, and as a reflection of the rest
of the staff of the Senate, we thank you for your efforts on behalf of
freedom.
I thank you, Katy, for your efforts on behalf of our office and what
we are trying to do for the people of Oklahoma. Most importantly, I
thank you for your grasp of faith and what it means to truly give up
your life so that in the words of that man from Nazareth: ``He who is
last will be first.''
Katy French has lived that example. We will miss her.
I thank the Senate for the time.
I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

American Energy Freedom Day

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to invite my colleagues to
join me in supporting American Energy Freedom Day on October 1, 2008.
On this day, the current prohibitions on oil and gas exploration off
the Outer Continental shelf and in the oil shale fields of the West
will expire, giving Americans the freedom to access their own energy
reserves and providing them with relief from sky-high prices at the
pump.
Estimates indicate there are upwards of 18 billion barrels of
recoverable crude oil in the off-limit areas of the Outer Continental
Shelf, as well as more than 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In
addition, estimates indicate that between 800 billion and 2 trillion
barrels of oil can be drawn from American oil shale.
Taking advantage of American resources will increase the worldwide
supply of petroleum and bring down prices at the pump. The very access
to these resources will send powerful price-reducing signals to the
futures market, providing immediate relief for all Americans.
For over 25 years, Democrats have denied Americans the freedom to
access their own energy, making our Nation more and more dependent on
foreign oil. Each year, they have continued the ban on American energy.
Now it is time for them to get out of the way and open up American
energy supplies.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support Energy Freedom Day and
allow the prohibitions on American energy exploration to expire once
and for all. We must actively oppose any attempt to extend these bans
on American prosperity and security. Now is not the time to deny
Americans access to their own energy.
October 1 is going to be a great day for all Americans. I invite my
colleagues to join me in supporting American Energy Freedom Day.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

renewable energy

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance
of renewable energy and addressing our current energy crisis in the
United States. We need a comprehensive approach to our energy problems
in the United States. Renewable energy is one of the answers.
Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the State of Washington, and
I have been working tirelessly together, in a bipartisan way, to get a
renewable energy bill passed through the Senate, passed through the
House, and onto the President's desk for a signature. I applaud her for
her efforts in this battle.
We passed our renewable energy bill--a bipartisan bill--back in
April. We attached it to the housing bill that was done then. It passed
this body with a vote of 88 to 8. Not too often around here do you see
Republicans and Democrats joining together in such a bipartisan way.
But it shows you the kind of support this body has shown toward
renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House of
Representatives blocked our renewable energy bill from being considered
as part of the housing bill.
Once again, we attempted, in July, to get our amendment added to the
housing bill that would expand renewable energy, such as solar, wind,
geothermal, and other types of green energy to the United States. We
would have been able to attach that to the housing bill if the majority
party had allowed us to have that kind of a vote. Unfortunately, they
used the excuse it wasn't paid for and that the House of
Representatives--the Democrats in the House--would block our piece of
legislation from being considered in the final package.
So we offered a compromise and we said, OK, we will pay for it,
except that instead of raising taxes to ``pay for it,'' we will offer
spending cuts. The Federal Government is too big anyway. We said let's
have a very small ``haircut'' from nonveteran spending programs across
the board. We will do across-the-board spending cuts--a tiny
percentage.
Once again, the Democratic majority said no. It was very
disappointing. We need to come together in a bipartisan way to address
the energy needs of this country. Republicans have been saying: Let's
do a comprehensive approach; let's include renewable energy and more
conservation, but let's also pass a comprehensive bill that allows us
to drill in places such as our Outer Continental Shelf. Deep sea
exploration is a great way for us to bring more oil and natural gas to
the United States, to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
My colleague from South Carolina talked about oil shale. Up to 2
trillion barrels of oil--which is three times more oil than Saudi
Arabia has--is potentially available between Wyoming, Colorado, and
Utah. Right now, we have a moratorium put on that. Why? Because the
Democratic majority put that into law last year.
We need to repeal that moratorium so that progress can go forward to
make us less dependent on countries that--frankly, a lot of them don't
like us. Whether it is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or some of the other
more volatile regions of the world where we get a lot of our oil today,
those are not exactly the places where we should be sending our money.
Currently, the United States sends about $700 billion a year
overseas, funding a lot of governments that are not our friends. We, as
Republicans and Democrats, need to lay our party labels aside and
become Americans. Let's do something that is right for the country.
Let's bring more American energy production to America, so we are less

[[Page 17594]]

dependent on other governments around the world.
I strongly believe we need to tap more of our coal reserves. That is
one of our cheapest forms of power we have in the United States. There
is exciting new technology for coal, called carbon recapture
technology. Senator Kerry and I have a subcommittee--he is chairman and
I am the ranking member--and we have done several hearings over the
last couple of years on this carbon recapture technology to make coal
even cleaner than it is today. That carbon recapture technology is
exciting. We are talking about capturing 95 percent of all of the
carbon produced by coal. It can produce more and more electricity for
the United States.
When we are talking about battery technologies for cars, or hybrids,
you can also produce more electricity so that we can take natural gas
away from some of these powerplants and convert some of our cars to
natural gas. All of this will lower the price of gasoline, because we
will need less.
Today, the price of oil and gas is up so high because there is more
demand than there is supply. The world is demanding more energy,
including oil, than it is currently supplying. That is the reason the
price has been going up. That is the reason prices will continue on
their upward trend over the next several years, unless we bring more
supplies. I would like more of those supplies to be right here in
America. I think that is the right thing to do. It is good from a
national security standpoint, from an economic security standpoint, and
it is good for the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans across our
country.
I call on my colleagues to look at a comprehensive approach that
would include renewables, more conservation, and looking for more
American energy in the form of oil and natural gas. It is the right
thing to do for the American people.
It is time for us to act and to quit playing more politics. The motto
on the Republican side has been to ``find more and use less.'' Well,
the only way we are going to be able to do that, frankly, is for the
Democrats to talk less and start voting more. We need to have
amendments that are fully debatable on the Senate floor, because there
are answers out there. There are no silver bullets, but in a
comprehensive approach, we can have answers to bring down the cost of
gasoline in the United States.
Let's join together as Republicans and Democrats and act for the good
of the American people.
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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

One-Year Anniversary of the I-35W Bridge Collapse

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, tomorrow at 6:05 p.m. Minnesota time,
it will be exactly 1 year since the horrific collapse of the I-35W
bridge. It is a day and a moment when all Minnesotans will always
remember where they were. They will remember what they were doing, they
will remember what they heard, and they will remember the pictures.
Minnesotans will even remember the weather and what it was like that
day because as if to symbolize what was to come, that warm summer day
started with clear skies, but by late afternoon, dark and ominous storm
clouds had begun forming on the horizon, with thunder rumbling in the
distance. Then after the bridge collapsed, as if to provide relief for
the rescuers, the storms retreated.
I know many people across America will also remember that day, and
they will think about those who died and those who survived,
miraculously, on that bridge.
I know my colleagues in the Senate will also remember. I thank each
and every one of them for their tremendous sympathy and concern for the
people of my State following the bridge collapse. On behalf of all
Minnesotans, I wish to say how grateful we are for the bipartisan
support in the days after that bridge collapse, the immediate funding
for emergency relief, and then the funding for the bridge so that
bridge could be built again.
This support from the Senate and the Congress helped lay the
groundwork for the fast and efficient reconstruction of the bridge. In
fact, a new bridge already spans the river. It is expected that by the
end of the year, possibly within the next month or two, cars and trucks
will again be crossing over the Mississippi River on the newly
constructed 35W bridge. My home is only 6 blocks away. So my family and
I look forward to, once again, driving across the 35W bridge.
Not only in Congress but across the Nation, the catastrophic failure
of this bridge provoked deep concern that it might not be an isolated
incident, that there might be a broader problem with bridges across the
country. That is because a bridge should not fall down in the middle of
America on the 1st day of August in 2007, especially not an eight-lane
interstate highway, especially not one of the most heavily traveled
bridges in the State, especially not during rush hour, in the heart of
a major metropolitan area.
But on August 1 of last year, the 35W bridge in Minneapolis fell
down. So tomorrow, 1 year later, we remember the 13 people who lost
their lives on that bridge, and we remember the 145 people who were
injured, many of them now living with serious and permanent injuries.
Tomorrow we also remember the many people--the police officers, the
firefighters, the paramedics, the citizen bystanders who risked their
lives by running toward that catastrophe and not away from it.
When I watched what unfolded that night, I was shocked and horrified.
But as the evening wore on and the days went by, the entire world
watched our State come together, and I was proud to be a Minnesotan.
We saw the heroes. We saw them in the face of unimaginable
circumstances. We saw the off-duty Minnesota firefighter, Shanna
Hanson, who grabbed her lifejacket. She was off duty, but she was among
the first on the scene. She was tethered to a yellow life rope and she
was in the midst of broken concrete and shards as she swam from car to
car, in and out, in and out of that river searching for survivors.
We saw a school bus perched precariously on the falling bridge deck.
I like to call it the ``Miracle Bus,'' perched on that falling bridge
deck, on the side, ready to fall in. Inside were dozens of kids from a
Minneapolis neighborhood who had been on a swimming field trip. Their
bus was crossing the bridge when it collapsed. Thanks to the quick
action of responsible adults and the kids themselves, they all
survived.
Now, with the perspective of a year, what can we learn from this
catastrophe? Well, first, the emergency response to the bridge collapse
demonstrated an impressive level of preparedness that should be a model
for the Nation. You can never feel good about a tragedy such as this,
but I do feel good about our police officers, our firefighters, our
paramedics, and our first responders. Look at the scene they came upon,
this enormous eight-lane highway in the middle of the water, a storm
above them, and they dove into that water and literally saved hundreds
of people.
This week, the Hennepin County Medical Center, located only blocks
from the bridge, was honored with a national award for extraordinary
response to this crisis. As the Hennepin County attorney for 8 years, I
remember meeting with the sheriff, the police chief, and other
officials as we planned and practiced for disaster relief drills after
9/11. Even though no one imagined a major bridge would collapse, the
result of all that planning and the preparation was evident on the
night of August 1 when our survivors were quickly rushed to the
hospital.
Second, we saw how important it was to move forward and build a new,
safe bridge, and I will show you the bridge as it stands 1 year later.
Again, it is 6 blocks from my house, so I have been able to watch its
progress. You can see this bridge now. The last piece actually

[[Page 17595]]

was just added, and it is spanning this huge river, the Mississippi
River. It is an eight-lane highway.
So what happened in Washington? In 3 days, the Senate voted to
provide $250 million in emergency bridge construction funding.
Representative Jim Oberstar led the way in the House, and it was a
bipartisan effort in the Senate as Senator Coleman and I worked
together on the relief.
I personally thank Senator Durbin and Senator Patty Murray for
assisting me with this. I still remember the day the Senate voted for a
billion dollars for bridge reconstruction across the country, but it
didn't include the funding for our bridge. I came in early, and I sat
at my desk, and I said I wasn't going to leave until we got our
amendment to fund the construction on our bridge. The pages and the
chaplain came in, and the Senate was starting, and Senator Durbin came
and sat next to me and he said: Somehow I think you are here to do more
than pray. He helped me, and we got that amendment through and we got
it passed.
Approval of this funding came with remarkable speed and
bipartisanship. Capitol Hill veterans tell us it was a rare feat to get
it done so quickly.
What else can we learn from this bridge? Third, we must still get to
the bottom of why this enormous bridge fell into the middle of the
Mississippi River. It didn't happen because of a barge or some kind of
electrical storm or tornado. It just fell down. Evidence is
accumulating that the bridge's condition had been deteriorating for
years and that it had been the subject of growing concern within the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. This wasn't a bridge over
troubled waters, this was a troubled bridge over waters. Still, as a
former prosecutor, I know we must wait until all the facts and evidence
are in before we reach a verdict. We will need to be patient as the
investigation continues.
Mark Rosenker, the Chairman of the NTSB, the National Transportation
Safety Board, said the other day that the NTSB investigation is nearing
completion and that a final report should be ready for public release
within 100 days. Already, the NTSB has publicly released a number of
documents, photographs, diagrams, and other evidence that are part of
their investigation. We know this bridge had problems, and we look
forward to the NTSB report to give us definitive answers.
Finally, the bridge collapse in Minnesota has shown us that America
needs to come to grips with the broader questions about our
deteriorating infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge disaster shocked
Americans into a realization of how important it is to invest in safe,
strong, and sound infrastructure.
As if we didn't know already, Minnesotans got a reminder a few months
after the 35W bridge collapsed, because we learned another bridge of a
similar design was inspected and found to be in serious trouble. That
bridge is in St. Cloud, MN, a major regional city in central Minnesota,
which is now closed with plans to replace it.
Unfortunately, it took a disaster to put this issue of infrastructure
squarely on the agenda of this Congress. According to the Federal
Highway Administration, more than 25 percent of the Nation's 600,000
bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
That is more than 150,000 bridges. When 25 percent of all American
bridges are in need of serious repair or replacement, it is time to
act.
When we don't have enough money to build new bridges or repair the
ones we already have, there is clearly a problem with our priorities.
And when the American people question the integrity of the bridges they
cross every day, we must act. Putting it all together with the bridge
collapse in Minnesota, this should be a national call to action on
infrastructure.
Senator Durbin and I recently introduced the National Bridge
Reconstruction and Inspection Act. This legislation has already passed
the House and we hope it will move quickly in the Senate. This is only
a start, but it is a good start, if the Senate will pass it and the
President will sign it. I am hopeful it will get us headed in the right
direction.
In closing, I note one final lesson. What happened a year ago in
Minnesota reminds us that disasters can bring out the worst or the best
in people. They can divide us or they can unite us. I believe the
catastrophe, the collapse of the I-35W bridge, brought out the very
best in Minnesotans and it united us. We joined together for the
rescue, we joined together for the recovery, and we joined together for
the rebuilding. I hope that going forward the ultimate legacy of the
35W bridge collapse can be something positive for our Nation. I hope it
can bring out the best in all Americans and unite us as we address the
pressing infrastructure issues facing our country.
Tomorrow, as we remember and as we grieve for the bridge victims and
their families, let us also look ahead and move forward and take the
action necessary to make sure that no bridge ever again falls down in
the middle of America.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time remains in this half-hour
allocation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes remain on the Democratic time.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came expecting to be recognized at
12:10, so I think what I will do, I believe my colleague from Minnesota
apparently is seeking time as well. I assume my colleague from
Minnesota is seeking time in the second half-hour allotted; is that
correct?
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I am seeking time to follow on the
remarks of my colleague from Minnesota reflecting on the collapse of
the bridge, but I will defer to my colleague from North Dakota.
Madam President, how much time is left in the majority's time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes for the majority.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me, in the spirit of allowing the
two Senators from Minnesota to be able to complete their discussion of
the bridge collapse, which is truly a tragedy, let me ask unanimous
consent that the Senator from Minnesota be recognized for that 8-minute
period, and that the majority side be allowed to claim 8 minutes in the
next half-hour, if that is what the Senator is suggesting.
The next half-hour belongs to the minority. If the Senator wishes to
agree to a unanimous consent request that our side use 8 minutes in the
next half-hour, I would be happy to have him go now.
Mr. COLEMAN. No objection, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I first thank and applaud my colleague
for the leadership she has shown in dealing with the challenges this
Nation faces on infrastructure. We need to do something about it. She
moved forward aggressively after the bridge collapse, and I joined her
and applaud her for those efforts.
Like everyone who suffers loss, the people of Minnesota have come to
a tragic anniversary, a hole in the calendar where we confront the pain
of our past. Friday, at 6:05 p.m., we commemorate the moment when the
I-35W bridge collapsed, taking the lives of 13, injuring hundreds, and
disrupting the lives of untold thousands.
I have a few words to share as we observe this first memorial.
So much of what Minnesota was, is, and will become is tied to our
rivers and bridges. Before the roads and the railroads, rivers were
Minnesota's fluid highways through difficult terrain. European
settlement followed the rivers. Because of Minnesota's unique
geography, our rivers flow out toward all the points of the compass,
which is why we call ourselves ``The Headwaters State.''
But rivers can be barriers as well as thoroughfares, so towns and
cities grew up around bridges which allowed people to move
perpendicular to the river flows. More than a century later, we

[[Page 17596]]

are a State of river towns and bridge towns.
That is why the I-35W bridge collapse was so significant humanly and
spiritually to Minnesotans. It fell not far from the Falls of St.
Anthony, the head of navigation of one of the world's great rivers. It
fell where Father Louis Hennepin became the first European to look on
the area which comprises Minneapolis today. It fell where huge early
19th century flour mills, textile mills, lumber processors, and
railroad terminals met to create an economic boom which put Minnesota
on the map. It fell at the heart of our heartland.
It has been said that adversity doesn't create character, but it
surely does reveal it. We witnessed that in the days following August
1, and it continues to this hour. Preparation is a virtue, and our Twin
Cities learned the valuable lesson of 9/11, that we have to get ready
for the unthinkable. When it happened to us, there was an
extraordinarily well-coordinated response from law enforcement, medical
institutions, and other first responders. The speed and professionalism
of their actions are a textbook case of emergency response.
We also experienced amazing spontaneous acts of heroism. It is our
natural instinct to run from pain and danger, and on this occasion,
hundreds of regular Minnesotans ran toward the pain and toward the
danger and saved many lives. In the days following the disaster, the
364 days preceding today, we have seen an unprecedented unity of effort
among all branches of government and levels of government, without
regard to party or position. Our single goal has been to raise a new
bridge over our old river that we can be proud of and that we can
trust, as the pictures shown by my colleague from Minnesota reflect.
Our goal has also been to care for those who have been injured, and we
have done that.
But this is a day to remember those who have been lost: Greg Joldstad
of far northern Kanabec County, a construction worker on the bridge;
Sadiya Sahal, her daughter Hana, and her unborn child; Paul Eickstadt
of Mounds View, 10 miles north of the bridge; Vera Peck and her son
Richard Chit, who had an inseparable bond; Scott Sathers, a young
husband of Minneapolis; Peter Hausman, a computer security specialist;
Christina Sacorafas, of White Bear Lake; Julia Blackhawk of Savage, MN,
10 miles south of the bridge; Patrick Holms, also from Mounds View;
Sherry Engebretsen, a wife, mom, and businesswoman from Shoreview; and
Artemio Trinidad-Mena of Minneapolis.
I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence and reflection
in their honor.
(Moment of silence observed.)
Madam President, sometimes a meaningful silence is the only answer.
I conclude with the ancient words I have prayed many times this last
year, the Hebrew Kaddish, prayed by Jewish mourners for centuries. It
ends as follows:

May there be abundant peace from Heaven and life upon us
all and upon all Israel, now say amen. He who makes peace in
his heights, may he make peace upon us all and upon his
Nation, Israel. Now say amen.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we may be hours or a day away from
adjourning for the August recess. At the same time, many of us have
said there is no more important issue for this Senate to be dealing
with than the issue of energy and the price of gas at the pump. For the
last year, the American consumer has gone through increasing price
shocks as they have seen more and more of their family budget left at
the service station or gas station every time they fill the family car.
First it was $15, then $20, then $25, then $30, $40, $50, and in some
instances now and in certain locations $60 to fill the family car. If
that family car is also the vehicle in which they commute to their
workplace and they have to fill it several times a week, it has become
a dramatic hit on the American family in a way that has now clearly
registered in polling across our country and in what we are hearing
every day in our phone calls coming in from those distressed Americans
out there who are paying more for energy than they ever have before.
That is just one side of the energy equation. Our whole world, our
whole economy runs on energy. The cost of that energy in that economy
has to be felt--whether it is in the heating of the home or the
processing, manufacturing, or growing of food. All segments of our
economy feed on energy and feed, basically, on gas or hydrocarbons that
are reduced into gas and diesel and oil and plastics and the refining
of energy. All of them have also become factors for which the average
American--and certainly the average Idahoan--is paying now at a higher
price than they have ever paid.
In my great open Western State of Idaho, we travel long distances.
The majority of our people do not live downtown, don't live in the
suburbs. They live out in the countryside. Going to town is a trip that
is not unusual to rack up 50, 60, 70, 80 miles. I grew up on a ranch
that was 30 miles from the nearest community. It was not unrealistic,
when my mother went to town to acquire groceries or do the family
shopping, to travel 60 or 70 or 80 miles in one round trip. That still
goes on today in many of our Western States. So the cost for that
family has gone up dramatically, also, simply by the character of where
we live.
Yet, for the last 2 weeks, in an effort to try to deal with this
issue on the floor of the Senate by allowing the offering of amendments
that would in many ways cause production to begin once again in this
country in locations where we know oil exists today but they have been
taken off limits for political reasons--in that debate over the last 2
weeks, the leadership, the Democratic Party, the majority leader has
stopped us from doing so on at least six different occasions.
Why, I am not sure--why any leadership of the great Senate would stop
this Senate from doing what the American consumer and the American
voter are asking for is largely beyond me. I could speculate--and I
have, on numerous occasions, in speeches on the floor over the last
several weeks, as have my colleagues. But one thing is clear: On six
occasions, the majority leader, the Democratic leader, has said: No, we
will not proceed to offer amendments to allow or to cause this country
to become once again a producing nation.
Now we are about ready to try a seventh time. I am told that on the
Defense Authorization Act, cloture has been filed. That is a procedure
we use here in the Senate ultimately to force a vote on whether we will
proceed to go to Defense authorization. We could vote on that today if
we all agreed or we could vote on it tomorrow, as the cloture motion
ripens--the term we use here in the Senate when all time has run out. I
know what our vote is going to be. As important as Defense
authorization is, we are going to say no. There is something even more
important today to every American than that Defense authorization; that
is, the price of energy at the pump which is literally sucking the
family budget dry.
What do we do? My guess is we are going to adjourn for the August
recess having done nothing. Every Senator here is going to go home. I
hope they go home to explain to their voters and to their State why
they would not vote for increased production; why they will not allow
this great country of ours to get in the business of producing energy
once again.
The President has responded. He removed the moratoria he had placed
on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. Prices dropped a little as a
result of that. Yesterday, the Interior Department initiated a 5-year
oil and gas leasing program for the OCS. They are preparing, if we act,
to expedite and allow these areas in which we believe production can go
on to go on there sooner. We have heard the argument

[[Page 17597]]

here on the floor that it is 5 or 6 or 7 years away. No, it is not. In
many areas, it could be as short as 2 or 3 years. And the anticipation
of coming into the market in 2 or 3 years, in nearly everyone's opinion
who understands oil markets--they would tell you it would bring the
price of that product down now in the market.
The price already is coming down--not because of our actions but
because of a beleaguered consumer out there who simply cannot afford
the price anymore. That consumer and his or her family are already
making decisions to shrink their travel and shrink their gas budgets.
They are doing so.
In the last 4 months comparable to the 4 months of a year ago, the
American family has driven 40 billion fewer miles. They didn't want to,
they didn't want to alter their lifestyle, but they did. The reason
they did is they just simply did not have the money to go forward. The
price began to drop. Across America today, the gas price in many States
has now dropped below $4 a gallon.
You see the marketplace is out there, and what we have said about
supply and demand is true in the market even though here in the Senate
the action to deny production is to deny that the marketplace exists.
What is going on today across America is living proof that market
exists.
What can we do? If we were able to act as we have asked our majority
leader here in the Senate to allow us to do, we could gain access to
what we believe is about 30 billion barrels of known oil reserves in
the Outer Continental Shelf. We think there is an additional 85 billion
barrels of undiscovered resources out there, simply, if we are allowed
to explore and develop the resources we know are there that are off
limits today--if.
If I were allowed to offer an amendment, here is the amendment I
would offer. I would go to what we call the eastern gulf that is now
off limits and I would say: 50 miles out from the shoreline along
Florida in the eastern gulf, this would be open for leases. We believe
there are over 2 billion barrels of oil out there and trillions of
cubic feet of gas. Right across here are the pipelines and the
infrastructure we could connect to, which would go into the refining
areas in Louisiana and Texas.
Doesn't that make sense? Even Floridians who once said: No, we do not
want any drilling, are now by their latest polling saying: Yes, we do,
because we, too, are going broke at the pump. We want an opportunity to
do so.
Of course, what Floridians know is that if oil is discovered here,
they will share in the money that comes from it, and that can go into
their educational programs and their State budgets and potentially
reduce the tax burden on the average Floridian, along with bringing the
price of gas down at the pumps in Florida.
I have offered that amendment. I filed that amendment at the desk.
Yet the majority leader of the Senate has said no, that amendment will
not be offered.
Ultimately, it will be offered. Ultimately, someday the voter is
going to say: We have had enough of this. We are not going to stand by
and let the Senate of the United States block us from the resources
that are ours as a nation, that need to be developed, that can bring
the price of energy down.
It is a pretty simple equation and, as many of us have said, this is
an interim solution. Many of us have called it a bridge to the future.
The Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, and the new Energy Policy Act
we passed in 2007, already the Senate of the United States was
recognizing that the day of a nation living exclusively on oil as a
form of transportation energy was a day that would ultimately end and
that we would invest in hybrids and electric-powered cars and new
technologies.
I am very proud, in my State of Idaho, that, in part, we have led
those kinds of technologies in our national energy laboratory in Idaho
Falls. Hydrogen cars and hydrogen initial combustion vehicles and full-
sized electric cars have been experimented with and are being developed
at that laboratory and in other facilities across the Nation.
But that is not going to be available tomorrow. It takes billions of
dollars and 10 or 15 years for a lot of this new technology to come
online and be available to the American consumer. So do we sit idly by
and allow the family budget to be drained away? Do we sit idly by and
buy from foreign nations the billions of barrels of oil we currently
buy from them and pay $1.2 billion a day to a foreign nation and drain
not only our family budgets dry but our national treasure?
It is a phenomenal dilemma we have put ourselves in. As you note, I
used the word ``we'' put ourselves in because it is folks on the floor
of the Senate and the House of Representatives across the Rotunda from
us who have put these properties off-limits, who have put Alaska's oil
off-limits, all in the name of the environment.
We caused this crisis, and American families now know it. Eighty
percent of American families and consumers out there are saying:
Congress, fix it. For 3 weeks we have been on the floor trying to do
that, and every time we try it, we are denied that opportunity in the
raw name of politics.
Well, we are about to go home. I hope in the raw name of politics,
America's voters rise and say to their politicians: Go back to
Washington and do your work and do it in a way that allows this great
Nation of ours to once again become a producing Nation, not just a
consuming Nation.
We know the resources are there. Our national geologic survey says
they are there. We know they are there because they have been put off-
limits in the name of the environment years ago when gas was cheap. But
many of us who have worked in this area for a long while said the day
would come when there would be a break point and no longer would
America be sitting with cheap energy available in an unlimited way.
That day is here.
Yet, politically, we are bound up. We cannot move. I guess we will
now not move to do what we ought to be doing for the American consumer,
acting and allowing these resources to become available so we can
develop them in a safe and clean environmental way for the American
consumers to use.
This is a challenge for all of us, but it is a challenge we are
capable of meeting if we simply surpass the politics of the moment and
get on with the business of this great country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, are we in morning business at this
point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed to S. 3001,
and the minority side has the 10 minutes until 1 o'clock.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that I might use a portion of
that 10 minutes to proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Honoring Korean War Veterans

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this week our Nation, and indeed nations
throughout the world, paid our reverence to the men and women of a past
generation who fought so valiantly to provide freedom for the Southern
portion of the Korean Peninsula. They fought under the Commander In
Chief at that time, President Harry Truman, a courageous man.
It has been 55 years since that conflict. Today, the Senate Armed
Services Committee held an extensive hearing on the current status of
the Korean Peninsula, most specifically the progress we are making, in
my judgment, with respect to North Korea.
I played a very modest role in that war as a young Marine Lieutenant,
for a period, 1951-1952, but my contribution and participation is of
little consequence when you look at the extensive casualties our Nation
took in that conflict.
The total deaths were 36,574, the total wounded over 100,000, and 1.7
million-plus men and women in the Armed Forces were in and out of that
theater to preserve freedom.
Today, South Korea is a flourishing nation, one with a very strong
economy. It ranks, I think, 11th worldwide. It is a partner in world
affairs in terms of its strategic importance and, clearly, a
participant in trying to secure

[[Page 17598]]

freedom for others on that historic peninsula.
I do hope, as the Senate begins to finish its work prior to the
August recess, the Chamber will consider the nomination, which I
understand is pending, of Kathy Stevens, a career diplomat of many
years who has been nominated to become the new Ambassador to South
Korea.
I had the privilege of visiting with her, and I certainly felt that,
in every respect, she is eminently qualified to take this important
post.
I wish to thank Ambassador Hill this morning, because he addressed a
number of issues, most notably the question of the deprivation of basic
human rights by North Korea to so many of its citizens. I support
Ambassador Hill in his endeavor, and colleagues on both sides who, in
the course of the hearing this morning, expressed our concerns about
the human rights of individuals in North Korea and the environs.
Senator Brownback, an internationally recognized spokesman on behalf of
human rights, took an active role in today's hearing.
I wish to note that Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin from
Maryland, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and I met with a group of Korean war
veterans who came to the Hill to talk, to memorialize the sacrifices of
so many of their fellow service persons of that generation.
I am so humbled and privileged to have had that very modest, brief,
tour of service with that generation. My service was inconsequential
compared to the extensive loss of life and limb by others during this
conflict.
But I do urge America not to forget those who served in Korea. The
war is often referred to as the ``forgotten war.'' But they laid the
foundation for the current freedoms in South Korea. Indeed, Harry
Truman's decision to stop the spread of communism on that peninsula
saved other small nations in the region. Today, those countries might
not have the freedoms, they now have, had it not been for the
sacrifices of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, and other
nations fighting under the ``banner'' of the United Nations
Organization.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Honoring Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, a few days ago the Birmingham, AL,
airport announced plans to rename the Birmingham International Airport
after Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.
I rise to honor the work of activist, legendary civil rights leader,
the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth. For more than 60 years, Reverend
Shuttlesworth has fought passionately for racial equality and social
justice in our great country.
Born in Birmingham, AL, Reverend Shuttlesworth became involved in the
civil rights movement as a young pastor. He organized sit-ins and
boycotts. He challenged the injustice for decades of Birmingham's Jim
Crow laws, despite attempts on his life, and there were many by the Ku
Klux Klan.
In spite of repeated arrests, attacks by police dogs and firehoses,
Reverend Shuttlesworth simply refused to back down. In 1957, Reverend
Shuttlesworth joined the efforts with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and
Ralph Abernathy to form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Members of the SCLC fought side by side to increase educational
opportunities, to promote voter registration, and to promoting equality
of opportunity for African Americans throughout the country.
In 1961, Reverend Shuttlesworth took up the pastorate of Revelation
Baptist Church in Cincinnati, OH, and continued his campaign for racial
justice.
Bringing the same fearless opposition to segregation he had displayed
in Birmingham, he joined forces with other Black ministers to make
William Lovelace the city's first African-American judge.
For greater than a half century, Reverend Shuttlesworth spoke out
against injustice. He has worked to increase minority representation in
city government, he has expanded minority hiring by the local police
department, and worked to improve access to housing in Over-the-Rhine,
an area of Cincinnati, for needy families and throughout Hamilton
County.
Reverend Shuttlesworth has made great personal sacrifice, risking his
life, risking his own health and the health of his family, so every
American, without regard to race, would have access to equal
opportunity to succeed.
I announced my campaign for the Senate in 2005 at the church of
Reverend Shuttlesworth in Cincinnati. I consider him a friend. I have
met him many times over the last 15 or so years. He took me one day to
a small room in his church, a room he called a museum. It was a room
dedicated to the civil rights movement. It had so many wonderful
examples of his courage, his bravery, his accomplishments, and the
accomplishments of so many people he worked with to promote social
justice, to promote economic justice, to promote civil and human
rights.
For that, I am especially proud of Reverend Shuttlesworth. I am
especially proud of the role he plays in Cincinnati, always battling
for racial justice. I am proud the Birmingham, AL, airport has named
their international airport after the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Energy

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have been presiding in the chair
listening to some of our friends across the aisle talk about oil and
gas prices and lamenting that we may go home without taking action. I
was blessed to be home yesterday and had the chance to be in rural
Missouri. I talked to a lot of people who represent the heart of our
country.
I will tell my colleagues what they have figured out. They have
learned to look beyond everybody talking about this stuff and to figure
out who wants what. This is simple for the American people. All they
need to do is ask about the solutions and who wants them.
The Republican Party says there is only one solution. Even with the
68 million acres they are not touching, they only need to have another
10 or 20 million acres and our problems are over. Who wants that? Big
oil.
What this town has done for decades is give big oil everything it
wants. This administration has given big oil everything it wants. For
25 years, big oil has had its way with the Congress. The solution they
are proposing is, once again, giving big oil its way.
I don't know how one can look at today's financial news and not shake
their head. ExxonMobil with $12 billion in profits, announced today, in
the last 3 months; $11 billion the quarter before. They want to give
ExxonMobil another tax break, and they want to give ExxonMobil what
they want moving forward.
It is very simple. We got in this mess because the Republican Party
continues to do the bidding of big oil. We will only get out of this
mess if we turn our back on big oil and start doing what makes sense
for the future. If only we had been willing to say no to big oil in
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, when the Vice President had 40
meetings with big oil executives and one meeting with alternative fuels
people.
It is time we say no to big oil. America is sick and tired of being
handcuffed by the demands of big oil.
Democrats say no to big oil. We say yes to getting out from
underneath big oil. We do that by extending tax credits for solar and
wind, to which Republicans keep saying no. Of course, they

[[Page 17599]]

keep saying no to that; big oil doesn't want that. They called big oil.
Big oil said no; they say no.
We say: Let's do more alternatives and invest in technologies that
will rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. America has 2 or 3
percent of the world's oil and she consumes 25 percent. We will never
drill our way out of this. The only way we will find relief for the
American public is to say no to big oil.
It is time. They to have muster the courage. The sky will not fall if
they will only stand and say, for the first time on that side of the
aisle, no to big oil.
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. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

National Infrastructure

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to remember the
terrible tragedy that occurred 1 year ago tomorrow in Minneapolis, MN,
when the bridge carrying Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River near
downtown Minneapolis abruptly collapsed during the evening rush hour.
At least 50 vehicles plunged some 60 feet into the Mississippi River,
killing 13 people and injuring dozens more.
As we approach the anniversary of this devastating event, my thoughts
and prayers and those, I know, of all our colleagues are with the
victims and their families, with Senator Klobuchar, our colleague,
Senator Coleman, Representative Ellison, whose district the bridge is
in, and all those affected by this terrible tragedy.
The people of my own State of Connecticut can sympathize in a direct
way with the people of Minnesota, as they prepare to remember: 25 years
ago, a bridge carrying Interstate 95--the main thoroughfare along the
east coast of the United States--over the Mianus River in Greenwich,
CT, abruptly collapsed in the early afternoon. Four vehicles plunged
into the Mianus River, three people lost their lives, and others
sustained serious injuries. It remains one of the worst transportation
disasters in my small State's history.
The tragedy in Minnesota is the most recent example of our national
infrastructure crumbling before our very eyes. Indeed, this is not a
problem that only affects Minneapolis or Connecticut or--in the case of
last year's steampipe eruption--New York City. These are problems
affecting every single State, every single county, every single
community in our Nation from San Diego, CA, to Bangor, ME.
For far too long, we have taken all our infrastructure systems--our
roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems,
wastewater systems, public housing properties--for granted. For far too
long, we have failed to invest adequately in their long-term
sustainability. Today, we find ourselves in a precarious position
concerning their future viability--a precarious position that is
costing lives and jeopardizing the high quality of life we have come to
enjoy and expect as American citizens.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 152,000 of the
Nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete. Put another way, one out of every four bridges in our Nation
is in a state of serious disrepair. The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials estimates it would cost some $140
billion just to repair the 152,000 bridges that are in that condition.
The life-threatening problems are not confined to bridges. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that
approximately 14,000 Americans die each year, at least in part, because
our roads and bridges are no longer up to the task.
Congestion on our highways causes tons of carbon dioxide and other
pollutants to be pumped into the atmosphere every day. These emissions
compromise the health of children and adults and contribute to global
warming, which poses immense risks to the future of all of us. This
congestion on our highways stems from the absence of mass transit
systems or other adequate means to move people.
Tens of millions of Americans receive drinking water in their homes
every day from pipes that are, on average, over 100 years old. In our
Nation's capital city, in the area of Georgetown--one of the city's
most affluent neighborhoods--wastewater is still conveyed through
wooden sewage pipes constructed in the 19th century.
In the city of Milwaukee, over 400,000 people were sickened several
years ago with flu-like symptoms caused by a strain of bacteria in the
municipal drinking water system of that community. The bacteria strain
was eventually linked to inadequate treatment of the drinking water.
It is not just our health and safety that is affected by our
crumbling infrastructure; in fact, our national prosperity is at stake.
From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the present, a nation's ability
to grow and prosper has always relied upon its ability to effectively
move people, goods, and information.
Ask any American today how we are doing in achieving this objective,
and chances are the response would be the same: We are not doing very
well, and we could be doing substantially better.
When the average American spends 51.5 hours a year--more than 2 full
days of one's life, per year--stuck in traffic congestion, then I think
we can do better. When one out of three of our roads is in poor,
mediocre, or fair condition, then I think all of us would agree we can
do better. When the United States invests less than 2 percent of its
gross domestic product on infrastructure, while nations such as China
and India--the major competitors of this country in the 21st century--
invest between 7 and 12 percent, then I think all of us recognize we
need to do better or we are going to find our country in a very
weakened position very quickly. Infrastructure is not something you can
correct overnight. The investments need to be made. It takes time to do
it right. We are almost to the second decade of this century, and we
remain way behind in this area.
Tomorrow is also the 1-year anniversary of the introduction of the
National Infrastructure Bank Act that I have offered along with Senator
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. It is a bipartisan bill that has gained a
number of cosponsors over the last year, and we would like more.
The Infrastructure Bank would establish a unique and powerful public-
private partnership to restore our Nation's infrastructure. Using
limited Federal resources, it would leverage the significant resources,
both at home and abroad, of the private sector. If we don't talk about
how we are going to finance this, it is not going to happen.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. We need to come up with a financing mechanism. We all
understand the need for doing this. I think all of us recognize as well
that we are not going to talk about doing this out of the
appropriations process alone. There are not enough resources there to
meet the $1.6 trillion currently needed to repair decaying
infrastructure. We need a better mechanism to finance this. Senator
Hagel of Nebraska and I have worked with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies over the last 2\1/2\ years, along with Senator
Bob Kerrey, the former Senator of Nebraska; Warren Rudman, the former
Senator of New Hampshire; Felix Rohatyn, a well-known business
individual from New York who is almost certainly responsible for
getting New York City back on its feet years ago; and John Hamre, a
former official at the Defense Department, and we have constructed a
means by which a limited amount of Federal dollars could attract
massive amounts of private capital to allow us to really begin this
work.
Absent some idea like this--and we think this is a good one--then
year

[[Page 17600]]

after year we can give speeches about our infrastructure, but nothing
much will happen. This bill is designed to deal with regional and
national needs, not local ones. We leave those up to the local
municipalities.
We need to once again recognize that to grow as a people, to have our
economy grow and provide the jobs and fulfill the aspirations and hopes
of many Americans, we have to grow as well in our capacity to handle
that kind of growth. The infrastructure needs of our Nation are
daunting.
So on this tragic anniversary of the events in Minneapolis and the
reminder of what occurred in my own State, as well as the recognition
of what is occurring every single day all across our Nation, my hope
would be that in the coming Congress, whether we are talking about a
McCain administration or an Obama administration, that infrastructure
would be a high priority for our country, that we get on that track
together, as Democrats and Republicans, and come up with some creative
ideas on how we can invest in this needed aspect of our economy.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.

Energy

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to urge action on what is clearly
the single top priority, the single top challenge for American
families; that is, sky-high gasoline prices and energy prices.
In the real world, in every State of the Union, families are
struggling with this enormous additional burden. Gasoline prices, the
prices at the pump--all energy prices have obviously gone through the
roof in the last several months. Yet, even faced with this true crisis,
even faced with this outpouring of hurt on the part of the American
people and call for action, we are not yet acting. We are not yet
acting as grownups. We are not yet coming together. We are not yet
acting on the issue. I urge us to do just that and to simply act in a
full, bipartisan, and balanced way on what is clearly the single
biggest challenge facing Louisiana and all American families.
The good news is that at least there has been an energy-related bill
on the floor of the Senate which has been the pending business that I
think goes back to Tuesday, July 22--almost 2 full legislative weeks
ago. The bad news is the distinguished majority leader has blocked all
attempts to have an open debate and an open amendment process about
energy.
That bill--his bill--about the limited issue of speculation--and I
urge us to act on speculation, but we clearly must act on other things
as well--that speculation-only bill has been the business at hand on
the floor of the Senate for almost 2 legislative weeks, and yet we
haven't had a single amendment considered, certainly not a single vote
on an amendment. What an enormous lost opportunity. What an enormous
example of pure obstructionism in Washington and the sort of gridlock
people are sick and tired of when the country truly faces a crisis.
American families face enormous challenges based on energy prices. We
need that real debate. We need that open amendment process. We need to
act as grownups. We need to come together and act on energy.
It is in that vein that I suggest two very specific things. First of
all, in less than 24 hours, I assume there is going to be some move for
us to go home for August. I don't think we should until and unless we
take some reasonable action on energy. I believe it is a derogation of
our responsibility to go home for any length of time when this crisis
is hanging out there and this institution is failing to act. I think we
should stay here and work. We should stay here and act in a fair and in
a balanced way.
We should consider a host of issues--yes, including speculation, but
also fundamental issues that go to supply and demand on both sides of
that equation: conservation, yes; greater fuel efficiency, yes; new
technology, yes; renewable sources of energy and alternative sources of
energy, yes. Also, we should be doing something on the supply side:
finding more here at home and using our resources we do have right here
at home. So I am against going home, going off on vacation, going on
the August recess--however you want to put it--when we are not acting
on the top priority and concern of the American people.
Secondly, I certainly oppose moving off this topic, which has been
what the distinguished majority has tried to get us to do over and over
again. We will have an upcoming vote--his latest attempt to get us off
this topic. He has filed a motion to invoke cloture to proceed to the
Defense authorization bill. Defense is an extremely important issue,
particularly in this time of war and terrorist threat. However, I can
tell my colleagues the reaction the American people have to this choice
of energy versus Defense authorization. They have the same reaction I
have: Staying on energy, acting on energy in a meaningful, bold,
positive, balanced way, is the single most important thing we can do to
improve our security, to improve our defenses. Quite frankly, that is
far more important for national security and for defense than any
Defense authorization bill. So surely we should reject that attempt to
move off the subject to take this vote and move to the Defense
authorization bill when the single biggest issue that not only faces
American families and hits their pocketbooks but also the single
biggest national security issue is energy.
So, again, I urge us to reject that attempt once again to move off
the subject. We need to stay on energy but, more importantly, we need
to act on energy. We need to reject that cloture vote. I urge us to
stay here and work and act rather than go off on any August recess. We
must address this crucial energy issue.
As so many of my colleagues, I have important amendments on the
topic. I specifically filed seven amendments. Those amendments address
a number of key issues and a number of key questions, but they are
balanced. They are not just about drilling because we can't just drill
our way out of the problem. They have us use less and find more at the
same time. That is exactly the sort of balanced approach we need, as I
said a few minutes ago. Yes, use less. Yes to conservation. Yes to
greater efficiency standards. Yes to new technology. Yes to renewables.
Yes to biofuels. Yes to alternative fuels. Also, at the same time, yes
to accessing greater supply right here at home, to accessing that
energy we have here offshore, in Western States in shale deposits and
elsewhere, to help ourselves rather than have to go beg, hat in hand,
to Middle Eastern countries to cut us a break. We need to do all of the
above. We need to act on the demand side and the supply side to
stabilize, bring down prices, and help American families with this,
their top challenge and their top concern.
I have seven amendments. Unfortunately, under the rules of the game
that the distinguished majority leader has laid out, I haven't come
near any opportunity to call any of those amendments up, and certainly
I have not been able to have a vote on those amendments. The majority
leader at one point offered four votes on the entire issue; none of
them would have been on my amendments. He then rescinded that offer, so
we are back to an offer of zero amendments and zero amendment votes.
Let's get serious about a serious challenge facing American families.
Let's not only be on the topic on the Senate floor--so what. Let's act
on it in a grownup way, in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way,
addressing supply and demand, using less and finding more right here at
home. Let's take up not just my amendments but any good ideas for
debate and consideration and votes, and let's act on the single
greatest challenge facing Louisiana families whom I represent and
American families across the Nation. Surely we shouldn't vote to move
to any other topic when we still have this tremendous challenge not
acted upon.
I think we shouldn't run home for the August recess to vacation or
even to talk with our constituents when this enormously important
pending business is not acted upon. Let's stay here. Let's work. Let's
come together. Let's act for the American people. It is perfectly
obvious to them that this is our

[[Page 17601]]

greatest national challenge. This is their greatest personal and family
challenge as they try to live their real lives in the real world. We
have to get that message and act on it here in Congress.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the Federal Government has more acronyms
for more Federal agencies that produce more economic statistics than
anyone can reasonably be expected to comprehend in a single sitting. We
have the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget
Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis--just to name a few.
These agencies produce a wealth of information that we use to inform
our policy decisions with facts and expert analysis; but I often find
that the best advice I get on matters of public policy comes not from
these experts and their reports, but from the wisdom and sincerity of
North Carolinians who write to me.
I received a letter recently that I think gets to the heart of our
energy debate here in the Senate. It comes from a retiree who is living
on a fixed income from his life savings, who resides in Lake Junaluska,
North Carolina, a picturesque mountain town of 3,000 situated on a
pristine mountain lake. I used to go to church camp there almost every
summer when I was growing up.
``Too much energy,'' the letter reads, ``has gone into rhetoric and
not enough into actually doing something about it. We have so many
brilliant leaders and the ability to make major transformations, so
let's concentrate on action and do whatever it takes to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil.''
My friend from Lake Junaluska is right. Indeed, too much energy in
this energy debate has been spent on partisan rhetoric, and not enough
on delivering real solutions to provide Americans with relief from
these record high gas prices.
Both sides bring important and worthwhile ideas to this debate. On
one side, we see a focus on conservation and cracking down on alleged
bad behavior in the energy market. On the other side, we hear more
about energy exploration.
There is no ``silver bullet'' that can solve our energy woes. We need
every option on the table. We need to throw everything and the kitchen
sink at our energy crisis. Conservation. Alternative energy. Energy
exploration. Market fairness.
There is no reason we can't develop a comprehensive strategy that
includes the best ideas from both sides of this debate.
The bottom line is that high gas prices are driven by too much demand
and too little supply. Last year, global demand exceeded global supply
by roughly one million barrels per day. Because of that, families in my
home State of North Carolina are having to pay 30 percent more to fill
their tanks than they did just 1 year ago.
To truly solve this problem, we have to tackle both the demand side
and the supply side. We need to find more and use less.
On the demand side, we need to make major investments in alternative
energy research and take a crash course in conservation.
That is why I introduced legislation last week to repeal roughly $17
billion in tax breaks to oil companies, and pour that funding into
alternative energy research. With the price per barrel of oil at record
highs, the market is providing petroleum producers all the incentive
they should need to produce more oil. So, that funding would be better
spent by investing in alternative sources of energy that are the key to
our energy future.
In the near term, we could also help decrease demand by incentivizing
the purchase of hybrid and other clean fuel vehicles with point of sale
rebates and by investing in better transit systems.
While decreasing demand and investing in alternative and renewable
forms of energy is certainly a necessary part of any comprehensive
energy solution, it is by no means sufficient. We cannot simply
conserve our way to energy independence.
We must also increase supply by making better use of America's vast
energy resources. We should open up 2,000 out of 19.6 million acres in
ANWR to energy exploration. We should capitalize on our immense oil
shale reserves, which could produce three times as much oil as Saudi
Arabia's proven reserves. And we should also allow the States decide
whether or not to permit offshore energy exploration at least 50 miles
off their shores on the Outer Continental Shelf, where we could gain
access to billions of barrels of oil.
Of course, some will argue that bringing these energy resources
online will take years to complete, and won't help provide the
immediate relief that folks need. But, if anything, that means we
cannot afford to let another day pass without pursuing them.
After all, if President Clinton hadn't vetoed legislation in 1995 to
allow energy exploration in ANWR, our current energy shortfall would
already be reduced by roughly 1 million barrels per day.
To provide immediate relief, we can release one-third of the
strategic petroleum reserve to inject some much-needed supply into the
markets, which will drive down prices in the near term and send a
signal to market speculators that the American Government is dead
serious about lowering gas prices.
Because of enormous and unprecedented economic growth in developing
countries like India and China, it is imperative that in this debate we
keep our eyes fixed firmly on the ultimate goal of ending our
dependence on foreign oil altogether. Facing an ever-dwindling global
supply of oil and ever-increasing global demand for energy, this is not
a goal or a debate that we can take lightly. When it comes to securing
America's energy future, partisan politics need not apply.
To lower gas prices and reach our ultimate goal of energy
independence, we need every option on the table--everything and the
kitchen sink.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3044

Mr. REID. Mr. President, 92 times this session, which is now in its
19th month, Senate Republicans have filibustered critical legislation,
everything and anything to maintain the status quo. Of course, it is an
all-time record, 92 filibusters. It is more than 100 percent of what
has been done in a full Congress--that is 2 years--and this has been
done in a year and a half.
For those unfamiliar with the language of the Senate, a filibuster is
a stall tactic to give a Senator more time, but it prevents the Senate
from debating legislation. A filibuster is not a ``no'' vote in the
true sense of the word. It is an objection to even having a vote. A
filibuster cuts off debate before there can even be a vote. Most
importantly, it cuts off negotiation and compromise.
Ninety-two times and more than 100 percent than has ever been done
before, Republicans have filibustered America's priorities. Republicans
have shown no favoritism on whom their filibusters harm the most. They
have filibustered our troops, veterans, children, working families,
small businesses, elderly, disabled, and recently stroke victims, those
suffering from paralysis, those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease.
The list is endless. Not a single American has escaped the harm of a
Republican filibuster in this, the 110th Congress.
Perhaps our country has been most damaged by Republicans blocking us

[[Page 17602]]

from addressing the energy crisis. CNN issued the results of a poll
they took over a couple days very recently. Here is how the American
people feel about major causes of high gas prices:
No. 1, U.S. oil companies. Is that any surprise with the record
profits being reported today by Exxon?
No. 2, foreign oil producers, OPEC mainly.
And, of course, speculators.
One, oil companies; two, oil producers; three, speculators, and new
demand from other countries, and the American people are very
perceptive. We know there is a tremendous demand from India and China.
No. 5, a major cause of higher gas prices, the Bush administration.
No. 6, the war in Iraq.
So if you only heard the faint outrage of our Republican colleagues,
you might think it is the Democrats who spent the past 2 years blocking
every effort to lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on oil. But
the exact opposite is true. Republicans may talk about high gas prices
and oil prices today, but they are late to the party and they have
shown up empty-handed.
The one idea they have come up with lately is more coastline
drilling. But we all know it won't have any significant impact on
prices, and some say in more than 20 years. That is according to the
Bush-Cheney administration, which says the change in price will be in
the year 2027.
Yesterday, in the New York Times and in newspapers all over America,
the most syndicated columnist in America, Tom Friedman, wrote as
follows:

Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we
can drill our way out of the current energy crisis that
reopening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become
their answer for every energy question.
Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the
world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus
the dangers of the climate change driven by our addiction to
fossil fuels, can see clean renewable energy--wind, solar,
nuclear, and stuff we haven't yet invented--is going to be
the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going
to grow in a stable way.

Friedman went on to say:

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power
industry is going to most own the next great technological
breakthrough--the ET revolution, the energy technology
revolution--and create millions of jobs and thousands of new
businesses, just like the IT revolution did.
Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-
drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me
of someone back in 1980 arguing we should be putting all our
money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric
typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''
and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a
second-rate power and economy.

He is not only the most well-read and the most well-spread columnist
in America today but a man who is a prize winner for his best selling
books, and his books are so tremendous because they see the world as it
is going to be, not as it now is.
Their one idea, more coastline drilling, is not the answer. It is no
wonder Senator McCain said the plan was purely psychological, the
Republican plan for more coastal drilling is psychological.
This morning we came to the Senate floor. We were going to offer some
consent agreements, but the time was inconvenient. I did not want to
use leader time and throw off the sequence of time we had. So we are
here this afternoon to offer Republicans yet another chance to end
their obstruction and do the right thing. We will offer unanimous
consent requests on seven Energy bills, each one of which is extremely
important, a package of bills that would lower the price we pay at the
pump while applying for the long-time transition away from oil and
toward clean renewable fuels of the future Tom Friedman talked about.
If past is prolog, Republicans will object to each of these
proposals. If they do, and they probably will, it will be clear again
for all Americans to see which party wants to only talk about our
energy crisis and which party wants to solve it.
The first I would like to offer is S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy
Act. This is a very thoughtful piece of legislation which ends billions
of dollars of tax breaks for big oil companies, and if there is ever an
opportunity to recognize why they are unnecessary, look at those
profits today and what they do with those profits. Do they do new
energy exploration? No. Do they invest in renewables? No. They buy back
their stock.
It was announced today they made last quarter, Exxon alone, about $12
billion. S. 3044 would force oil companies to invest some of their
massive profits in clean, alternative affordable fuels rather than
buying back their stock. S. 3044 would protect the American people from
price gouging and profiteering. It would also stand up to OPEC
countries that are colluding to keep prices high.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 743, S. 3044, the Consumer-
First Energy Act; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements
relating to this bill be printed in the Record, as if given.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, this bill does not produce
any new American energy and would increase the price of gas at the
pump. Further, I agree with Chairman Bingaman that a windfall profits
tax is ``very arbitrary'' and ``bad policy.'' For these reasons, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New York.

Unanimous Consent Request--Energy Price Reduction and Security Act of
2008

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to speak about a proposal that
has been at the desk for a period of time and was put together by
Senator Bingaman which deals in a very real way with the issues about
which so many of our colleagues on the other side of the floor have
talked.
First, it does increase domestic production by giving the Secretary
of the Interior the authority to shorten lease terms and raise rental
rates, requiring oil companies to comply with benchmarks. It would
require the oil companies to drill rather than just hold property for
decade after decade and not produce.
It would also bring down prices immediately by selling about 70
million barrels of high-quality light crude in the SPR, replacing it
later with low-quality heavier crude.
Mr. President, 90 percent of sales would be invested in LIHEAP. Even
more importantly, it reduces demand. First, building codes, 40 percent
of our energy is used by cooling and heating buildings. Certain States
have put in building codes for decades and dramatically reduced demand.
We also have research for batteries, so we might have electric cars and
many other provisions.
I cannot go into all of them because time is narrow. Why do my
colleagues oppose something so rational? The bottom line is because
they want to do what the oil companies want: give them record profits.
What do the oil companies do with those profits? Do they promote
alternative energy? Absolutely not. Do they drill domestically? We are
hearing all this talk about drill. Look what the oil companies do with
their profits. They buy back stock. That is very good if you are a big
shareholder in ExxonMobil. It is very bad if you are a homeowner
heating your home or a commuter driving your car.
It does no one any good except a handful of people, mostly very well
off, to raise ExxonMobil stock, raise Chevron stock, raise BP stock,
and not put that money into production.
Our proposal doesn't do what the oil companies want, but it increases
production, domestic production, and reduces demand, exactly the slogan
that my colleagues are talking about on the other side of the aisle.
But it does it in a way not that the oil companies want but that
America wants.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of a bill authored by Senator Bingaman, the
Energy Price Reduction and Security Act of 2008, which is at the desk;
that the bill be read a third time, passed, and

[[Page 17603]]

the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Republican whip.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill does
not open a single new acre for the production of American energy and,
in fact, would place new regulations and fees on American energy
production, which would raise the price of gas at the pump. For these
reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant majority leader.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3335

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 68 million acres are currently open to the
oil and gas companies, Federal land leased to them for oil and gas
exploration. You would think, from the position and the statements on
the Republican side of the aisle, that there was no land available and
that we have to find new opportunities for oil and gas companies. They
have 68 million opportunities they are not using today.
Time and time again, over the last several weeks, the position of the
Republicans on the energy question has come down to two or three very
basic things: First, the Republicans in the Senate and Senator John
McCain are stuck on old ideas. Secondly, they can't wait to go hat in
hand to big oil--the oil companies--and ask them: What would you like
us to do next? Well, the oil companies have a pretty good agenda.
Before President Bush and Vice President Cheney leave town, can you try
to find some way to provide even more Federal acreage we can drill on
maybe in the future? We want to stock it in our portfolios and get to
it another day. Can you make sure you do that before President Bush
leaves town?
That is the Republican agenda: More acreage beyond the 68 million
they currently have and no vision for the future. It is an old agenda,
an old idea. The Grand Old Party is stuck in an old way of thinking
when it comes to energy.
The bill I am about to talk about looks to the future. It is a vision
for tomorrow. Of course, there is responsible exploration and
production--there has to be and there should be--but it realizes that
the energy future of America and the world has to be different. We have
to get ahead of the curve. As Senator Reid said in quoting Thomas
Friedman, it is time for us to think of the energy revolution we are
about to engage in, one that is going to make a profound difference in
our lives.
Twice this week we have given the Republicans a chance to vote for a
real energy package. Is it a bipartisan plan? Read this quote from 48
Governors, Democrats and Republicans, across the United States.

Securing our energy future must be a priority at both the
State and Federal levels. We strongly urge you--

They are speaking to the Congress--

to partner with States by passing legislation on a bipartisan
basis to extend expiring renewable energy and energy
efficiency tax credits that can be enacted this year.

The Governors understand it. The American people understand it. The
Democrats in the Senate understand it. It is only the Republican
Senators who continue to object.
Now, what are these incentives? They are incentives for renewable
energy that will chart a course for America to find clean energy
sources and the creation of new businesses and new jobs so America can
again lead the world. The Republicans look in the rearview mirror at
drilling for oil because that is where the big oil companies are--their
friends, their allies, their inspiration when it comes to energy.
This bill that came before us yesterday brought in five Republican
votes. Only 5 out of 49 crossed the aisle and joined us to try to pass
it. Not enough. They know it. Coincidentally, four out of five are in
tough reelection contests. They understand when they go home that they
can't sell this ``drill forever'' and the mentality the Republicans in
the Senate have been peddling.
The bill talks about incentives for biomass and hydropower, solar
energy, biodiesel, advanced coal, electricity, demonstration plug-in
electric cars, battery performance standards, idle reduction units for
trucks, and so many other things that move us forward using those
nonpolluting renewable sources of energy that are truly our future.
Time and time and time again, the Republicans in the Senate have said
no, no to these incentives for renewable energy and no to our future. I
will give them a chance this time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable
Energy, Job Creation Act of 2008; that the amendment at the desk, the
text of which is S. 3335, be considered and agreed to, the bill, as
amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The minority whip.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the
unanimous consent request be modified; that instead of adopting S. 3335
as an amendment, the Senate adopt the McConnell-Grassley substitute
which is filed at the desk. This substitute provides the AMT patch,
extends all of the traditional tax extenders, some of them with
modifications, it extends the many energy tax incentives, provides for
Midwest disaster relief, and includes no tax increases.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, the Republicans, the Grand
Old Party that used to be the party of fiscal conservatism, refuses to
pay for these tax breaks. We have come up with an approach that is
reasonable and accepted by the business community and that puts the tax
burden on companies that are shifting jobs overseas. The Republicans
can't stand the thought of imposing taxes on companies that are sending
American jobs overseas and that is why they object to our bill and that
is why I object to their alternative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object,
yesterday, the majority leader said that legislating is the art of
compromise, and indeed it is. There has been discussion here about the
Grand Old Party--my party, of which I am proud--comparing it to the
idea that oil is in the past, that oil is an old idea, we were told,
and Republicans are stuck in the past. The Democrats are for
renewables.
If you can find me a renewable that runs on wind or on solar, I would
be happy to think about the idea. But I do think that since legislating
is the art of compromise, we ought to listen to each other's ideas, and
that means each side moving off its hard-and-fast position, meeting
somewhere in the middle.
Republicans are ready and willing to negotiate a true compromise, and
I hope we can instruct our respective staffs to work on compromise
during August.
I object to the original request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from North Dakota.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3268

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the pending business of the Senate is S.
3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. That is currently the
pending business. That has been objected to. I would like to try, once
again, to see if perhaps we can do what every one of us as kids has
been told by our parents to do--first things first. We need to do a lot
of things and a lot of things well--produce more energy, produce
different energy, and conserve more energy. I understand that. I think
almost all of us agree with that. But first things first.
We have a broken oil futures market, and let me describe it. Seventy-
one percent of those who are trading in the oil futures market are
speculators. They don't know about oil. They do not want any oil. They
do not want to carry a 5-gallon can of oil. They want to trade paper
and make a lot of money.

[[Page 17604]]

A couple months ago, the vice president of ExxonMobil says the price
of oil should be about $50 or $55 per barrel. The CEO of Marathon Oil
has said the same thing. Finally, in testimony before the Congress,
Fidel Gheit, 30 years in this business at Oppenheimer and Company--the
top energy person at Oppenheimer and Company--said:

There is no shortage of oil. I am absolutely convinced that
the price of oil shouldn't be a dime above $55 a barrel.

In speaking of the futures market, he said:

I call it the world's largest gambling hall, open 24/7 and
totally unregulated. It's like a highway with no cops and no
speed limits and everybody going 120 miles per hour.

The result. The price of gas has doubled in a year. There is nothing
in the supply-and-demand relationship of oil that justifies doubling
the price in a year. It is because the market is broken and infested
now with oil speculators.
We say first things first. We have crafted a bill to try to wring the
speculation out of that market and preserve it for ordinary hedging,
for which it was originally created.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Stop Excessive Energy
Speculation Act, that we are recognizing as the pending business, we
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 882, S. 3268;
that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, that any statements relating thereto be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Republican whip.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, this bill does not provide
any new American energy, is flawed, and, in fact, the New York Times
recently called it a ``misbegotten plan.''
Senate Republicans believe we should continue to work on the bill so
it would provide meaningful relief from high gas prices for American
families. For this reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3186

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, no one in this country should have to
choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. But
with oil prices rising through the roof, more and more of our low-
income families and our seniors today need extra help to stay warm and
healthy. The cost of heating oil has risen 162 percent over the last 8
years, and by this winter it will have risen another 41 percent in the
last year alone.
As these oil prices have skyrocketed, some regions of the country,
including some counties in my home State of Washington, have had to cut
back on the amount of heating assistance they can provide to the people
who live there. The Seattle Times, our hometown paper in Seattle, is
today reporting almost 100,000 people in Washington State alone will
pay hundreds of dollars more to heat their homes this winter. Many
people are already planning on how they are going to get by without
heat because they can't afford it.
Last week, we had a chance in the Senate to double the funding
available to help our low-income families and seniors to afford to heat
their homes this winter. The Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act,
which is S. 3186, would have ensured our local governments were able to
cover these additional costs and help those who need it most. We were
all extremely disappointed that despite the fact that 13 Republican
Senators were cosponsors of this legislation, they chose last week to
say no, once again, on behalf of big oil.
As we debate the refinements of how we are going to solve the short-
term crisis, it seems logical to me that we not leave behind the people
who are hurting the most. For seniors, low-income Americans, people who
are truly worried, can't we come together on this one issue and solve
it as we try to take care of the large energy crisis before us?
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No.
835, S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act; that the bill
be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The minority whip.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be modified to add to the text of
Senate amendment No. 5137, the Coleman offshore oil exploration and
conservation amendment, so we can address the root cause of high energy
prices that are hurting all Americans, particularly low-income
Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to so modify her
request?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object to that, and I say to our
colleagues that, as we continue to debate in this country, in a very
clear manner, the different root causes and what we can do, it seems to
me, without encumbering this in the larger debate, we ought to be able
to at least deal with an oil heating crisis that is going to affect
many Americans, and therefore I renew my unanimous consent request as I
read it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there objection to my request?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I did object, and I renew my original
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington objects.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair and I object as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a few minutes left until 2:30. I
would, rather than take leader time, ask unanimous consent to take
another few minutes past 2:30. I would say to my two Republican
colleagues on the floor, what we would do is run over, and the next 30
minutes in the next block of Democratic time would be cut by whatever
time I use at this time. It will only be a few minutes; otherwise, I
will use leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Kohl and Senator Specter have been
talking quite a bit. They both have visited with me on more than one
occasion because they believe they have one of the answers to the
problems we have with oil, and that is let's do something about OPEC.
It is a cartel, it is a monopoly, and they have no concern for the
American people, and they are obviously in violation of antitrust laws.
But it is a question of whether American law can take them into
consideration.
The legislation introduced by Senator Kohl and Senator Specter in the
form of S. 879, the No Oil Producing Exporting Cartels Act of 2007,
would make OPEC subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why shouldn't
they? At the present time, we only have two entities that are exempt
from the Sherman Antitrust Act: baseball and insurance companies.
We know how we all feel about insurance companies, and how the
American people feel about them, because they violate what would be
antitrust laws all the time, but they are not subject to it.
Mr. President, what this legislation is all about is let's have OPEC
be subject to the antitrust laws. I agree with Senator Specter. I agree
with Senator Kohl. This should be something the Senate does.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2264

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
Calendar No. 169, H.R. 2264, that the bill be read three times and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any
statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill does
nothing to increase American energy independence but would increase our
reliance on the Middle East. Further, authorizing our Government to sue
OPEC could, as Chairman Bingaman said, ``get us into all kinds of
trouble internationally'' and ``is not practical.''

[[Page 17605]]

For these reasons, I object.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, I yielded 8
minutes to the Senator from Minnesota today in order that his statement
could be coterminous with Senator Klobuchar. If you don't mind, this is
the last unanimous consent request--and let me do that by saying I
think all of us in this Chamber understand the way you produce energy,
and we support virtually every mechanism and approach to produce
energy. Drilling for oil is one of them. But drilling a hole in the
ground is not the only way you produce energy. You can use turbine and
blades to produce energy from the wind and produce electricity. You can
take energy from the Sun and produce electricity. There is biomass and
biofuels. There are many ways to produce.
The problem is we do not aspire to set any national goal or national
standard to require or to push that production of alternative energy.
I think we need something around here that is game changing. Every 10
or 15 years people are content to shuffle on the floor and talk about
what do we do about the next box canyon we have ridden in. Then they
say let's drill some more. I am all for drilling, but what about other
ways of producing energy, wind and solar and the alternatives?
I am going to offer a unanimous consent request on an issue that has
been kicking around for a long time. I know some people oppose it
strongly. I respect their views but respectfully they are wrong. We
ought to have a national standard--many States now have it--to provide
a renewable energy standard, saying when you are producing electricity,
a certain percentage of that should come from renewable sources.
This proposal at the desk requires a 15-percent renewable energy
standard. If we are ever going to change the game, we have to do this
by deciding that America is going to produce energy and produce
different energy. So this would be a 15-percent renewable energy
standard. Many States have taken the lead. I regret they have had to
take the lead, but we ought to have a national set of goals and a
national standard to say there are a lot of ways to produce. This is
about producing energy for this country.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6049

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of a bill to establish the renewable electricity standard
which is at the desk, that the bill be read three times and passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating
to this matter be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we need more
energy production to reduce costs. Republicans support it, Democrats do
not. Tom Friedman, quoted by the Democratic leaders, is right about one
thing, Republicans want more offshore drilling. Democrats do not.
Second, and I respectfully correct the majority leader in this,
Senator McCain did not say offshore drilling is only psychological. He
advocates more offshore drilling both because of the energy it would
produce and also because, he said, it would have a positive
psychological impact on energy markets.
This would increase heating and cooling costs for American homes. For
that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the last half hour or so has been a
microcosm of the 18 months of this Congress. Time and time again,
Democrats have offered solutions to our energy crisis. Each time
Republicans have objected. They have not come up with answers to
specific objections to try to reach any sort of compromise. Basically,
they said no. After 18 months of ignoring our energy crisis, and
rejecting every Democratic effort--and we have talked about some of
them today--they now claim to have seen the light. After a year and a
half, all they want to talk about is gas prices. But as we have seen,
all they want to do is, as I refer to part of what Thomas Friedman
said:

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-
drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th century fuel, remind me
of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all
of our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric
typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''
and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a
second-rate power and economy.

I did not hear John McCain say drilling was psychological. All I did
was read it in the press. It has been repeated time and time again.
I would finally say, we believe in domestic production. We Democrats,
all 51 of us, believe there should be more American production. There
are ways of accomplishing that. We know we cannot drill our way out of
the problems we have, but there are things we can do and we want to
work to have that accomplished. We have seen that set forth in
legislation that Senator Bingaman has offered. Of course we talk about
the 68 million acres--that was, of course, talked about here during
this half hour--but we also are aware of the ability the President has
today to offer leases to oil-rich areas in Alaska, onshore and
offshore.
We believe in more domestic production. We call it American
production. Hopefully the August recess will bring some ability of our
friends on the other side of the aisle to start working with us. I hope
we are going to see, a bit later today or tomorrow, a vote on a motion
to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. That would be too bad, to
have Republicans vote against that. That is the way we pay our troops
and we refine what we do for our troops. It is a very important bill,
led by two of the Senate's fine Senators, Senator Levin and Senator
Warner, chairman and ranking member of the committee.
We are 5 minutes over. I express my appreciation to my friends for
being patient. If you care to, you can go over 5 minutes and we will
take 25 minutes in our half hour. OK?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I thank the leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we had hoped to make significant
progress over the last week or two to begin to address the most
important issue in the country, and that is the price of gas at the
pump. Regretfully, it seems we are bogged down here in trying to move
ahead. So in order to try to facilitate progress, I have notified my
friends on the other side that we intend to propound a number of
consent agreements that virtually every Member of my conference
believes would move us in the right direction and begin to address the
No. 1 issue in the country.

Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 5137

In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of a Senate bill to address drilling in the
Outer Continental Shelf, the text of which is identical to the
amendment No. 5137, filed by Senator Coleman to the Energy bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed,
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the
reality is the Democrats have been in favor of drilling in the Outer
Continental Shelf in places such as the gulf coast, including votes we
took here on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago. The reality is the
Republican proposal here will not do anything in terms of addressing
the gas price issue which we are facing here today because it will not
be effective in bringing down the price of gas. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota is on
the floor. The amendment I propounded in the form of a consent
agreement was essentially the Coleman proposal to

[[Page 17606]]

open the Outer Continental Shelf. It was not geared to any particular
price of gasoline at the pump. But I renew consent for the very same
proposed consent agreement with one modification--that the enactment
date is triggered when the price of gasoline reaches $4.50 a gallon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object for the
same reasons we stated earlier, this again is creating a phantom
solution to the reality of the energy crisis and the energy crisis we
face as a Nation, and therefore I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our good friends on the other side of
the aisle apparently do not believe $4.50 a gallon gasoline is
sufficient emergency to open the Outer Continental Shelf, those
portions of it that are currently off limits which--by the way, 85
percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is currently off limits. I renew
my consent agreement with the following modification, that the
enactment date is triggered when the price of gasoline reaches $5 a
gallon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
object again, it is a phantom solution, and therefore I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if $5 a gallon gasoline is not an
emergency, I am compelled to ask what is the definition of an
emergency? Maybe it is $7.50 a gallon gasoline. Therefore, I renew my
consent request with the following modification: that the enactment
date which triggered the implementation of the amendment would occur
when the price of gasoline reaches $7.50 a gallon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is
clear the Republican leader wants to move forward with the opening of
places in the Outer Continental Shelf. I would say, on the Democratic
side, there are a number of us who supported opening places in the
Outer Continent Shelf, including additional significant acreage in the
Gulf of Mexico, the 8 million acres that were part of the lease sale
181. We also know there are hundreds of millions of acres in Alaska
that are not in a moratoria area, on which we support exploration and
inventory of those places. What we are doing here with those triggers
being proposed by the Republican leader again is not getting to real
solutions that deal with the energy crisis we have and not coming
together in a bipartisan way to move forward to have a package of
energy legislation that would work for America. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to propound my consent
agreement with a modification one more time and then I am going to
engage in a colloquy with Senator Coleman. It is his amendment that he
had hoped to offer, which I initially offered consent that we take up.
Then these additional amendments were a different trigger, these
additional consents were with a different trigger. I say to my friend
from Minnesota, I will give our friends on the other side one more
opportunity to maybe get their attention. Then we will discuss the
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I renew my request with the modification that the
trigger be $10 a gallon at the pump.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if we were moving forward with a package
of energy legislation that would address the fundamental national
security, economic security, and environmental security issues we are
facing, and this were part of that kind of package, this might be very
well worthy of consideration, including some of the triggers that have
been mentioned. But it is clear to me this is another one of the
tactics that essentially is wanting to get this Senate and this
Congress to the point where we simply are not going to be able to get
to a bipartisan energy package, and so I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. We know why we cannot get to a bipartisan energy
package. The American people are saying--some 70 percent of them--that
we ought to open the Outer Continental Shelf, those portions that are
currently off limits, and it is my understanding that 85 percent of the
Outer Continental Shelf is currently off limits. I have been proposing
a series of consents, basically drafted consistent with the Coleman
amendment that would have been offered had we had a chance to offer it.
I would ask my friend from Minnesota if he would describe his
proposal?
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would say to the Republican Leader,
first, I want to make it clear that if I understand the objection, the
Republican leader has offered an amendment that if gas reaches $10 a
gallon, more than double the record levels, the other side is objecting
to opening areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, areas that would yield
at least 14.3 billion barrels of oil and 55.3 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas at a minimum--at a minimum; there are other estimates that
say if we opened all of these areas, up to 80 billion gallons of gas.
So I understand the objection and that as a result of that objection,
we cannot move forward on increasing the supply of oil, that we cannot
then move forward and open these areas on the Outer Continental Shelf
that could yield at a minimum over 14 billion barrels of oil. Is that
the result of the objection placed by the majority?
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I think he has it
entirely correct. I have offered a series of consent agreements here to
give us an opportunity to take up and pass the Coleman proposal with
differing triggers, starting at $4.50 a gallon and going up to $10 a
gallon. Our friends on the other side have objected to passing
legislation even with those ascending triggers, leading me to believe
there is opposition on the other side to opening the Outer Continental
Shelf, 85 percent of which is currently off limits--and over 70 percent
of the American people support that--even if gasoline reaches $10 a
gallon.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would note to the leader that, by the
way, the Coleman-Domenici amendment also has conservation pieces in it.
I believe we will discuss that later.
But as I listen to the objection from my friend from Colorado,
talking about phantom solutions as we look at the issue of the rising
price of oil, I think there is bipartisan understanding that part of
the problem is the basic law of supply and demand; that demand is
increasing, and if you want to somehow affect demand, I would take it
that the supply piece is the other piece. And as I understand the
Coleman amendment, this is an opportunity to increase supply.
I would also note that part of the discussion has been about the
issue of speculation, that there is money going into believing that oil
is going to be scarce in the future, and that is somehow driving up the
price of oil today. I would ask, then, if, in fact, we would open the
Outer Continental Shelf, that we would increase supply, finding more
oil of at least 14 to 15 billion barrels, would that not indicate that
in the future there will be less scarcity because we are increasing
supply, and would it make common sense that if there is going to be
less scarcity, more supply, we are going to tap into America's
resources, that would have an impact on the price of gas today?
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Minnesota, it makes sense that
if you were betting on the future, so to speak, which I guess is what
the futures market does, if there were signs

[[Page 17607]]

of optimism, an indication that the United States of America was going
to do something within its boundaries to deal with this problem, it is
reasonable to expect that the markets would respond favorably.
I might add--it was not alluded to specifically by my friend from
Minnesota, but I might add that the underlying bill which we have been
seeking to amend is actually opposed by the New York Times, the most
liberal newspaper in America, as being ineffectual and actually making
the matter worse. So clearly doing that alone runs the risk, according
to the New York Times, of destroying or at least adversely impacting
one of America's great markets. But also refusing to amend it to allow
such reasonable proposals as the Coleman amendment means we would be
making an ineffectual response to the issue that is the most important
issue in the country.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have one more observation. First, I do
wish to make it clear that when the Republican leader talks about the
underlying bill, he is talking about the majority proposal on
speculation, a proposal that does not do anything to increase
production?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. A proposal that does nothing to deal with more
conservation? A proposal that suggests it is going to focus on
speculation only, and that is what the New York Times says would
actually do more harm than good?
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Minnesota is entirely correct.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would note that this issue of
speculation is something that has come before the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations on which I am now ranking member and I
was, in the past Congress, the chair. We looked at this issue. It has
come before Homeland Security, a committee that works on a very
bipartisan basis. I would tell the Republican leader that at least one
of the witnesses has come forward and said: If we do all we can do, if
we do conservation, if we let the world know we are serious about
ending our addiction to foreign oil, that we are serious about not
being held hostage to what Saudi sheiks or Chavez or Ahmadinejad does,
the suggestion is that prices could drop like a rock.
I am not going to suggest that I know. I would not suggest to the
Republican leader that in fact they will drop like a rock. But common
sense says that if we increase production, if we do those things, tell
the world that we are not going to be stuck with scarcity, that we are
going to use the great power of America to tap into our resources,
that, in fact, would have an impact.
I would also note, for those who say it is only going to have an
impact in the future, would that be such a bad thing, for this Congress
to be looking forward to the future? We are going to have this debate
10 years from now if we do not do anything. In 10 years, we will be
saying: If only 10 years ago we had opened the Outer Continental Shelf,
we might today not be 80 or 90 percent dependent on foreign oil. I
would suggest that we have the debate now.
One final comment. We have not talked much about the issue of natural
gas. I represent a State which is cold. The Presiding Officer
represents a State that gets very cold in the winter. I would suggest
that we are going to come back here in September, and the cost of
heating our homes is going to start to go up as the leaves turn color
and the temperature starts to drop. By October, the snows may hit. By
November, they actually may be here. In December and January, it is
going to be below zero. And the price of natural gas is going through
the roof.
My farmers in Minnesota have trouble today buying fertilizer and will
next year because folks will not speculate on what the price of natural
gas will be.
I would then ask the Republican leader, that in objecting to the
Coleman-Domenici proposal, the majority is not only stopping the
possibility of tapping into billions of gallons of oil but also
trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, a market that is much more
susceptible in the short term to increases of supply.
Is that the result of the Democratic objection, that we are not going
to be able to tap into this and tell the world that there are trillions
of cubic feet of natural gas available, and I cannot tell my folks in
Minnesota, when it is cold in November and December and prices shoot
through the roof, that we were not able to act because the Democrats
objected to the unanimous consent offered by the Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Well, my friend from Minnesota is entirely correct. I
learned from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who has been
our leader on energy issues for a number of years, that we can be
entirely independent and sufficient in natural gas. We have enough here
in the United States, if we would simply go get it, to take care of our
natural gas needs.
So, yes, we are walling off natural gas as well as oil, exacerbating
all of these problems, driving up the price of fertilizer and every
other product in which natural gas is used, refusing to exploit our own
resources. It strikes the American people, and we know that by looking
at all of the public opinion polls. It is not making any sense at all.
I thank my friend from Minnesota for his observations.
Mr. President, it is not only offshore that we have enormous
potential to increase our production. It has been estimated that we
have three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia right here in our country
onshore in oil shale.
Last year, this new Democratic Congress passed a moratorium on going
forward with oil shale research and development. I think that
moratorium was a foolish thing to do. It should be lifted.

Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 5253

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of the Senate bill to address oil shale leasing, the text
of which is identical to amendment No. 5253 filed by Senator Allard to
the Energy bill.
I would further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third
time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
remind the Republican leader that even the oil companies--Chevron Oil--
have said we do not even know whether the technology is out there to be
able to develop oil shale. At the earliest, it is 2015, 2016 when we
will know that. We had the Assistant Secretary of the Department of
Interior, and in his testimony before the Energy Committee, he said the
same thing.
So the consequences of moving forward with the legislative proposals
propounded here by the Republican leader essentially would do nothing
more than to lock up millions of acres of land and millions of barrels
of reserves to oil companies that already are getting the highest
record profits of any company in the history of the world. That
includes companies such as Shell, which reported a 33-percent increase
in its second-quarter profit on Thursday, Exxon, and all the rest of
the oil companies.
So if this is about giving the national public resources away to the
oil companies, then I would say we should support the Republican
leader's unanimous consent. But it is not about that, it is about
creating a new energy frontier for America. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Hampshire is
on his feet with some observations about this objection.
Mr. GREGG. I guess I am a little surprised at the objection. The
first objection to your first amendment was that we did not have a
comprehensive approach. Now you suggested another approach; we would
add to a comprehensive approach that appears to be objected to.
The gravamen of the objection appears to be that we do not know if we
can produce oil shale, oil from oil

[[Page 17608]]

shale; that the technology and the location of the oil shale is not
necessarily far enough along to be able to produce, and therefore we
should not even look at it.
As I understand the leader's amendment, it says simply remove the
regulation which was put in place last year which barred the Interior
Department from putting out regulations which allow us to find out
whether the oil is there and whether we can remove it.
So there seems to be an inconsistency here on the reasons why people
would object to taking off that regulation which was put in place last
year by the Democratic leadership.
Secondly, the known reserves from oil shale are projected to be two
to three times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia. That is a huge
amount of oil, potentially. I do not think we want to not look there
and say we are going to throw a sheet over our head and not look at
this potential reserve which would give us as a nation more potential
oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, that we are not going to allow the
Department of Interior to begin the process of developing regulations
that will, if the oil is there and if it can be used, expedite the
production of that oil. That makes no sense at all.
As I understand, the proposal that came earlier from the Democratic
Party was to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is 3 days'
worth of oil. If there is 2 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale, that
is 40,000 days of oil. Well, I do not know. I would think the American
people would like to have the opportunity to find 40,000 days of oil in
the United States rather than have to buy it from Iran or from
Venezuela, places that do not like us very much, even from Saudi
Arabia. I think they would like to have the money kept here in the
United States.
Yes, the oil companies are making some big profits. They are spending
it to look for oil also. But when they are not spending it to look for
oil, they are actually paying some dividends. Who gets those dividends?
Well, if they are American companies, I suspect that many Americans
are, Americans who invested in pension funds, Americans who have
401(k)s.
Are we to say they shouldn't get those profits and we should, rather,
send them to Saudi Arabia or to Iran or to Venezuela so Hugo Chavez
gets the profits? How absurd. On its face it is absurd. We have 2
trillion barrels of oil sitting there, and all the leader has asked for
is to lift the regulation which will let us find out whether we can
look for it and whether it is there.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield
for a question?
Mr. GREGG. I was propounding a question to the leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to our good friend, the other side had
plenty of time to discuss their proposal.
I say to my friend from New Hampshire, he is entirely correct. Why
would we not want to look. Maybe we don't want to look because we might
find something. If the potential is as vast as the Senator from New
Hampshire portrays and as other experts have indicated, it seems to me
we would be foolish in the extreme not to pursue this further. The
American people simply would not understand.
Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Republican leader yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. Not at this time.
I think the American people would not understand our reluctance to
continue to explore this alternative given the vast potential it seems
to possess.
Mr. GREGG. If I may ask the Republican leader a further question:
Have we not been on the floor now for 2 weeks, asking for the right to
offer a series of amendments to address these issues that could be
voted up or down, that would be fairly presented, where the minority
would have the right to present its amendments so we could present to
the American people the case for Outer Continental Shelf oil, oil
shale, nuclear power, electric cars, for a variety of other options
that might get us out from underneath this severe issue which is the
price of oil? Have we not been asking for the opportunity to present
those amendments in a fair and open manner in the tradition of the
Senate and been denied that right? Are we not being denied that right
one more time here today?
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is entirely correct. All we are asking for
is the way the Energy bill was handled last year, the way the Energy
bill was handled in 2005, in which we had an open amendment process, in
which Members from both sides of the aisle were given an opportunity to
offer their amendments. Forty or fifty amendments were adopted on each
bill. It ultimately led to a law. What we have been engaged in in the
last 2 weeks is not designed to lead to anything other than a check-
the-box exercise and move on. That is why Republicans in great numbers
have insisted that we stay on this subject, the No. 1 issue, that we
continue our effort to both find more and use less. The only way to
achieve that is with a balanced approach, not a sort of single-issue
approach which is in the underlying bill.
In addition to addressing gas prices directly, there are also a great
many Members of the Senate on both sides of the of the aisle who
understand we need to move in the direction of more nuclear power. A
lot of us think the French have not done a whole lot right in recent
years, but one thing they have done rather well is develop a nuclear
power industry that supplies the vast percentage of their electricity.
Had we been given the opportunity, we would have been offering a
nuclear power amendment.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of a Senate bill to promote nuclear power
generation, the text of which is identical to amendment No. 5179 filed
by Senator Lindsey Graham to the Energy bill. I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I was
personally on the floor two or three times when Senator Reid offered to
Senator McConnell to allow them to bring this amendment to the floor.
They said: No, we want to talk it over. We have so many more
amendments. Of course, time ran out. Now they are back again. We have
given them ample opportunity to talk about nuclear power, to offer
their amendments, offer their energy package. Each time they couldn't
get it together. This is the gang that can't drill straight.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I will use leader time to allow us to
get up to the same 30 minutes that was used by the other side of the
aisle.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I was wondering if the leader could
explain to me how the Democratic assistant leader could object to
something the Senator didn't object to?
Mr. McCONNELL. I know Senator Domenici and Senator Alexander both are
knowledgeable about the nuclear industry. I see Senator Domenici, our
energy expert in the Senate, on his feet.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, might I say to the Republican leader,
I am here sitting down because you and the Senators on my side are
doing such an excellent job of letting the American people know what
has been going on. It has been a thrill to listen, because I would hate
to be on the other side. It looks as if they are very anxious to make
sure you don't finish your statements. They would like to take a little
bit of your time. If I were in their shoes, I would too. Because the
truth is, their leader changed the course for debate on energy,
meaningful energy amendments, when he decided he would put all the
amendments that the process would hold, he put them on so there could
be none offered. That is why we are here today, because no amendments
could be offered and voted on. Anybody who stands up and says we had a
chance, what chance? If we would have offered something, the objection
would have been: The tree is full. It is out of order. I already asked
the Parliamentarian if an amendment would be in order, if I tendered an
amendment

[[Page 17609]]

to such-and-such amendment, and the Parliamentarian said: You couldn't
offer it. So that is why none of the amendments you refer to could have
been offered.
There has been one area in which we can all stand up and say we
legislated in the normal way and got something good, and that is the
current set of rules regarding nuclear power. We now have 16 nuclear
powerplant applications filed and waiting their turn to start
construction. We had zero when we started this process. We need some
additions to that which are in the amendment you propose to make sure
it works, to make sure this wonderful start of nuclear power for
America hits the few things it still needs to be competitive. You have
been denied the opportunity to discuss it. We are not talking about
that, but to offer a full-fledged amendment that will require a little
bit of debate and then vote. That is what we have been denied. That is
why I am here saying the public is going to understand this. We should
have voted on the Outer Continental Shelf, opening it, with amendment
and full debate. We can't do it because they won't let us. It is that
simple.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
Madam President, what time remains on this side to achieve the 30
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 30 minutes has been consumed.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will use a few more minutes of leader time. If the
other side wants to expand their time, it would be perfectly
permissible with me.
There is one other area that is important to me and to other Members
on both sides and that is coal. We have vast reserves of coal in this
country. There is a promising technology we know works to turn coal
into liquid. We have a customer, the U.S. military. We have an
interested potential customer in American commercial airlines. One of
the amendments that would have been offered was related to coal to
liquid.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of a Senate bill to promote coal-to-liquid
energy, the text of which is identical to amendment No. 5131 filed by
Senator Bunning to the Energy bill. I ask unanimous consent that the
bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the
purpose of the amendment is laudable. For those of us who work on the
Energy Committee, including the Senators from Montana, we recognize
that coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. There
are ways in which we can advance the usage of coal, including coal
gasification and carbon sequestration which we all support. But the
proposal put on the table is not something that would get that kind of
bipartisan support.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know the Senator from Texas is on
his feet. I know he has strong feelings about this issue.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I say to the distinguished Republican
leader, it sounded as though we were almost going to get to vote. The
Senator from Colorado spoke so passionately about the importance of
using coal. Of course, the big concern we have is coal can pollute. But
the Senator is no doubt aware of a remarkable technology that has
actually been around a long time that can take coal and convert it to
synthetic fuel that the Air Force is now using to fly airplanes. Isn't
it a fact that in terms of transportation fuels, talking about gasoline
and diesel and aviation fuel, that represents one of the biggest
challenges from an energy standpoint to this country and that actually
coal-to-liquid technology, such as the leader described, represents one
of the great opportunities for becoming less dependent on imported oil
from the Middle East?
Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. Of course, I come from a big coal-
producing State. The amendment I sought to call up is actually authored
by Senator Bunning, my colleague from Kentucky. We are, not
surprisingly, enthusiastic about this option. But putting aside the
Kentucky-specific interest, the military is looking for a reliable,
secure source of fuel for our planes. They don't want to be dependent
on the Middle East.
Mr. CORNYN. I say to the Republican leader, this is not just an
energy issue, this is a national security issue. Let me ask the leader,
since he comes from a State that produces significant amounts of coal,
whether these figures given to me by my staff are accurate. It has been
reported to me that the Air Force uses about 2.6 billion gallons of jet
fuel a year at a total cost of about $8 billion. That is $8 billion the
United States appropriates and goes to the Department of Defense and
the Air Force to buy jet fuel. It is estimated that for every $10
increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Air Force--and we can see
in parentheses the U.S. taxpayer--spends an additional $600 million in
fuel costs. Do those figures I have cited sound approximately correct?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am not an expert on the figures, but it sounds
correct to me. I know the military has great desire for the kind of
reliable, secure energy source this would provide.
Mr. CORNYN. Are you aware or would you have any reason to disagree
with the experts who say that synthetic fuels such as coal to liquids
are competitive with $70 to $80-a-barrel oil, plus an additional 10
percent that would be needed to figure out how to capture and divert
the carbon dioxide that would be produced by the process? Do you have
any reason to disagree with the experts on that?
Mr. McCONNELL. Those are statistics I have heard in the past. It
certainly underscores what a promising alternative this would be, were
we willing to pursue it. I thank my friend from Texas for his thoughts.
Madam President, I see the Senator from Tennessee is on his feet as
well.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I had a brief question for the Republican leader.
Nearly 2 weeks ago, when the Democratic leader brought the
speculation Energy bill to the floor, isn't it true that we met and
said we look forward to a balanced debate where we can get a result,
and we believe in the law of supply, as well as demand, and, therefore,
we think we should come up with a proposal for finding more and using
less?
On the finding more side, which we talked a lot about today, we had
offshore drilling and oil shale, which would produce over time about 3
million barrels a day. We talked about nuclear power for more American
energy.
But we have even more on the demand side, on the using less side. In
our case, the idea was, was it not, to create an environment in the
United States where, as rapidly as possible, we could encourage the use
of plug-in electric cars. Is there not much support on the other side
of the aisle for that?
So my question to the leader is: Why is it that when Republicans,
nearly 2 weeks ago, suggested a proposal for finding more that would
produce 3 million more barrels a day, eventually--that is a third more
production--and using less that would save 4 million barrels a day,
which together would have cut in half, over time, our imported oil--why
is it we have been unable, for the last 2 weeks nearly, to actually
begin to debate and adopt such amendments and produce a bill that would
send a signal to the world that the United States of America is taking
an action to find more oil and to use less oil, which would bring down
the price of gasoline? Why have we not been able to do that?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee,
I am perplexed. The American people do not understand taking a time out
until next year. The senior Senator from New York, for example, was
recently quoted as saying we are not going to do anything about this
until next year. Well, the American people are paying these high prices
now, and I do not think they sent us here to engage in a

[[Page 17610]]

2-week partisan battle and achieve nothing.
The Senator from Tennessee is entirely correct when he says our goal
from the beginning, on this side of the aisle, was, as he reminds us
frequently--and as the sign points out--to both find more and use less.
Virtually every member of our conference is in favor of almost every
conservation measure you can think of.
Our fundamental problem in here is it seems as if the other side does
not want to do any finding of more. They may share our view about using
less, but they do not want to find any more, as if somehow we could
simply conserve our way out of this problem. I know of not a single
expert in America who thinks we can, by conservation alone, solve this
problem and get the price of gas at the pump down.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before the Republican leader leaves the
floor, I would like to reconcile the remaining time allotment.
I understood he said we could have extra time in the next segment for
Democrats, to make up for the additional time used by the Republican
side; is that correct?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, that is fine.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, could the Chair indicate how much
additional time was used by the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes ten seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if I could ask unanimous consent, then,
that the next segment be 40 minutes on the Democratic side and then we
return to 30-minute segments on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
Madam President, for those who are following this debate, it is
interesting because a friend of mine I used to work for in politics as
a young man used to say: When politicians speak, there is a good reason
and a real reason for the things they are saying.
The good reason for the position taken by the Republicans is they
believe more oil put on the market is going to mean more supply and
lower prices. It is intuitive to us, in a supply-and-demand economy,
that makes sense on its face. So the pillar of their argument on energy
policy is we have to find more places to drill. We do not have enough
places to drill for oil now. If we could find more oil, there would be
more gasoline, and gasoline prices would come down. The logic is good.
But it fails to tell the whole story. It fails to account for 68
million acres of Federal lands currently leased by oil and gas
companies that they have not touched. They have paid the Federal
Government for this land to go drill for oil and have done nothing. The
Republicans never mention the 68 million acres out there that the oil
companies are not using.
There is a second matter they never mention. If we decided today to
start drilling for oil on the Mall--and sometimes I think in the
speeches on the floor a few people might be for that--but if we decided
to drill, they think it takes 8 to 14 years before you put the oil well
into production--8 to 14 years.
As you are paying for your gasoline each week and somebody says: Hey,
hang on, in 14 years we are going to get this under control, you have a
right to be a little impatient. But that is the Republican approach.
So who would buy this approach? Well, the people who are buying this
approach--the real reason behind the position on the Republican side--
this is the oil companies' agenda. This is the oil companies' answer:
Keep drilling, give us more land, give us more options, let us put
these in our portfolio--the same oil companies that are reporting not
just recordbreaking profits for oil companies but recordbreaking
profits for American businesses. No businesses in our history have ever
reported the profits they have reported.
Shell reports a profit jump. Despite reducing production of oil,
their profits have gone up. Shell went up 33 percent this quarter;
Exxon, 14 percent--recordbreaking profits for these oil companies, and
the position they hold, coincidentally, is the same position as the
Republican Party in the Senate.
But an honest energy picture, one that looks forward, says we need
responsible exploration and production. That means we do not go into
environmentally sensitive areas; we do not pollute our beaches and our
shore communities; we do the safe and the right thing but we produce
oil and gas as we can in this country, realizing the entire inventory
of oil in America represents 3 percent of the global supply of oil--3
percent--and we consume 25 percent of the oil.
We cannot drill our way out of this. We have to look beyond that. We
have tried to do that. Twice this week we brought an energy policy bill
to the floor. Twice this week the Republicans defeated it. They refused
to vote for an energy policy that is comprehensive, that has just not
exploration and production in it but looks to things that are our
future: more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
We cannot keep driving these gas hogs. We have to drive cars and
trucks that are sensible, that meet the needs of our families and our
economy and do not consume so much gas. I think my kids and my
grandkids will be using plug-in hybrid cars. They will wonder why their
old man used to use so darn much gasoline when he was growing up
because they will have found ways to do it without gasoline, without
diesel fuel, using these batteries and using plug-in hybrids.
That is the future. That is what we asked the Republicans to join us
on and vote for, and they refused. We asked them to join us in creating
tax incentives for solar power and wind power and geothermal sources,
all of which can serve our economy, serve our businesses, serve our
families, and not create global warming. They refused. Time and again,
the only thing they will vote for is the oil company agenda.
The oil companies are pretty powerful. You may see some of their
folks walking the halls out here, wearing pretty nice suits and shoes.
You can't miss them. But that is not the future. That is the past. They
have done their part. They will continue to play a role--a major role--
but the future is a future of vision, looking for clean energy and
good-paying jobs right here in America, creating the kind of industry
where we can have growth in manufacturing jobs so families across our
country have an opportunity.
The Republican view and the Democratic view are quite different. When
we offered them a chance to come together, they refused. They would not
do it. The last bill they defeated not only had the energy provisions I
mentioned, it had a lot of other important provisions. There was
disaster assistance for the poor people in Iowa. There was $8 billion
to put in the highway trust fund so we can reduce congestion on our
highways and create construction jobs across America.
It even included the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act. Paul
Wellstone of Minnesota passed away about 6 years ago. This was his
passion, and we have never passed this bill. We have to pass it now so
your health insurance covers mental illness, as it covers physical
illness. They voted against that too. It was all part of the same bill.
It is unfortunate we have reached this point, but that is the point
we find ourselves.
The final word in this debate is going to be on November 4, and the
voters will have it. If the voters believe we need to look backward to
the oil company agenda, they can agree with our Republican friends. But
if they believe we need to look forward, with responsible exploration
and production but also incentives for renewable energy that brings us
into the 21st century in leadership, I hope they will consider voting
for those who have brought that to the floor.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

[[Page 17611]]

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I wish to make a few comments to
clarify some of the colloquy that went on and what I consider to be
some of the distortions that were spread.
First, there is a misconception that the minority side is trying to
spread: that Democrats are against drilling. If you go to my State of
Colorado, you will find tens of thousands of natural gas wells and oil
wells that are producing. If you look at the votes we have taken in
this Chamber, there are many of us who have said we need to go and
drill, and we need to explore, whether it is off the gulf coast or
whether it is in other areas. So for them to try to use the brand that
we are against the use of our conventional fuels and resources is
simply wrong.
I wish to comment on two or three specific matters. First, on the
opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, it is true the President has
said he wants to lift the moratoria. It is true Senator McCain has said
it would have some kind of a psychological effect, perhaps, on the
market. The fact is, there are some of us who say we ought to at least
have an inventory of what is out there on the OCS.
But no matter how you cut it, the Department of Energy and the Energy
Information Administration has said we are not going to be producing
anything out there for 7 to 10 years. So it is not going to have an
impact on gasoline now. That raises the question: What is the real
motivation of these amendments and these agendas on the Republican
side? It is a stalling tactic to keep gas on the minds of people
through the month of August so they play it for their own political
advantage.
I think the American people expect better of us. I think the American
people expect us to come up with real solutions and not phantom
solutions. Solutions that have been proposed here are, by and large,
phantom solutions. There can be no greater phantom solution, frankly,
than what we have seen countless times over the last 2 weeks: the
assertion by my wonderful friends on the other side who have said that
somehow out of this shale rock--which is shale; it is not tar; it is
not sand; it is shale; it is rock--that somehow we are going to be able
to develop 2 trillion barrels of oil out of that rock.
Well, it has been tried for about 100 years. Nobody has figured it
out. Even the oil companies are saying they cannot figure it out right
now. We, contrary to the assertions made by my good friend from New
Hampshire, opened the opportunity for oil and gas companies to go in
and see whether the technology could be developed. So we have a robust
research and development program that is taking a look at whether oil
shale can be commercially developed in my State of Colorado, where 80
percent of the reserves are located.
So I would hope, as we move forward in what is one of the most
important issues in the crucible of our times, that we look to the
future to find real solutions that are so important for us on energy
because, at the end of the day, what will drive us to that new energy
world is the importance of national security, economic opportunity here
at home, and the environmental security of our planet.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, a little earlier this afternoon, our
leader came to the floor with colleagues and offered six different
opportunities for the Senate to bring before it bills that include
responsible drilling, investments in alternatives, investments in areas
that will create jobs right away, which relate to my great State of
Michigan, which is investing immediately in advanced battery technology
research and development and retooling our plants for the new vehicles,
which will create, within 2 years--not 15 years--changes that will
allow us to move aggressively to hybrids and plug-in automobiles. We
saw legislation put forward to deal with energy speculation and what is
going on in the marketplaces.
Each of those times, there was an objection to even moving ahead to
consider those bills. Twice this week, we have tried to move forward on
tax incentives for production, for alternative energy, and other
options that will get us off foreign oil and bring down gas prices for
good. Each time there were objections. In the month of June, two other
times--we can go back a year--objection, objection, objection.
Frankly, people watching the Senate get sick of this because they
want action. They want something to be done. The question is: Who
benefits by this blocking continually, by this stopping of us moving
forward to alternatives to compete with oil companies or to tackle oil
speculation or windfall profits tax proposals that would require you to
pay an extra tax if you don't reinvest in alternatives or in drilling
in America to create more supply? Who would benefit by these things?
I think it is very clear from the announcement in the paper today.
Today ExxonMobil reported second quarter profits of $11.68 billion, the
highest ever for an American company. It did that last month--the last
quarter: highest profits ever--ever--ever for an American company. All
together, since President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney,
two oilmen, have been in the White House over the last 8 years, all
together ExxonMobil has reached $212 billion in profits. That is a lot
of zeroes: $212 billion in profits.
I wonder who benefits from the inability of the Senate to get
agreement to move to bills that would create competition with this
company or deal with oil speculation or deal with other policies that
would hold them accountable? It is right here. It is right here. This
is very clear. As my kids say, it is as clear as the nose on your face
of what this is all about. This is about an oil company agenda that has
run wild for 8 years, and the American people are paying a huge price.
Our economy is paying a huge price.
Along with ExxonMobil, Shell has also reported profits of $11.56
billion, bringing their grand total since this administration took
office to over $157 billion. The total combined net profits of the big
five oil companies since President Bush and Dick Cheney took office are
upwards of $641 billion.
What have they done with those profits? Well, oil companies have
spent $188 billion in stock buy-backs and other spending, rather than
investing it in supply here at home and abroad. We have heard so many
times on this floor that there are 68 million acres available right now
for exploration that are not being used. I have supported responsible
drilling as part of the solution. We know there is no silver bullet,
but we also know we have to be aggressively moving to the future and
not stuck in what is an oil company agenda for this country.
We also know we are in a global marketplace. Nobody knows that more
than the people in my great State of Michigan. We are competing in a
global economy. So that as there is supply created, as there is
drilling, it goes into the global marketplace. If they drill in Alaska,
it goes to China. To add insult to injury, we don't even know where the
oil will be going.
However, here is what we do know: In February of this year, according
to the Department of Energy, shipments outside this country were 1.8
million barrels a day--1.8 million barrels a day. Overall, in the first
4 months of this year, the shipments of American oil outside this
country--drilling here, going somewhere else in the world--were up 33
percent.
So clearly, the great oilman who has been all over our television
sets, T. Boone Pickens, is right. We are not going to drill our way out
of this in a global economy where you can drill here and it can go
anywhere to the highest bidder.
Here is also what we know: We know we have to get extremely serious--
and quickly--about those things that will make a difference, such as
bringing accountability to the energy markets and addressing
speculation, and focusing aggressively on those areas that will give us
real alternatives and competition for these guys who have been doing so
well.
To add insult to injury, we take a look at the other ways in which
this industry has received so many benefits from this administration.
Eighteen

[[Page 17612]]

months ago, we heard in the New York Times that the Bush administration
was allowing oil and gas companies to forgo royalty payments. They
didn't have to pay their royalty payments on leases in Federal waters
in the Gulf of Mexico. This decision by the Department of the Interior
can cost up to $60 billion. They were supposed to make payments. Those
payments were waived, for whatever reason, costing us up to $60
billion. Sixty billion dollars is the equivalent of 38 days of free gas
for every American. Right now, I know a lot of folks who would take
that gladly.
The reality is we have seen at every turn efforts to support this
industry for the last 8 years, and where has it gotten us? Where has it
gotten us?
I wish to share with my colleagues some stories of folks from
Michigan in terms of where it has gotten us--not only $4 a gallon at
the pump, but when we look at what has happened to real people, it is
an outrage, where this 8 years of a policy that has put oil companies
first has gotten us. We know that everybody is affected. The folks
going to work are affected. Yesterday I read a letter from a young
woman who works after school and was concerned because she takes the
bus to school and now the buses are being cut because they can't afford
to put gas into the schoolbuses. What an outrage in the United States
of America.
Let me share today an article that was in the New York Times. Older
poor people and those who are homebound are doubly squeezed by rising
gas prices and food prices because they rely not just on social service
agencies but also on volunteers. We have heard from our home health
care agencies that do such a wonderful job in this country helping
people to be able to remain at home and allowing them to receive
services. In a survey of home health agencies, more than 70 percent
said it was more difficult to recruit and to keep volunteers. We have
heard that from Meals on Wheels. We have heard that from other kinds of
volunteer programs that go into homes to help seniors, to help the
disabled, to help those who need some assistance.
Let me share with my colleagues one letter. Mrs. Fair, who has
limited mobility because of diabetes, lives on $642 a month of Social
Security widow's benefits, and relies on care from her son who often
works odd hours, especially during blueberry season. We grow a lot of
blueberries, and they are terrific, they are the best, in Michigan. It
says: ``You belong in a nursing home.'' This is what her son said. ``I
can't take care of you.'' The delivered meals she has been receiving
have allowed her to eat at normal hours which helped her control her
blood sugar levels. Last year, she lost her balance during a change in
blood sugar and spent a month in a nursing home. With no meal delivery
in her area now, she is going to have to find someone to pick up the
frozen meals from the center in the next town. She says: ``If my aide
can't get the meals''--a person who has been helping her--``maybe I can
get my pastor to pick them up. I can't travel even to the drop-off
center.''
In Union, MI, a town among flat corn and soybean farms near the
Indiana border, Bill Harman, who is 77, relies on a home health aide to
take care of his wife Evelyn, who is 85 years old and she has
Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Harman has had to use a wheelchair since 2000
because of hip problems. Unfortunately, the person who has been coming
to their house, Katie Clark, who is 26, may have to give up her job.
She lives 25 miles away and drives 700 miles a week to provide twice
daily visits, helping Mrs. Harman dress in the morning, get to bed at
night, feeding her, doing chores around the house, and then she laughs,
saying ``putting up with a grumpy old man.'' I am sure he is not that
grumpy. Her weekly income of $250 is being eaten up by gas expenses,
which come to $100 a week. ``Some weeks I have to borrow money to get
here,'' says Ms. Clark, a single mom of two, ``but they are just like
family to me.''
For her work she receives $9 an hour and if she leaves, Mr. Harman
has said he will not be able to care for his wife. He said when they
married, she raised his five children as if they were her own. Mrs.
Harman started to develop Alzheimer's 8 to 10 years ago. He said, ``I
promised her, don't worry, I will take care of you as long as I can.''
But without a home health aide, he said, he was going to have to put
his wife in a nursing home and he probably would need to live there
himself.
In the greatest country in the world, we have folks who are not able
to get their Meals on Wheels. They are not able to get their home
health aide now. Why? Because they can't afford gas. We have school
buses that can't run because they can't afford gas.
Let me share with my colleagues one other story. Sandra Prediger, who
is 70 years old and who still drives a car, said higher gas prices hit
her every time she needs to go to the doctor. From her senior apartment
in South Haven, MI, she was barely able to pay her bills because gas
prices rose. She said: ``I try to help some of the ladies around here,
driving them to the doctor or to the store.'' But a round trip to her
doctor or the beauty shop now costs $26 in gas. She has had to ask her
friends to pay half. She said, ``I hate to ask because they have less
than I do.''
Her Social Security check arrives on the 3rd of the month. For the
first few days before, her local gas station lets her write a postdated
check to fill up. On July 2 she had no money and owed money to the gas
station and she knew that in a few minutes her friend would be calling
saying, could you please take me to the store to get the meals for my
diabetes. What am I going to do?
There is something wrong when we are in a situation where we have
seen an agenda benefiting a special interest in this country, and in
the world right now, where we have seen the highest profits in the
history of the country that are creating numbers such as $641 billion
in profits and we have seniors who have to write a postdated check at a
gas station so they can pay for gas to get themselves and their friends
to the doctor.
The reality is that to be able to change that, we have to do more
than drill more so the oil companies can make more of a profit in a
global economy. We have to be able to create a situation where there is
competition with other kinds of alternative energies so we have more
than a choice of whatever price they put up at the pump. That is what
this is about. That is what the crux of this is about, because if it
weren't about this, we would have a compromise. We would have a
solution. If it weren't about this, there wouldn't be objections going
on day after day after day to be able to take up legislation on this
floor, because under normal circumstances, if there weren't this huge
amount of money at stake, people would come together. If they weren't
backing up these huge interests, people would be willing to come
together to be able to solve this problem.
There are things we can do. I am very proud to be part of a group of
people in the Democratic majority who have been working very hard to
create an alternative vision for the future. Yesterday the Senate
leadership, including Senator Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, laid out a jobs stimulus that we intend to bring forward for
a vote in September. In there is a major investment of $300 million in
advanced battery technology research and development. We are so close
to having the electric vehicle on the road and mass produced. We are so
close. There is work that needs to be done, but we are so close. Within
18 months to 2 years, we can have a real alternative to oil on the
road.
Part of this package also includes a commitment to Americans and
American jobs by helping to retool and make capital available, make
credit available to companies to retool our plants for these new
vehicles, so that we keep those jobs here.
Our companies are competing with countries right now. Come to China,
we will build a plant for you. Come to Korea, we will build a plant for
you. We want those jobs here.
I am very proud that the stimulus that has been put forward shows a
commitment to American jobs and American manufacturing. I am very proud

[[Page 17613]]

that is part of the stimulus package we will be working on and voting
on in September.
Around the world, everybody else gets it that it is not just about
oil and drilling. Everybody else understands. Every other country is
racing to alternatives. Germany announced the great advanced battery
alliance that will invest over $650 million in advanced batteries to
help German automobile makers. South Korea spent over $700 million in
advanced batteries and developing hybrid vehicles. We are in a race
with them to get to the future, not the past. China has invested over
$100 million in advanced battery research and development.
In the next 5 years, Japan will have spent $230 million on this
research, as well as $278 million on hydrogen research for zero-
emission fuel-cell vehicles. That is the future. That is the real
competition, so when you go to the pump and look up and see that price
for traditional gas, you have another choice. That is the future. We
are working very hard to get us to that future. We need a White House
that will help us get to that future. We need support from the other
side of the aisle, not just to talk about it.
In conclusion, part of what is talked about on the other side of the
aisle in terms of supporting advanced battery research is a prize. If
you go out and spend all this money--and Germany spends $650 million--
but if you, an individual or a business in America, figure out a way to
get the capital to do this, we will give you a prize at the end. It is
insulting that the presumptive Republican nominee and his colleagues on
the other side of the aisle have decided to run our economy like a game
show.
We have said we have to invest upfront in America, in American jobs.
That is the future. That is the only way to create the opportunity for
schoolbuses to be able to run, for seniors to be able to get to the
doctor, for folks to be able to get home health, for folks to be able
to get to a job, and to create the jobs we need in the future in
advanced manufacturing.
I hope before this week is out, our colleagues will come to the
floor, stop objecting, and work with us. What we know is right in front
of us--what we know can be done to bring down gas prices and create
jobs in America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

State of Paralysis

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes today to
speak about the state of paralysis we seem to have found ourselves in
on the Senate floor, and then also to make a brief comment about two
nominations the Senate will be considering.
First, we are paralyzed, obviously. The other side of the aisle has
voted against a windfall profits measure for oil companies at a time
when we have seen record profits for any company in American history,
which has only increased. How did they get these profits? Certainly not
by working any harder. In fact, as people have mentioned on the floor
today, it seems a lot of production actually has gone down. I don't
know how else you define a windfall than what has happened in the price
of oil and the profits that have gone to the oil companies over the
past 6 or 7 years. They will not give us a vote on the rampant
speculation that has now taken place in the oil market.
I have to say at the outset that I don't have a fundamental
disagreement with a lot of the things that are being said on the
Republican side about what we need to do. I think we very much need a
comprehensive energy strategy in this country. I am not opposed,
personally, to the idea of expanding exploration for oil and gas in
those cases where it is appropriate, and to get down and find the
assets that are available to us as a nation and increase our national
security. This may not be, as some people say, the answer in the
distant future, but it is certainly an essential transition for us as
we reach toward that future.
I personally support nuclear power and expanding nuclear power
programs. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in more than 30
years. There has been ample comment about that on the floor. I think
nuclear power is safe. We are the best in the world at it. The
experiences of the U.S. Navy at sea for at least a half century
demonstrate that. It is environmentally clean, and we have gotten
better technology, advanced technology, in terms of taking care of
nuclear waste.
I believe we can reach a point where we have cleaner coal. This
requires new technology. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We are
looking to improve national security, and we are looking for
independence from countries where we have seen an enormous transfer of
wealth from the United States. This transfer of wealth is going to
result in better infrastructure for these other countries, and it is
going to harm us in the long-term.
I believe we need to support conservation and alternative energy
programs of every sort. I went to high school in Nebraska. If you draw
a line from Canada to northern Texas, where the winds come down from
the Arctic Circle, you will see there is not a mountain in the way.
There are actually trees in Oklahoma that bend toward the south because
of the power of those winds. I believe we must invest, in terms of
alternative energy technologies, whether it is wind, solar, or other
areas.
At the same time, when do we debate this? How do we develop a
strategy? What should we be doing now, today, looking into the
immediate future? The bill our leadership brought to the Senate floor
is the best short-term fix, when we are talking about the incredible
increase in the price of oil. If you go back 6 years to when this
Congress voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, oil was $24 a barrel.
The price of oil went all the way up to $147 a barrel. It has tamped
down a little since then, but that is a sixfold increase in 6 years.
I can guarantee this is not simply a supply-and-demand issue. The
demand didn't go up six times in the last 6 years. There are other
interests, including the speculation market, that have driven the price
of oil up that high. We have had testimony from oil companies'
executives saying that, in a pure supply-and-demand environment, oil
would probably be at $60 a barrel. That is an issue we can affect. We
can affect it in the short term by regulating a market that has
dramatically changed because of the participants in that market since
late 2000. I hope we can have some sort of agreement on this. We should
have a vote on the speculation issue. I compliment our leadership for
having attempted to bring that issue before the Senate.

Pending Nominations

Madam President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes about two
nominations that are pending before the Senate.
First, I express my appreciation to the senior Senator from Virginia,
Senator Warner, today for the comments he made about Kathy Stephens,
who has been nominated to be Ambassador to South Korea, has cleared the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has been waiting for a vote on
this floor. I know of very few people who have better qualifications to
serve in that part of the world. I have spent a good part of my life in
and out of Asia. She began as a Peace Corps worker in South Korea. She
is fluent in Korean. I believe she is the best qualified person to
address all of the issues that people on both sides have expressed
their concerns about, in terms of politics, the culture, human rights
issues, et cetera. I was very gratified to see Senator Warner mention
his support for her nomination today. I hope we can find a way to get
her out there doing her job in the very near future.
The second nomination I want to mention is that, regrettably, I am
unable to support the nomination for the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force. This is an individual who, in an earlier billet, at a key time
after the invasion of Iraq, was asked repeatedly to give answers to a
question for which I personally believe there were answers. I was
writing about it at the time. I have very strong feelings about this.
Regrettably, I am going to be unable to support that nomination.
I go back to what General Matthew Ridgway said some 50 years ago,
when

[[Page 17614]]

he was describing the role of a military adviser. He said:

He should give his competent professional advice on the
military aspects of the problems referred to him, based on
his fearless, honest, objective estimate of the national
interest, and regardless of administration policy at any
particular time. He should confine his advice to the
essentially military aspects.

I believe if we do not insist on this standard in the relationships
between the U.S. military and the Congress, then we are going to
continue to have the same difficulties that we saw with attempting to
get straight comment out of the U.S. military as we went into Iraq.
There was a very wise Marine general who said, at the time I was
entering the Marine Corps, ``It is very important in the United States
to get the politics out of the military and to keep the military out of
politics.'' I believe that, if we believe in that, we need to insist
that those military officers who testify before the Congress abide by
it.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Condolences to Simon Family

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have had the good fortune of working
with Senator Bingaman now for 26 years. He is such a wonderful man. His
academic record is as good as anyone's in the Senate. His ability to do
legislation is as good as anyone's in the Senate. Everybody knows what
an easy man he is to deal with. He is now chairman of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, which is so important to what goes on in
our country. New Mexico is so fortunate to have his service in the
Senate. He does so much for New Mexico and, of course, for our country.
The reason I mention his name is that one reason Senator Bingaman
does such a good job is he has a wonderful staff. I have worked very
closely with them. At least 70 percent of Nevada is public lands--land
owned by the Federal Government. Only 13 percent isn't private lands.
Over 40 percent of the State of Nevada is restricted air space. You
cannot fly an airplane over most of the State of Nevada. It is
restricted to the military. So we have lots of dependence on the
Federal Government. We are the most public land State in the country.
As a result of that, I have worked closely with the Energy Committee
all these many years. One of the people I have worked closely with over
these years, for more than a decade, is the chief of staff of that
committee, Bob Simon. He is a wonderful guy--quiet, intellectually very
sound, a graduate of a small college in Pennsylvania called Ursinus
College. He has a PhD from MIT in chemistry.
I have followed very closely the travails of Bob Simon these last few
weeks because he has a son by the name of Gregory, 16 years old, who
was struck with a very bad bleed on the brain and died today. He was in
the hospital in a coma. We thought he would pull through, but he did
not. He died. It is devastating to Bob Simon, his wife Karen, and, of
course, Anne-Marie, his daughter, and Catherine. Catherine is not here
today, of course. Her brother passed away. She is in charge of the
Democratic pages. She works very hard in that capacity.
It is times such as these when you really understand that when we
talk about a Senate family, we really mean it. Bob Simon is part of the
family. He works with Democrats and Republicans. He is great for
working on a bipartisan basis. When Senator Domenici was chairman of
the committee, Bob Simon was the Democratic chief of staff. The
committee with the two New Mexicans as the ranking member and chairman
of that committee, one time as chairman, one time as ranking member--
one reason that committee functions so well is because of Bob Simon.
There is nothing I can do other than to recognize what a good man Bob
Simon is. There is nothing I can do to ease the pain of the Simon
family, their friends, and loved ones.
On behalf of the Senate, I extend my deepest condolences to Bob Simon
and his wife Karen for their heartbreaking loss. Being the father of
five children, I can only think how devastating this must be.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the leader yield a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I heard the leader's comments about
Gregory. I just want to say I am aware of the situation. I feel the
same way the majority leader feels. I thank him so much for his
graciousness toward Bob and his wife. I know how tough it is on them.
We don't know it until something like that happens, but that is a very
young, wonderful boy who died. Bob is a wonderful man. Everybody who
knows him knows he is a dedicated, devoted father. It is just pathetic
that this happened.
I join the majority leader in every way in extending my most sincere
regrets and hope and pray that the best will come of this. I know that
sounds impossible, but at least we can ask for the best and that the
Lord consider them and be merciful to them.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I did not know my friend from New Mexico
was on the floor, but as he knows, I did mention his name and the great
relationship Bob Simon has had with the committee. As I mentioned, not
knowing the Senator from New Mexico was on the floor, I will repeat
what I said, that the committee has functioned very well. Two New
Mexicans run that committee, either as chairman or ranking member, back
and forth, and they work so well together. One reason they do is
because of Bob Simon. He is a very quiet, brilliant man, and it is very
nice that Senator Domenici would say what is in his heart because we
join in his wishes that, as he has indicated, the Lord will look down
on his family with understanding and compassion, and hopefully, as time
goes by, there will be some good that comes from this tragedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, as I understand it, time now inures to
the Senate Republicans for--is it a half hour?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Energy

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am here to lead off for the
Republicans. There are two others. Senator Brownback is here, and there
may be another Senator, Senator Allard. I say to them, I am only going
to make a 2-minute or 3-minute statement and then yield to whoever
wishes to go first. I would like them to hear what I say.
Yesterday, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator
Byrd, issued what I believe to be a very telling and extraordinary
statement. He said:

It became clear that an attempt to add language to the
supplemental----

That is the supplemental appropriations----

repealing the two-decade-old ban on offshore oil and gas
drilling would be successful, resulting in the necessity of
having to produce 60 votes on the Senate floor to strip the
repeal.
And so for that reason, the markup in the Senate
Appropriations Committee on two important bills that fund the
government was canceled.

I will say that not only does this statement contradict claims of the
majority about why the markup was canceled, it also crystallizes
exactly why the last 9 days in the Senate have resulted in absolutely
nothing. The majority is afraid of allowing the Senate to vote on
increasing American production. They are afraid to let that happen
because a vote just might yield results.
We have spent 9 days debating this bill. During this time, we could
have considered dozens of amendments, just as we did on the energy
legislation in 2005 and 2007, and without a doubt, because the majority
leader has taken sole control over the process, we have been held to
zero votes. So zero votes, I say to my fellow Americans, cannot yield
results. When you have no votes, you cannot accomplish anything. That
means you cannot add to the offshore reserve that can be made available
for oil and gas production. It remains as is, no matter how much is
there, no matter how much we could end up drilling

[[Page 17615]]

for so the American people could look out and say: By producing our
own, we don't have to waste all our money sending it overseas, and the
price might come down.
My last observation before I yield to my good friends is that I
continue to hear comments from the other side that say we should not be
drilling because all we say is drill, drill, drill, and that is the
only thing, and we don't need to do that; we need alternatives.
We can have all the alternatives we would like--and I am surely in
favor--but we are going to be using crude oil or something much like
crude oil for at least a generation--that means 20 years minimum--
because we cannot get off crude oil any faster. The oil products we use
for our cars, our trucks, and our airplanes we cannot change over fast
enough, so we have to use oil. And if we don't produce more of our own,
we all know what we are going to do is buy from others and continue to
send the money overseas.
It is not just drilling because we want to drill, drill, drill; it is
drilling because we don't have enough oil. And if we find more, we
import less. That should be good, and the American people sense it is
good. That is why so many of them have said let's open the offshore for
drilling.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I would like to first thank my
colleague from New Mexico and ask him a question, because this will be
the last year he is serving in this body. He has served in it for many
years, very distinguished. It has been my pleasure to get to know him.
Senator Domenici can be irascible sometimes, but he is always fair. I
find he will get on both sides, depending on which way he makes the
call.
I just saw this, too, that we are not having this Appropriations
Committee markup. I am on that committee. I am a relatively new member.
Senator Allard is on it, and Senator Domenici has served on it in a
distinguished capacity for many years.
This is really striking. I have not seen this take place. I have not
been in the Senate that long, but I wonder if my colleague has seen
that sort of move taking place to stop a major issue that is
confronting the American public?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have not seen such a thing. In fact,
I have said--not as direct as this, but I have said that in 36 years
being a Senator, through thick and thin and bills I have managed, bills
I have amended, whatever kinds, I have never seen anything where such a
simple proposition--can we open lands that we own so they can be
drilled, yes or no--I have never seen where it takes 10 days and they
waste 10 days of time and still say no. I have never heard of that. Yet
the majority, the leader of the Appropriations Committee says in the
Appropriations Committee there are enough votes to end the offshore
hindrance that has been there, it says, for two decades or three
decades. If the amendments do that, they are awfully scared, right?
Maybe that is why we didn't get the vote.
I think it is other things. I don't think Members on that side wanted
to vote, win or lose. They didn't want to vote. Now the American people
can judge. That is how I see it. They can judge what happened and why.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from
Kansas to yield because I would like to add additional remarks.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
Mr. ALLARD. I think the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, has
done a fabulous job with the energy issue, not just this year when it
is fashionable--and this is the big issue--but he has devoted his whole
legislative career to energy, making it available, how we can use
research and technology to meet the energy needs of this country. He is
recognized not only by me but nearly all Members of this Senate for his
hard work on energy. We all should appreciate that work.
I join in the chorus of those who have congratulated Senator Domenici
on a distinguished career. His dedication to energy--I cannot think of
another subject one could pick up that would have more of a long-term
impact on this country, whether we are talking about economic security,
whether we are talking about military security, or whether we are just
talking about a secure home where one can rely on utilities and
everything to have a comfortable lifestyle in this country. The Senator
needs to be recognized for that. It is a pleasure for me to do so, as I
have served on several committees now with him. He is very articulate
on this subject, and he does a great job.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, and
I will add one supplement to it because he knows this and maybe we will
just say it together here. I did devote 10 years, with three or four
experts, to seeing if we could bring nuclear power back to life in
America, instead of leaving it dead, for others to use it as we sit
around having invented it and wondering what is happening. I did work
on it for 10 years, and then when we did our big bill, we put in
provisions that brought it back to life. That does make you feel good.
You don't do that alone.
We never had a single vote, I say to my friend from Colorado, not one
vote was taken on any of the bills to try to negate the provisions we
put in for nuclear power. One would have thought 5 years ago it would
be the most contentious issue we could have brought to the floor. In
that big Energy bill, there was a whole chapter on nuclear power.
Nobody sought to amend it, change it, anything. That was really a
credit to the Senators who worked so hard on nuclear power, and the
Senator was one of them. Senator Allard has always said he has been
proud of it. I don't know about the Senator from Kansas, but I assume
so. He has a good brain, and if you have a good brain and you are a
reasonable legislator, you couldn't be against nuclear. You just had to
be one of these fringe people against everything, scared because we had
an accident once.
If you are scared because you had an accident once, you would not get
up in the morning. That is what the doctor told my mother. She didn't
want me to get out of bed because I had a bad knee. The doctor said:
The best thing to do if you don't want him to get hurt is you be his
maid. He can stay in bed, and you can serve him food for 25 years. Of
course, he won't amount to anything. And that is true.
I am talking on. It is getting close to the end of the day.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico.
I note that when the nuclear industry comes back, I hope one of the
first powerplants has ``Pete Domenici'' written over the archway going
into it.
We have an excellent nuclear powerplant in Kansas called Wolf Creek.
My colleague recognizes this. It has been in operation for 25 years. It
had huge protests before it got built. People were protesting the train
that carried some of the main core elements into this spot. It has been
operating efficiently, cleanly. It doesn't put off CO2. It
was a huge investment that has been fantastic for our whole State. And
it was a capital expense. It was expensive on the capital side of it,
substantially so, but, boy, does it run well. It has been good to see.
And if we need to bring that back, we need to bring it back on a cost-
efficient basis, but that was one of our key elements on moving this
forward and moving our car fleet with more electricity. But we are
going to need that base power generation, and we want it clean, and
here is a good spot to do it.
Mr. DOMENICI. There are 16 applications to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission as of the day before yesterday--16--for new nuclear
powerplants; in some cases, two plants at one site, both construction
and design applications. We had zero the day we adopted the new Energy
bill. For once it seems as if we did something right; doesn't it?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I agree.
Madam President, I join my colleagues from New Mexico and Colorado in
talking about the energy issue, and I particularly want to associate
myself with the comments of the Senator from New Mexico, who responded
that we

[[Page 17616]]

are not just focusing on drill, drill, drill. The point of the matter
is two numbers. Those two numbers are 25 and 3. Twenty-five percent of
the world's oil is consumed by the United States, and we produce 3
percent.
Now, how long can we operate that way?
You can say, as my colleague from New Mexico has pointed out: Well,
OK, we are going to get off oil. We want some alternative. Lord knows,
I want an alternative. I want more ethanol, which is produced in my
State. I want it produced out of cellulose. The problem is, if we
turned off oil tomorrow, we are not in a position to produce enough of
that or virtually anything else. We are going to need to use oil for
some period of time, and that 25 and 3 ratio doesn't work--our
consuming 25 percent and producing 3 percent--when we could produce
probably a good 50 percent more. Who knows what the actual number is.
We know it is much higher than what it currently is.
For every dollar we are not spending on oil here, we are spending it
somewhere else. They are building these huge indoor sea complexes in
Dubai in the Middle East and lavish buildings. They are building
islands, whole islands, beautifully designed like a palm tree. That
takes huge amounts of money.
You sit there for just 2 minutes, and you think: Where is all that
money coming from, I wonder? It is coming from our consumers'
pocketbooks when people are pulling up at the gas station and paying
100 bucks or more for gas to fill up. Hopefully, there are people who
have vehicles that are using substantially less than that, but the
point is, it is a huge transfer of wealth from here to there, and it
doesn't have to take place when we can produce it here.
I would rather that money be going to Kansas or Colorado to work on
their oil shale or to Alaska or to offshore areas but certainly working
here. We have a Federal deficit that is taking place. What if instead
of us shipping $500 billion overseas for oil, we were spending that
money here. Then 20 percent comes into our Federal coffers. That is the
general figure. I think that is a bit high, but it is about that right
now. So you have $100 billion coming here in tax revenues. It is just
common sense.
My dad farms, and I have been talking with him about this issue. He
is paying a lot for diesel fuel because he runs the tractors on diesel,
and he is paying more than he used to. He is saying: Why aren't we
doing this here? And I have a hard time explaining to him why we are
not doing it here, when we could do it here, when we have the capacity,
the ability, and the technology in the market.
I say: Well, some people don't want us to.
Well, why?
Well, they are scared of what is going to take place in the
environment, even though we can do it environmentally sound. Someone is
going to be doing it somewhere else. Are they going to do it more
environmentally sound than us? I don't think so. I know they are not
going to in some of the places I have seen around the world. The U.S.
standards are the highest in the world.
So I would plead with my colleagues that drilling is part of the
answer. It is clearly part of the answer when our numbers are 25 and 3;
when we use 25 percent of the world's oil and produce 3 percent of it.
We have to get our numbers up. It helps to balance the trade, it helps
our deficit, it helps our people, and it spends it here at home.
That is why I continue to join my colleagues in voting that we stay
on energy instead of going to other issues. I would like to solve some
of these other issues as well, as would my colleagues on the Senate
floor. I want to deal with them. I want to deal with all these issues.
But when you pass up the biggest issue that is confronting most
Americans, and you don't deal with it, and for 9 days you don't deal
with it when you could be, we are just simply saying: Let's deal with
the biggest one here, and then we will be happy to deal with these
other issues. We need to deal with these other things, but not until
you deal with the biggest one. If we don't deal with it now, are we
going to deal with it this year? I don't think so. I don't think that
will happen. We are not going to get more time, nor will we have more
political will the closer it gets to the election.
So now is the time, now is the place, now is when the American people
want us to deal with this matter. So I join my colleagues in continuing
to vote this way; that we take up these amendments to increase
production in the United States.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Before I leave, I want to say to the Senator from
Colorado, who is standing here patiently, that he might recall that the
Senator from New Mexico went up and visited Colorado and Utah to see
the oil shale before we had the big bill, where we put everything
together.
Mr. ALLARD. I do remember.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was prompted to do that by you, to find out why we
weren't doing anything with that shale. We found out that we didn't
have any leasing laws that permitted it. I recall it was at your
instigation that we put the first laws in the energy impact bill, the
big bill, allowing leases for research and development. That is what
has brought the development they are all worried about. It is a
research and development lease.
Now they don't want to have any, as you put it, rules or regulations,
so they can stop it dead after we got a good start. We understood that
Shell Oil was ready to try a new process. They were going to spend more
than a few billion dollars on it, and we found that out and said: Well,
we ought to at least give them a chance. And we did, thanks to you. But
now they won't let us vote on getting rid of the moratorium, so that is
dead in the water too--that great big resource.
So I thank you.
Mr. ALLARD. Well, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his
gracious remarks and, again, it is a statement of his statesmanship to
actually go and visit the site and find out what is going on. That is
why he makes such a great legislator in the Senate.
I am with my colleagues. I am sick and tired of delays. It is time
for us to move ahead. I have a chart: There have been six attempts by
the Democrats to change the subject from $4-a-gallon gas, all while
people are suffering at the gas pump and we are having dramatic adverse
effects on our economy. We are getting ready for the school year, and
school districts are struggling with how they are going to get fuel for
the school buses. We have farmers and ranchers starting to put up their
crops, and they are wondering how they are going to get money to pay
for fuel, which is a major cost. It just doesn't balance out for us.
So I am very concerned that we have had these six attempts to move
off of $4-a-gallon gas when it is such a vital issue. I can't think of
another issue since I have been here that has had this profound an
impact on people's lives. We shouldn't be delaying or stopping this
matter.
There have been other subtle attempts on the other side, even if we
move forward, to delay the development of energy, and let me cite a
couple of examples.
One is the offshore drilling provisions, which we have in our Gas
Price Reduction Act on the Republican side, where we look at the
offshore drilling--the deep ocean drilling. We have had Members stand
here on the Senate floor and say: Well, I am all in favor of that, but
we haven't gone ahead and done the seismographic studies to figure out
where our deposits are.
Well, we have been trying for years, mostly through Senator
Domenici's efforts, to try to get the money to do the seismographic
studies so we know how much and where those deposits are. But there is
delay before we actually get to it.
So Members will stand up and say: Well, I am all for offshore
drilling, but we need to do the studies. Well, they won't support the
studies and the money to get it done. Let's take oil shale, for
example. What we need to do is to put the regulations in place so

[[Page 17617]]

that when the technology is developed and we are ready to move forward
with development, we can do that in a phased process. But, no, we are
not going to let the regulations go forward, which ends up being an
additional delay when the technology is ready to go.
So I am hoping--and I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire,
who had proposed the amendment I had made in the Appropriations
Committee a little earlier this afternoon--it was objected to on the
floor--where we said, let's move ahead with rules and regulations. Then
in the amendment it says that we will delay development until 2011
because the technology for development won't be in place any sooner
than that. So that was acceptable. The Department of the Interior has
got the rules and regulations. They are out there for public comment,
but that is all the further they can go.
If we continue what we have been doing year after year, we have
stopped the development of oil shale dead in its tracks. Even worse
than that, when it is ready for development, we will have delayed it
that much more because we haven't done the things up front that will
allow the oil companies to begin to look at what their lease agreements
might be, as the Senator mentioned from his visit, or what the royalty
payments might be or what the remediation issues may be when they move
in with oil shale.
I happen to think the technology we are developing in Colorado is
environmentally friendly, and it is not a mining operation. You freeze
out an area of the ground, you heat out the middle of it, and you get a
high-quality fuel out of there which will help us meet our energy
needs. The hydrocarbons we get out of the ground, I think all of us
realize these are nonrenewable resources. At some point in time, we are
going to have to do something else other than just rely on those. But
right now they are the bridge. They are our bridge to renewable
energies.
I have heard comments on the Senate floor against the Republicans;
that all we are interested in is drill, drill, drill. Republicans, to a
person, believe that we need to use our hydrocarbons to bridge, and
they understand we need the new technology. We are not saying exclude
anything. On the other side they are saying: We will just go with
renewables. We will let $4 a gallon stand. Who cares. Let it go to $5.
Let it keep going to $7.50, even to $10 a gallon. We don't care because
the high cost of gasoline will encourage conservation.
I think there are other ways we can encourage conservation, and I
think a lot of it is happening today. But that is certainly not the way
to do it because it has such a dramatic adverse impact on our economy,
and it has an adverse impact on the security of this country.
Both my colleague from Kansas and New Mexico talked about how all of
our dollars are going overseas, more than $700 billion a year going
overseas to support the economies of our adversaries. They are the ones
who don't support what we are trying to do: to spread democracy around
the world. They would like to see us go away.
So I think we need to take a serious look at our alternative
energies, and we need to act now to do something to increase
hydrocarbons and do something to reduce the price of gas at the gas
pump.
There is one area of the economy that I don't think we have talked
much about, and that is the trucking industry. Talk about renewables.
What is going to provide the energy for trucks? What renewables do we
have for trucks? I know some trucking companies are looking forward to
going to propane to help a little bit, but there is not much substitute
out there on renewables for the diesel engine right now. The diesel
engine is what we use in trains, in trucking, in farming, and it is not
going to be an easy solution for us to come up with an alternative fuel
for diesel. We need to do what we can to hold down the cost of those
kinds of fuels because that new technology is going to take a while to
develop. We can't just shut it off today and expect our economy to
function when it is such a vital part of what is happening in this
country.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. I note that you just used a word a minute ago--
``bridge.'' I think you have heard me speak of the bridge. You see, the
bridge is how you are going to get from where you are now, with an
economy that is using hydrocarbons to move itself, to do all kinds of
things; how we are going to get from there to an economy that has no
more of that. That is a bridge.
Most interesting, the bridge is going to be crude oil because the
only way you can get there is to stay alive, to have an economy, to
produce, to get things done. And to get across that bridge you have to
have crude oil because there is nothing else to get you there. You
cannot put everything in parking lots and in abeyance until you find
what is on the other side of the bridge.
The truth is, we have to produce crude oil for perhaps a decade. You
said 10, 15, 20 years. That is my guess. Even if all these things work,
the automobile where you can turn it on with a switch, everything that
we can do, we are still going to be, what I say, stuck in the mud--the
oil mud.
Whether people like it or not, Americans have it right. They are
saying drill some more, they are not saying drill less. Six months ago,
everybody was afraid of the word. Now they are not afraid of it because
people understand if you have more of that stuff called oil you might
pay less. Costs might come down.
I thank the Senator for his understanding, and I am pleased to be
with him.
Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague from Colorado will yield as well?
Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. There is another bridge I would like to talk about,
and that is the continuing resolution. I wish to point out to my
colleagues these are annual limitations on drilling offshore, in the
oil shale. These are annual things put in, these limitations. There is
a building coalition and consensus of people saying I don't want those
limitations put on this year's appropriations. We do a continuing
resolution as a bridge. I am warning my colleagues if this doesn't get
voted on and dealt with, I think you are going to see people starting
to say: I am not willing to put that into that bridge funding into next
year.
I hope we can work this out on something on offshore drilling, on oil
shale development of rules, before we get to that continuing resolution
piece where this would normally, or often, be put in. People are saying
I do not want that in this financing bill for the Government, the
continuing resolution.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his support. I
couldn't agree more with him. It is time we stop these tactics that are
causing the price of gas to get so high. Obviously, before the summer
break, it doesn't look like we are going to have an opportunity to deal
with the issue of bringing down the price of gas. Come September, we
are going to have to do something more dramatic than what we have at
this point. If it means we have to stop the continuing resolution with
moratorium language in it, I think at that point in time we may have to
make a strong stand--at that particular point in time. I predict we are
not going to see that much of a decrease in the cost of gasoline and
diesel fuel at the gas pump.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for his comments and for his support.
We talked about how various aspects of the economy are being impacted
by the high price of gas. I was at a press conference earlier. We had
representatives speak on how the poor are getting adversely impacted,
more than any other part of the population in the United States,
because of the high cost of fuel. We had a member from the Congress of
Racial Equality. We had Bishop Harry Jackson, who talked about the High
Impact Leadership Coalition. We heard from the All Nations Pentecostal
Church of God in Christ talk about how the poor they were dealing with
were being so impacted by the high cost of fuel. We had a number of
people from

[[Page 17618]]

all aspects of life, including veterans. We had also consumer groups.
We had the Farm Bureau and we had Americans for American Energy, all
there at that press conference, talking about how letting the price of
fuel get so high was actually a war on the poor. I thought that was a
rather dramatic way of putting it.
We need to think a little bit about the fact, if we allow the price
of gas to get high like this, there is a lower income section of our
society that is going to be dramatically impacted because they do not
have the reserve capacity to pick up the costs of fuel that is
impacting their lives.
We need to act now. We should not be putting it off. I have been
disappointed that we have not been able, as Republicans, to put our
amendments forward on the floor. The majority leader has changed his
view--we will go up to four, we will let in some amendments--and then
all of a sudden we are at none. We are back to the none right now.
We need to move forward. I see my time is expiring.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be
recognized for 5 minutes at this time, that Senator Leahy be recognized
immediately following me for 10 minutes, and the remainder of the time
be given to Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the
Higher Education Opportunity Act.
There is no doubt in my mind that I would not be speaking here today
if it were not for the kind of assistance we will be voting on today.
I would not have been able to go from the small tenement apartment I
grew up in to the halls of the United States Senate if it were not for
our Federal Government's commitment to educating our young people, no
matter what neighborhood they grow up in, no matter how much money
their parents make, no matter what their ethnicity or the color of
their skin.
I was the first person in my family to attend college, and then law
school, thanks to Pell Grants and Perkins loans. The fact that I could
get a quality education and was willing to work hard-work meant that
the American promise was real for me. And I believe that providing
every child with the same opportunities I had--so they can achieve
their God-given potential--should be the unalienable birthright of
every American.
Supporting our children's future isn't just a social responsibility,
it is an economic necessity. Just a few decades ago, workers could find
a good paying job and comfortably raise a family on the strength of
their high school diploma. But times have changed.
If we are going to stay on the apex of the curve of innovation, if we
are going to be the economic power we were in the 20th century going
forward into the 21st century--a century that increasingly belongs to
those who innovate--we have to do all we can to educate our children
and prepare them to compete.
Unfortunately, we are in danger of falling behind. At the same time
we are seeing higher education become increasingly more important, we
are seeing it become increasingly less affordable.
We are seeing students pass up the opportunity to go on for a higher
degree, because they are so pressured to pay their bills today that
they can't focus on what is best for them tomorrow. We are seeing so
many students who do go to college leave with two pieces of paper that
they will carry for the rest of their lives--their diploma in one hand,
and the bill for their tuition loans in the other. What we need now is
a brainpower stimulus package: a brainpower stimulus package that will
make college more accessible and more affordable so that higher
education is not reserved only for the wealthy; a brainpower stimulus
package that will improve and modernize our Nation's colleges and
universities so they will remain the greatest and most distinguished in
the world; a brainpower stimulus package that will protect students
from unscrupulous lenders and ensure they are getting the best deals
possible when they invest in their education with private loans; and a
brainpower stimulus package that will close the achievement gap,
because in this great Nation, the darkness of your skin should not
diminish the brightness of your future.
The package we pass must honor and respect our soldiers and their
families and provide them with the same opportunity and promise that
they have given so much to defend.
Today we have the opportunity, and the responsibility, to make
education a national priority and commit ourselves to accepting nothing
less than greatness from our educational system. The Higher Education
Opportunity Act would take enormous strides to accomplish many of these
goals by increasing Government assistance for students, families, and
institutions of higher learning. Allow me to take a moment to point out
some crucial aspects of this bill.
Recognizing the dramatic increases in tuition over the years, this
bill would increase Pell Grants and Perkins Loans would also permit
low-income students to receive Pell Grants all year round, so they can
afford to stay in school and earn their diplomas quicker. As tuition
costs continue to skyrocket, we need to do everything we can to ensure
that every child has the ability to soar to the highest heights of
achievement.
In the wake of the recent student lending scandal, we must protect
our students from deceptive loans that often leave them mired in debt
even before they receive their diploma. This bill would establish
strong standards to prevent schools from playing favorites with lenders
due to expensive gifts they were given and ensure students are given
the best rates possible.
This bill would work to narrow the achievement gap between Caucasians
and minorities by investing in Minority Serving Institutions, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and enhancing vital programs such as TRIO and
GEAR-UP.
It would reauthorize funding for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions and expand their
masters programs, by providing $500,000 per year in mandatory funding
to each of these institutions for 6 years.
This bill would also honor the dedication and commitment of our armed
forces and their families by helping servicemembers, veterans, and
their families attend and pay for college by providing interest-free
deferral on student loans while servicemembers are on active duty and
in-State tuition rates if they are not stationed in their home State.
Finally, it would establish new college scholarships of up to $5,000
for children and family members of servicemembers who have died since
9/11.
When one of our brave servicemembers gives their life in defense of
our country, they are not the only ones sacrificing--rather their sons
and daughters; husband and wife; and often mother and father have also
given the most precious thing in their lives for our country. Like
their cherished loved one, they deserve more than anybody the
opportunity and promise that makes this country so great and worth
defending and sacrificing for.
Our Nation faces great challenges to meet the demands of global
innovation and competition, but as i true with all great challenges, we
also have a great opportunity--an opportunity to invest in our most
important resource: our children; an opportunity to spur our economy
and develop new, innovative industries that create high paying jobs
that cannot be outsourced; and an opportunity to prepare our students
and strengthen our economy so America remains a leader in the world--
not just during the onset of the 20 century, but throughout it.
A nation that is united in its purpose can answer that challenge, as
we have so many times throughout our history. Just as an entire
generation before us was once inspired to dream new dreams of reaching
space and landing a man on

[[Page 17619]]

the moon, so must we set our sights to the heavens and be the next
great generation of leaders and innovators.
The time has come to make a robust, national commitment to the
education of our youth at all levels, from kindergarten through
graduate school, from technological institutes in our inner cities to
centers of agricultural research in the heartland.
New generations of doctors and lawyers, artists and engineers,
captains of industry and commanders of our Armed Forces, are depending
on what we do here today.
This legislation has been in the works for a long time. We are a
little late on the assignment, but we can still get an ``A'' for
finally taking the time to turn it in.
I certainly hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
allow us to make this happen today.
I yield the floor and yield the remainder of any time I may have to
Senator Leahy.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New Jersey. I wish to discuss two matters that involve the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Immunity

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Federal court evaluating the
contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers made
a very significant ruling. The court's ruling is a complete rejection
of the Bush administration's unprecedented and unfounded blanket claim
of executive privilege and immunity. The Court's ruling is a rebuke of
this White House's arrogant coverup and stonewalling, an arrogant
coverup designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and even
illegal actions of this administration. It is also a reaffirmation of
the principle of separate, coequal branches of our Government,
something that has guided our Republic since its inception and
something this administration has tried to ignore by making its best
efforts to accrue unchecked Executive power.
I commend Judge Bates. He is a former prosecutor, a Republican
appointed by President Bush. I commend Speaker Pelosi and Chairman
Conyers for their steadfastness in pressing this matter.
I have long pointed out this administration's claims of executive
privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to
justify refusing even to show up when the Congress has subpoenaed them,
are wrong. Last November, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I issued a
ruling that the White House's privilege and immunity claims were not
legally valid to excuse Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Josh
Bolten from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to
the Judiciary Committee's investigations into the unprecedented firing
and manipulation of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten's continued
noncompliance with the committee's subpoenas, even after my ruling, led
the committee to vote to hold them in contempt of Congress. Even with
that, they have put themselves above the law by refusing to appear and
testify.
This week the House Judiciary Committee also cited Mr. Rove for
contempt. They had previously cited Ms. Miers for her failure to
appear, as well as Mr. Bolten.
It is long past time for senior administration officials to abide by
the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony, testimony that
is compelled by subpoena. This administration places themselves above
the law. What the court said is none of us is above the law, not even
the President of the United States, and especially not the people who
work for and take orders from the President of the United States. They
are not above the law. I commend the court for making that clear.
In fact, the ruling by Judge Bates could not have been more plain. He
wrote:

[T]he Executive's current claim of absolute immunity from
compelled Congressional process for senior Presidential aides
is without any support in the case law.

I will be sending letters to Karl Rove's lawyer and the White House
counsel to schedule Mr. Rove's and Mr. Bolten's long-overdue
appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, Judge Bates
explained why the Bush-Cheney administration's blanket immunity claims
were an unjustified encroachment upon the constitutional powers of
Congress. The judge wrote:

[I]f the Executive's absolute immunity argument were to
prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain
information that is plainly not subject to any colorable
claim of executive privilege.

This result, which the court concluded was ``unacceptable,'' would be
that the ``Executive's proposed absolute immunity would thus deprive
Congress of even non-privileged information.''
Many of us have said that this is an administration that considers
themselves above the law, that the law applies to everybody except
them. Well, the court has said the law applies to them just as it does
to all other Americans. Despite the administration's attempts at every
turn to short circuit Congress--even the courts--from being able to
evaluate the executive privilege and immunity claims, Judge Bates's
concurrence in these principles is a significant milestone.
I will be sending a letter today to Attorney General Mukasey. I am
going to ask when he intends to withdraw the erroneous Office of Legal
Council opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to
justify its noncompliance with congressional subpoenas since that
opinion has been repudiated by a court and the court has said that this
administration, the Attorney General, the White House--all have to
abide by the law. In addition, I intend to ask the Attorney General
whether the court decision will cause them to reevaluate the
Department's memoranda and opinions that have supported overbroad and
unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the
investigation of the firing and manipulation of the U.S. attorneys but
also in other matters, such as the claims used to block Congress when
investigating warrantless wiretapping, or the leak of the name of
undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, or even
White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's
decisionmaking to protect corporations at the expense of Americans'
health.
The court's decision undercuts the White House's blanket claims in
all of these matters. The judge wrote that:

Clear precedent and persuasive policy reasons confirm that
the executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege.

That is why we have asked for over a year for the White House to
provide us with the specific legal basis for those claims and their
validity. What the White House has said is they do not have to obey the
law. They can break the law, they are above the law, and when they are
asked: What do you base that on? What is it that says you are above the
law and the people who work for you are above the law? their answer is:
Because we say so. That is it. They do not point to any statute, they
do not point to any case law, they do not point to anything except
their own arrogance in stonewalling the people of this country who want
to know what they are doing. That is not the way to have a nation of
laws. You cannot have one person decide the law will apply to you, the
law will apply to me, the law will apply to everybody in this Chamber
but will not apply to the President or the people who work for him.
I will continue to ask whether the White House's continued assertion
of executive privilege in this matter means the President takes
responsibility for the decision to fire well-performing prosecutors. To
date, after more than a year and a half, he has not done so. Instead,
he seeks to have it both ways: Well, ``mistakes were made''--by others,
of course, yet somehow, executive privilege still applies.
The White House's other blanket assertion says there is no wrongdoing
in the firings. We have asked: What was the basis for that? They
provide none. If the White House has information that led the President
and others to discount the evidence of wrongdoing the investigating
committees have gathered so far, that should be produced. Otherwise, we
have to conclude

[[Page 17620]]

they do not have any and it does not exist.
To the contrary, the Judiciary Committee's investigation which led to
the resignation of the Attorney General, the entire senior leadership
of the Justice Department, and several high-ranking White House
political officials has uncovered grave threats to the independence of
law enforcement from political manipulation in the highest political
ranks in the White House, including Karl Rove. The evidence shows that
senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of
Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough
to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It has long been
apparent that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as
part of a cover up.
The tragic and corrupt politicization of Federal law enforcement by
this administration is wrong. Reports released by the Justice
Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional
Responsibility, the latest just this week, have shown the reach of the
political operatives of this administration, infecting the hiring for
career prosecutors and immigration judges with improper and illegal
political loyalty tests designed to embed ``loyal Bushies'' throughout
the Department. So far, neither the Justice Department nor the White
House has taken responsibility. Apparently, the White House intends its
excuses that ``mistakes were made'' and that there were just a ``few
bad apples'' to suffice. What we have uncovered is a widespread effort
described by the Department's own Inspector General as ``systemic'',
one that involved the highest ranking office holders at the Justice
Department funneling White House loyalists into career positions.
The White House's response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's
subpoenas has been to assert blanket claims of executive privilege and
novel claims of absolute immunity to block current and former officials
from complying. Based on these claims, neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Bolten
even appeared before the Committee to respond to the subpoenas. Now, a
court has said that they must.
The effects of the White House's assertions of privilege and immunity
have been unmistakable, amounting to the withholding of critical
evidence related to the congressional investigation. And all along they
have contended that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested
but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word. Today's ruling
from Judge Bates is a resounding rejection of this White House's
attempt to thwart accountability and a reaffirmation of Congress's
ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to
learn the truth about their government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Energy

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, those of us who serve in the Senate
serve in a political system. John F. Kennedy used to say that every
mother hopes a child might grow up to be President as long as they do
not have to be active in politics. But, of course, politics is the
process within which we make decisions--a very honorable process. But
it is not new to the political system to hear evidence of false claims.
In fact, it is a time-honored tradition in politics to hear at least
some people in striped pants stand up and make all kinds of false
claims.
It has reached, I must say, some new heights on the floor of the
Senate in the last couple of weeks. As I was listening to some of these
things in the Senate, particularly on energy and some of the claims
that have been made, I was thinking about when I was a little boy and
the carnival would come to my small town of 300 people. You can imagine
the size of a carnival that would come to a town of 300 and actually
pitch a tent.
One of the things I remember about a carnival coming to town is it
had a sideshow. And the sideshow in every carnival, I suppose, is the
same. They paint the canvas on the sideshow with unbelievably bright
paintings, and then they have a barker, a carnival barker, and they
say: Come in here and see the woman with two heads; come in here and
see the world's fatest man; come in and see the sideshow and see the
man born with an alligator's tail. And my eyes were like dinner plates,
thinking, boy this is going to be something. And none of that was in
there. I mean, it was, you know, these big old claims.
Well, let me talk a little about big old claims that are not true
here in the Senate. We have been hearing them now for 2 weeks.
We have an energy problem. It is a significant problem. The price of
oil and gas doubled in a year, bouncing up to $120, $140 a barrel. The
price of gasoline--$4, $4.50 a gallon--doubled in a year.
So our colleagues on the minority side come to the floor of the
Senate. They have this voice track. It goes over and over and over; it
is called looping. They say: Do you know what the problem is? We know
what the problem is: The Democrats will not let anybody drill.
Well, it is an interesting discussion but not true. It reminds me of
Will Rogers, who said: It is not what he knows that bothers me, it is
what he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.
It is not true that people on this side of the Senate Chamber do not
want anybody to drill. It is simply not true. I have brought out chart
after chart showing so much that is open for drilling. In fact, I was
one of four Senators who helped open what is called lease 181 in the
Gulf of Mexico, 8 million acres. Four of us--myself, Senator Domenici,
Senator Bingaman, and Senator Talent from Missouri--introduced a bill
saying: Let's open 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that has
substantial oil and natural gas deposits. Let's open that. You know
what, we did it, in a bipartisan manner. And 2 years later, there is
not a bit of activity on that 8 million acres.
Our colleagues rush over to the floor of the Senate and say: Well,
the Democrats are at fault. They will not let you drill.
It is not true. There are many areas that are open for drilling, and
we have supported that. Oh, I do not support a goofy proposition that
is ricocheting around here that says: You know what, let's go to the
Outer Continental Shelf, which belongs to all of America and which is
not yet open, and let's let Governors of States decide whether it
should be opened. I mean, that stands goofiness on its head. The Outer
Continental Shelf belongs to all of the American people. That does not
belong to a State. That does not belong to a Governor. That is an
absurd proposition.
So they come to floor of the Senate with their chart, and it says:
Produce more, use less. But you know what the problem is: the actions
do not match the words. Let me describe what I mean by that.
Let me say that I support producing more. I am fine with drilling
holes. I am fine with finding oil and gas. But our colleagues have this
mindset of yesterday forever. Every 10 or 15 years, they shuffle into
this Chamber, sort of slouched over with their hands in their pockets,
saying: Let's drill some more. That is just yesterday forever.
I am for drilling, but what we ought to be doing is other things to
change the mix, to change our energy future. You know, almost 65
percent of the oil we use comes from off our shore, from the Saudis,
Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela. That makes us enormously vulnerable. We need
something that is game changing, that means different kinds of energy.
Yes, let's produce more, then let's produce different energy, and
let's conserve more as well. But when you talk about the issue of
production, it is not just drilling a hole for oil. That is what our
colleagues believe. Production is also taking energy from the wind and
producing electricity. Production is taking energy from the Sun and
producing electricity. Production is the biofuels from corn or
cellulose to produce gasoline and ethanol. Production is biomass and
geothermal. Production is all of that.
Now, eight times in a little over a year we have had votes on the
floor of the Senate to extend the tax incentives for renewable energy.
Eight times,

[[Page 17621]]

those who come to the floor with their little charts talking about
producing more, eight times they have said: No, we will not support it.
Now, let me tell those who listen to this why they will not support
it--because it costs some money in the short term to provide tax
incentives to get people to invest in renewable energy.
We ought to do renewable energy in a big way. This ought to be game
changing. It ought to make us much less dependent on the Saudis and
Kuwaitis and others. You do that, it seems to me, by changing the
energy mix.
My colleagues do not support that on the other side of the aisle. Do
you know why? Because it costs money to provide tax incentives. So we
pay for that. We are deep in debt in this country, but we pay for it
because it ought to be paid for in the bill we have offered. So my
colleagues vote against it.
Let me describe why. One of our pay-fors to help provide these tax
incentives for renewable energy is to shut down this unbelievable tax
break that exists by which hedge fund managers can take their billions
of dollars and move them through tax shelters overseas and avoid paying
taxes to the United States of America. My colleagues oppose closing
that loophole. They stand with the ability to move hedge fund income
overseas to shelter it so they do not have to pay taxes. That is
unbelievable. I mean, part of the process in this Chamber, at least,
is: Who do you stand for? How on Earth do you want to go home and say:
You know what, I decided to vote eight times against incentivizing
substantial additional production of renewable energy, energy from the
wind, from the Sun and so on, to make us less dependent on the Saudis.
I voted against that because I demand and insist that hedge fund
managers have a right to run their income through the Cayman Islands
and avoid paying U.S. taxes.
Get a chart. If you want to get a chart, print that up in a chart and
take it to the Rotary Club and say: Here is who I stand with. Here is
what I stand for. Explain that at home.
How on Earth do you get by with that? I do not understand it at all.
You bring a chart to the floor and say ``produce more.'' Well, let me
tell you how you produce more--the renewable energy production tax
credit.
Let me tell you what we have done in this country. We said a long
time ago, 1916: If you go looking for oil and gas, we like that. We
want you to find oil and gas because we have an economy that needs it.
So you go drilling, good for you; we give you robust permanent tax
incentives. We have done that for nearly a century. Here is what we did
for people who tried to do new technologies that take energy from the
wind and the Sun and so on--a production tax credit for renewable
energy.
In 1992, we said: We will give you tax incentives to expand renewable
energy, kind of shallow tax incentives. By the way, they are going to
be short term, so they will expire. We extended them five times for a
short term. We let them expire three times. It was stutter, stop,
start, stutter, stop. It was an unbelievably pathetic approach.
Some of us believe we ought to go 10 years and say: Here is where
America is headed. You want to join us, we are going to be here for 10
years trying to develop America's renewable energy so we can become
less dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
That is what we ought to be doing. But my colleagues from the
minority come to floor of the Senate and have opposed it all along the
way. They have opposed it eight times. In fact, the people who oppose
this have come to the floor of the Senate and said: We need more
electric-drive vehicles. We need to move toward plug-in hybrid
vehicles. You bet we do. That means substantial investment in battery
technology. That is in the bill, by the way, that you voted against.
That means substantial investment in renewables. If you are going to
drive electric vehicles, you are going to have to have electricity.
They vote against that, vote against all of this, and then come to
the floor and say: We need the product of this to do what we want to do
to drive electric vehicles. It is unbelievable.
I have described this probably 20 times in the Senate. Perhaps some
get tired of it, but we are trying to do something here. We have been
stopped, which is frustrating. It is the easiest thing in the world to
stop progress. The minority has demonstrated that now for 2 weeks. I
have described Mark Twain when he was asked if he would engage in a
debate once. He said: Sure, I would be happy to engage in a debate, as
long as I can take the negative side. They said: No one has told you
the subject of the debate. Mark Twain said: The subject doesn't matter.
The negative side will require no preparation.
It doesn't require any skill or preparation to take the negative side
of anything. So for 2 weeks we have tried to pass legislation to wring
the speculation out of the oil futures market. Seventy-one percent of
that market is now controlled by speculators who don't want a thing to
do with oil. They wouldn't lift a quart of oil. They want to trade
paper and make money. We are trying to shut down excess speculation.
What we have found is our colleagues, when the question is, who do you
stand with, they say: We will stand with the oil speculators. We will
block that.
Eight times we bring a bill to the floor that says, let's at least
provide incentives to try to change the plan at this point and begin
substantially increasing the use of renewable energy. Eight times our
colleagues have voted against that.
Let me go through what this would have provided, what we tried to do:
a renewable energy production tax credit, solar and fuel cell
investment tax credits, clean renewable energy tax credit bonds, tax
incentives for plug-in electric drive vehicles. The list goes on and
on, all things we should be doing. Eight times we have lost the vote to
proceed because the minority, which says they support all of this, has
decided they don't want to close the a loophole that allows hedge fund
managers to run their incomes through the Cayman Islands and other tax
havens in order to avoid paying taxes. We close the loophole to help
pay for all of this, and our colleagues have an apoplectic seizure. You
can't do that, they say.
I don't understand. It is beyond me that they believe it is going to
work to come to the floor of the Senate and make a claim that is a
false claim that somehow the majority party doesn't support drilling.
Of course we do.
Let me describe it from a parochial standpoint. The biggest drilling
play in America right now is in eastern Montana and western North
Dakota. The U.S. Geological Survey did an assessment at my request. The
U.S. Geological Survey and I announced about 3 months ago that that is
the largest assessment of recoverable oil ever made in the lower 48
States; 3.6 billion barrels to 4.3 billion barrels of oil using today's
technology are going to be recoverable. We have up to 75 drilling rigs
active right now, drilling a well about every 30 or 35 days, moving
every 30 or 35 days to a new well site. It is the biggest oil play in
our country. I fully support that. It makes a lot of sense. I was the
one who got the U.S. Geological Survey to do the assessment. I was the
one who helped get lease 181 opened up, 8 million acres in the gulf.
It doesn't wash with me or my colleagues to have people come to the
floor with their little charts talking about this side doesn't support
production. Of course we do. But production by drilling a hole
searching for black gold called oil is not the only way to produce
energy. We are never going to get out of this fix of needing 65 percent
of the oil we use from the Saudis and others, unless we change the game
completely. That means completely changing our energy future.
I have described often our situation. We have this big old planet
that circles the Sun. We share it with about 6.6 billion people. We
stick straws in the planet and suck oil out, about 85 million barrels a
day, and 21 million barrels is destined for here because we need one-
fourth of all the oil produced on the planet. One-fourth of the oil
coming out of this planet every day has to come to this country because
we have a prodigious appetite for oil. The fact is, we need to continue
to use oil, and will. But we need to find ways to

[[Page 17622]]

change our energy mix in the future. The only conceivable way to do
that is to begin substantial research dollars and to pass these kinds
of tax incentives to move toward other kinds of energy use, solar,
geothermal, wind, and so on. You can add up all the money we spend on
this sort of thing to change our energy future and make this country
less dependent and more secure, and it's equivalent to what the
Pentagon spends in 40 days. That makes no sense.
If we are going to invest in this country's future, we have to pass
legislation such as this. We can't have a Senate in which we have
people who fashion themselves as human brake pads coming over here to
stop everything just because they want to support hedge fund managers
who want to wash their U.S. income through foreign subsidiaries and
avoid taxes. That is not a sustainable policy, to continue protecting
tax avoidance and stopping investment in renewable energy.
This country can have a pretty terrific future, but we face big
challenges. We are not going to solve or address this country's
challenges unless we think in very different ways.
I understand there will be some perfectly content for this Congress
to adjourn or leave town and go on the August break having done
nothing. I will be one of those who is not content. It makes no sense
that there are those out there with projects on the shelf right now for
new wind energy farms, for solar energy applications, for geothermal
and biofuels, all of the other renewables, and they are not going to go
ahead unless they have some notion that this country will extend the
tax incentives for that renewable energy. On eight separate occasions,
the minority has come to the floor of the Senate and said, when asked,
will you extend these tax incentives, they have said: No, no, no, eight
times. That is not in this country's interest.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 4137

On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at
5:30 today, the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and that
there be 130 minutes for debate divided as follows: 50 minutes under
the control of Senator Mikulski or her designee, 30 minutes each under
the control of Senators Enzi and Alexander or their designees, and 20
minutes under the control of Senator Coburn; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the
conference report, without further intervening action or debate. I note
for the Record that this agreement has been cleared on both sides of
the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I know this is the Republican portion
of the time, but until a Republican arrives, I will briefly say for 1
minute that I am very pleased the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 is going to be coming through the Senate. We saw over 28
million toys recalled in 2007. The Consumer Product Safety Commission
is a shadow of its former self. This legislation is long overdue. It
was a bipartisan effort. Many of us worked on this very hard, including
the Presiding Officer. I am pleased we are able to get an agreement on
what the Wall Street Journal has called the most significant consumer
product legislation in 16 years. It is particularly important to my
State where we had a 4-year-old boy die when swallowing a lead charm.
It was the 99-percent lead, made in China. It should never have been in
his hands. The lead in that charm went into his bloodstream over a
period of time, in fact over a period of days. I was very proud that
our staff, Kate Nilan and Tamara Fucile, was able to work on that
provision and work with the committee. That is now the first provision
in the bill.
I thank the conference committee, under the leadership of Senators
Inouye and Pryor, and all the conferees who worked on this in the House
and Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Appropriations Legislation

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today, the Committee on
Appropriations marked up three fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills.
Those bills would provide funding for programs ranging from
agricultural research to veterans' health care and from foreign aid to
the infrastructure that supports our men and women in uniform in our
Armed Forces. While some members of the committee had concerns about
the overall spending levels in those bills or individual provisions
within them, the committee reported the measures by broad bipartisan
votes. Those votes reflected the committee's collective belief that it
has a fundamental responsibility each year to draft, debate, and report
to the Senate its spending recommendations for the day-to-day
operations of our Government.
The markup on July 17 was the committee's fourth markup of the year
to consider fiscal year 2009 bills. The bills reported at that meeting
brought to nine the total number of fiscal year 2009 bills approved by
the committee. There was every expectation the committee would complete
action on the remaining three bills in July, as Chairman Byrd had
publicly indicated. It was also expected the committee would consider a
second supplemental bill.
Despite complete inaction on appropriations measures in the other
body and low expectations for timely enactment of the fiscal year 2009
bills, the committee was fulfilling its responsibility to make
recommendations to the Senate and moving toward completion of the only
portion of the appropriations process under its direct control.
So I give Chairman Byrd credit for getting the committee as far as he
did, given the dim prospects for floor action. The Senate deserves to
at least see the committee bills before making a judgment about whether
it will allocate time to consider them.
Unfortunately, progress in the committee came to an abrupt halt last
week. The chairman announced the committee would not meet to consider
the remaining fiscal year 2009 bills and would not meet to consider a
second supplemental. At the time, the reasons given for the
cancellation were not clear. It was clear, however--and has been
explicitly admitted since--that further markups were canceled because
the majority did not wish to discuss, debate or vote on amendments
relating to domestic energy production.
It is virtually unprecedented in our committee to cancel a markup to
avoid a vote. The amendments that likely would have been offered in the
committee are completely germane to the appropriations process. The
appropriations bills in place for fiscal year 2008 contain at least two
provisions that prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes and
thereby inhibit the development of American energy resources.
One of those provisions is a moratorium on further development of oil
and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The other prohibits the
issuance of regulations that would govern the development of our
extensive domestic oil shale resources. Both of these matters would
have been directly relevant to a fiscal year 2008 supplemental. It is
also likely that one or both of these provisions would have been
continued in the fiscal year 2009 Interior and related agencies
appropriations bill, and as such would have been subject to
consideration by the committee.
Nobody is playing political games in wanting to offer these
amendments. Members interested in offering these amendments had several
opportunities to present them during markups of the other
appropriations bills but withheld from doing so on the promise that the
committee would meet to consider the appropriate bills. I thought this
was the responsible thing to do, but perhaps I was wrong.

[[Page 17623]]

Members are entitled to their own views about whether the moratorium
on Outer Continental Shelf development should be continued. The same
goes for oil shale production. But at a time when energy prices are
dramatically affecting our economy and challenging the budgets of
families across America, I do not think we as a Congress are entitled
simply to sweep the issue under the rug--or attempt to--because it is
inconvenient. We are not entitled to continue the moratoria for another
year as part of a long-term continuing resolution without so much as a
debate or a vote.
In addition to increasing our domestic supply of energy, responsible
development of the Outer Continental Shelf and of American oil shale
will mean billions of dollars in royalties, rents, and bonuses that
will be paid to States and the U.S. Treasury--money that otherwise
would be paid to foreign governments, many of which have policies that
are in opposition to U.S. interests.
Responsible development of new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf
and of American oil shale would not solve our energy problems
overnight, but no one is claiming it will. But if we take action now,
perhaps we can avoid a debate 10 years from now in which we try to
adopt quick fixes or overcome our failure to even vote on these matters
today.
When last week's markup was canceled, all of the Republican members
of the committee signed a letter to Chairman Byrd to express our
disappointment and asked that he reconsider. I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of that 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,

Committee on Appropriations.

Washington, DC, July 22, 2008.
Hon. Senator Robert C. Byrd,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
Chairman Byrd: We are profoundly disappointed by the
cancellation of this week's scheduled markup of the Fiscal
Year 2009 Interior and Legislative Branch appropriations
bills, and the second supplemental appropriations bill for
Fiscal Year 2008. It is readily apparent that the markup was
canceled entirely due to the majority's unwillingness to
consider and vote on amendments relating to domestic energy
production.
The enactment of appropriations bills in recent years has
often involved departures from the regular order. Our
Committee, however, has a proud tradition of successfully
conducting that part of the appropriations process that is
under our direct control, i.e. the timely consideration and
markup of appropriations bills. You have been steadfast this
year in insisting that the Committee continue in this
fashion, for which we applaud you. We are therefore surprised
at today's turn of events.
Energy prices are an issue of singular importance to people
across the country. The American people are looking to their
elected representatives in Congress to offer bold new
policies that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil
by developing more domestic energy resources, and by reducing
the amount of energy we consume. We must act on all fronts.
The solution to our current problems will not come from any
single policy, or from any single committee. The Committee on
Appropriations, however, has an important role to play.
The Fiscal Year 2008 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act contained provisions that
prohibit the production of oil and gas from large portions of
the Outer Continental Shelf, and that prohibit the issuance
of regulations that are necessary for the responsible
development of America's vast oil shale resources in the
Rocky Mountain west. It is likely that the chairman's mark of
the Fiscal Year 2009 Interior bill would have contained one
or both of these provisions. As such, it would have been
timely and entirely appropriate for the Committee to meet to
consider the merits of continuing these provisions in Fiscal
Year 2009, and to consider whether the provisions should be
modified or repealed in Fiscal Year 2008. Members of the
Committee might well have other energy-related amendments
that they wish to be considered.
We urge you to reconsider your decision so that the
Committee can meet its responsibility to consider all of the
appropriations bills, and also do its part to help address
the energy challenges that face our country.
Sincerely,
Ted Stevens; Thad Cochran; Arlen Specter; Pete V.
Domenici; Mitch McConnell; Judd Gregg; Robert F.
Bennett; Richard C. Shelby; Larry E. Craig; Christopher
S. Bond; Kay Bailey Hutchison; Sam Brownback; Wayne
Allard; Lamar Alexander.

Mr. COCHRAN. It is now obvious we will go out of session having not
finished our work as a committee, having not met to consider
appropriations bills that deal directly with the most pressing issues
facing American families today.
When we return in September, it is highly unlikely the committee will
act on the remaining fiscal year 2009 bills or the second supplemental.
Both the majority leader and the Speaker have indicated we will
consider a second supplemental bill in September, but it is hard to
imagine there will be enough time to act on that measure in committee.
That is a shame.
Yesterday, Chairman Byrd issued a press release outlining what would
have been in the chairman's mark of the supplemental had the committee
met to consider it. He outlined a bill that would appropriate some $24
billion to respond to natural disasters, to improve American
infrastructure, and for other purposes.
The chairman included a number of items I had requested that are
important in my State of Mississippi in our ongoing efforts to recover
from Hurricane Katrina. He included a number of other items in response
to requests by other members on both sides of the aisle.
While there will justifiably be concern about the total cost of this
proposal and some of its component parts, in my view, it is a measure
worthy of consideration in the Appropriations Committee.
But a press release is not a markup. It is not a draft of a committee
bill. No Senator can amend a press release. No Senator can see the
legislative language that would implement the spending described in the
release, and no Senator can know what provisions might be included in
the bill but not mentioned in the press release.
I am the ranking member of the committee, and I do not know these
things. If I thought we would return in September and hold a markup of
the bill, giving the Senate time to debate it fully, perhaps I would be
less concerned. But we know time is short once we return. Based on what
we have witnessed on the floor in recent months, I have little
confidence Senators will be allowed freely to offer amendments to the
supplemental if it is taken straight to the floor.
I wish to reiterate that Chairman Byrd has done an admirable job of
trying to uphold the committee's responsibilities and prerogatives in
the face of these circumstances. We both share the view that our
committee has an important and fundamental responsibility to write and
put forth bills that support the basic operations of our Nation's
Government. As a Congress, however, we are getting into some very bad
habits as it pertains to consideration of these bills.
We are completely abandoning efforts to move the regular
appropriations bills across the House and Senate floors, something
which has nothing to do with filibusters. Nobody filibustered the
fiscal year 2008 bills that were brought to the Senate floor. When we
do manage to pass appropriations measures, the differences are resolved
not by an open meeting of a conference committee but, usually, in
closed-door negotiations, followed by an exchange of messages between
the House and Senate. Now, apparently, we are starting to cancel
committee markups based on an unwillingness to take votes on difficult
issues. They may be entirely germane.
So I regret these trends for the sake of our committee that is
struggling to maintain its tradition of bipartisan cooperation and
action. I regret it for the sake of millions of Americans who will
simply not know why the Senate cannot manage to take votes and process
its legislation and its appropriations bills in a straightforward and
open manner. I regret the way we are letting things slide now into an
unusual procedure that does not reflect credit on the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Energy

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are about to adjourn for the August
recess without having passed a single piece of legislation addressing
the energy crisis

[[Page 17624]]

or the most important issue, which is the concern over rising gasoline
prices.
I attended the Fourth of July parade in my home State. In Utah, there
is also a 24th of July parade celebrating the anniversary of the time
when the first Pioneer settlers came into the valley. In both parades,
I had things shouted at me. Politicians have that experience. Usually,
we hope the things that are shouted at us are complimentary. In this
case, the things I had shouted at me in the parades were: ``Why aren't
you drilling? Why aren't you producing more American oil? Drill now.''
I said: We are discussing it. We are trying to do that. We are trying
to get something done.
If there were a parade scheduled now, I would have to go back and
say: The Senate would not let us vote on any of the proposals to
increase the supply of American oil. There are proposals coming in the
form of letters from Senators to the President of the United States
saying: Will you please go to Saudi Arabia and beg them to produce some
more oil? There are suggestions that somehow we should sue Saudi Arabia
or members of OPEC to get them to produce more oil. But we are not even
allowed the opportunity to vote on proposals to produce more oil in the
United States.
A lot of my constituents are not aware that at one point, not too
distant in the past, America produced more oil than any other country
in the world and controlled the pricing power over oil. We could affect
the world price by opening more wells in east Texas. But in the 1970s,
that pricing power left our shores and was transferred from the Texas
Railroad Commission to the Saudi royal family. Now we are in the
posture of begging the Saudi royal family to produce more oil when we
have the capacity to bring that pricing power back to the United States
by producing more here.
I wish to talk specifically about oil shale because I understand
there has been an exchange on the floor about oil shale earlier, with
the junior Senator from Colorado saying we are not ready, the
technology is not finished, and, therefore, we should maintain the
congressionally ordered moratorium on the Department of the Interior
from promulgating the rules under which leases could be granted on
public land.
Now, let's look at that argument for a minute.
The Department of the Interior has released draft rules. We know what
they want to do. They have been prepared to do this, and are prepared
to do it today. They cannot turn those draft rules into firm rules as
long as the Democrat moratorium is in place. So when we wanted to lift
that moratorium--we tried to in the Appropriations Committee--we were
denied on a straight party-line vote. The Republican leader tried to
lift that moratorium here. We were denied in a unanimous consent
request.
So let's ask ourselves: What are those rules? The best analogy to
help people understand what those rules are is to talk about a fishing
license. If you want to catch fish, you have to get a fishing license.
You go in and you pay for it and it is for a specified period of time.
Now, there is no guarantee the fish will respond to your efforts to
catch them. There is only an opportunity to go forward with it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. All we are talking about, with respect to the rules of
the Department of the Interior, is let's give companies a fishing
license. If the technology is not ready, the companies will know that.
They will find that out very rapidly. If the technology doesn't work,
the marketplace will prove that it doesn't work, and companies won't
invest in it.
This is not a government subsidy for oil shale. This is not even a
government support of oil shale. This is simply a fishing license to
say: Go see if you can find some fish or, in this case, go see if you
can find some oil. If you can, and you can produce it at an
economically acceptable price and in an environmentally friendly
manner, then go ahead.
But in this body we are saying: No, we won't even let you look for
it. We won't even let you move forward to try to find out if it will
work.
The Senator from Colorado said: We are not ready. I would say to him:
We are in Utah. We have a program going forward in Utah on State land
that shows every indication of producing oil by the end of this year.
The reason they can't produce large amounts of oil is that we don't
have enough State land to produce on a larger scale. If you are going
to produce large quantities, you have to allow development on public
lands, but there is a moratorium in place that says: We won't even let
you look at these lands.
The easiest thing we could have done this week in Congress would have
been to lift the moratorium. The least we could have done would have
been to let the Department of the Interior implement the rules and give
companies an opportunity to look at the Federal lands to see if they
want to get a fishing license to catch some fish or, in this case, oil.
That is all we are asking for, but it has been objected to repeatedly
and repeatedly.
If I march in a parade again, I am going to have a hard time
explaining to anybody why the Senate won't allow us to do that.

____________________

HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the conference report on H.R. 4137, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4137), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965,
and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the
House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate and agree to the same with an amendment, and the
Senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of the
conferees on the part of both Houses.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in
the Record of July 30, 2008.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 130
minutes of debate: 50 minutes under the control of the Senator from
Maryland, 30 minutes each under the control of Senator Enzi of Wyoming
and Senator Alexander of Tennessee, and 20 minutes under the control of
Senator Coburn of Oklahoma.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
It is a great honor for me to be able to bring to the floor of the
Senate the higher education conference report for the Health,
Education, and Labor Committee. I bring this bill to the Senate on
behalf of Senator Kennedy.
What I wish colleagues to know is that this bill is truly a
bipartisan agreement. It was led by Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi,
the ranking member, our colleague from Wyoming, who worked tirelessly.
This bill has been a work in progress for more than 5 years.
Early this summer, as Senator Kennedy advanced this bill, we are all
aware that he received some pretty surprising news. As he went into his
own treatment regime, he called me and asked me to take over the
conference report. I viewed it as an honor, I viewed it as a privilege,
and I view it as an honor and privilege today.
Before I go into describing the bill and presenting it, I again wish
to thank Senator Enzi for his work with Senator Kennedy and his
collegial and civil attitude in working with me to move this bill.
As I get ready to present this to the Senate, however, I have a
letter from Senator Kennedy. I have been in touch with Senator Kennedy
on a regular basis, receiving his advice, his guidance, his caution,
and his jocular wit. I know he is watching us as we begin this debate
today. This is a short statement he asked me to read to his colleagues:

[[Page 17625]]

I'm pleased to express my strong support for final passage
of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. This
legislation builds on key measures we've approved this
Congress to increase college aid and make loans more
available for students. This bill goes even further to assure
that a college education is affordable and accessible to our
citizens.
This legislation comes at a time when students and families
need more help then ever to deal with the rising cost of
college. Average costs at public colleges are more than
$13,000 today, and $32,000 at private colleges. Each year
780,000 qualified students don't attend a four-year college
because they can't afford it.
Our bill takes major steps to expand college access and
affordability. It holds colleges accountable for rising costs
requiring the top five percent of colleges with the greatest
cost increases to submit detailed reports to the Secretary of
Education on why their costs have risen, and what they will
do to hold costs down. It simplifies the complex student aid
application process by replacing the seven-page Free
Application for Federal Student Aid with a two-page ``EZ-
FAFSA.'' It also expands aid for our neediest students by
enabling them to receive Pell Grants year-round for the first
time.
The legislation also responds to the ethical scandals in
the student loan industry, which the Committee documented in
investigations last year. It bans lenders from offering gifts
to college officials, and requires college to adopt strict
codes of conduct on student loans.
I'm particularly proud of provisions that help students
with disabilities and veterans.
It enables students with intellectual disabilities who
attend postsecondary transition programs to receive Pell
Grants for the first time, and provides support for colleges
to expand these programs.
The bill helps service members by enabling them to defer
payments on their student loans--interest-free--while they're
on active duty. It also allows service members and their
families to receive in-state tuition rates for college when
they move to a new state, and enables them to re-enroll in
college without delay when their service is complete.
This bill creates a lasting legacy for students and
families, and it wouldn't have been possible without the
bipartisan cooperation of the members of the HELP Committee
and the House Committee on Education and Labor. I commend our
Ranking Member, Senator Enzi, and Chairman Miller and Ranking
Member McKeon in the House for their strong support. I'm
especially grateful to my friend, Senator Mikulski, for her
impressive work in resolving some of the most difficult
issues in this bill.
We can be proud that with passage of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act, we're meeting our responsibility to help all
our citizens obtain a higher education. By improving their
lives, we also strengthen our nation and our future. I urge
all my colleagues to support this needed legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a longer statement by Senator Kennedy be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008

From our earliest days as a nation, education has been the
mainstay of our democracy and the engine of the American
dream. Our Founders knew that an educated citizenry would
strengthen the nation and build the values and character that
make us Americans. They believed in the power of education
and its ability to create an even greater America over the
horizon.
In our own day and generation, we've seen an excellent
example of the fulfillment of the promise of that new
horizon, after Congress passed the GI Bill of Rights in 1944,
which enabled service members returning from World War II to
receive a college education. Hundreds of thousands did so,
and they went on to become the Greatest Generation. The GI
bill produced 67,000 doctors, 91,000 scientists, 238,000
teachers, and 450,000 engineers. It funded the education of
three Presidents, three Supreme Court Justices and many
Senators who served in this very chamber.
Over the course of the past year, we've revitalized that
vision once again with the passage of two important higher
education bills. When Congress passed the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act last fall, we renewed our commitment
to the idea that no qualified student should be denied the
opportunity to go to college because of the cost. It included
the largest increase in student aid since the GI Bill--more
than $20 billion. We also increased the maximum Pell Grant--
the lifeline to college for low-income students--from $4310
to $5400 over the next five years.
In addition, the Act provided new relief for students
struggling under the weight of their student loans, by
allowing loan repayments to be capped at 15 percent of
monthly discretionary income. We also included new incentives
for students to enter key professions such as teaching, law
enforcement, and social work, by providing loan forgiveness
to those who commit to public service jobs for 10 years.
This past spring, we passed a second bill to underscore our
commitment. When the crisis in the credit markets appeared to
be threatening the ability of students and families to obtain
loans for this school year, we approved emergency
legislation--the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans
Act--to make sure that loan funds will be available this
fall.
That bill increased the amount of federally-subsidized
loans for college students, in order to reduce their reliance
on higher cost private loans. We gave parents greater access
to low-cost federal PLUS loans, to provide an alternative to
private loans and home equity lines of credit. We also gave
the Secretary of Education new tools to ensure that lenders
have the funds they need to make loans to students.
The bill before us today--the Higher Education Opportunity
Act of 2008--takes even more steps to ensure that a college
education is affordable and accessible to our citizens.
A college education has never been more important than it
is now. Today, 60 percent of new jobs require some post-
secondary education, compared to just 15 percent half a
century ago. Yet the United States ranks only 14th in the
college graduation rates of all industrialized nations.
At the same time, college has never been more difficult to
afford. The cost of college has more than tripled over the
last twenty years. Today, average tuition, fees and room and
board at public colleges is more than $13,000, and it's more
than $32,000 at private colleges.
Each year an estimated 780,000 talented, qualified students
don't attend a four-year college because they can't afford
it.
In last year's student aid bill, we made a commitment to
American students and families to invest billions more in
student aid--especially for those who need help the most.
Now, with the Higher Education Opportunity Act, we're asking
colleges to do their part to keep costs under control. Our
bill requires the Department of Education, for the first
time, to make detailed information about college costs
available to students and families on its website. It also
requires the Department to highlight, on national lists,
those colleges that are doing a good job of keeping their
costs down, and those that are not.
By providing greater transparency and enabling students and
families to compare the costs of various colleges more
easily, we hope to promote an environment where colleges
think carefully before they raise their prices. But our bill
requires even more. If, over three years, a college raises
its prices so much that it ranks among the top five percent
of institutions of its type with the highest cost increases,
we require the college to submit a comprehensive report to
the Secretary of Education, detailing the steps the college
will take to bring its costs back under control.
We're also taking overdue action to rein in the high cost
of college textbooks. According to the U.S. Public Interest
Research Group, the average college student spends about $900
a year on textbooks. Since 1994, textbook prices have risen
at four times the rate of inflation, and they continue to
increase. Often, students are forced to waste money buying
textbooks because they can only be purchased in ``bundles''
with workbooks and other materials that their professors
don't use.
Our bill will reverse this trend by requiring textbook
publishers to ``unbundle'' textbooks and supplementary
materials, so students can buy only the materials they really
need. It will also give faculty members better information
about textbook costs, by requiring publishers to provide more
detailed pricing information. And it will require colleges to
include information about required textbooks in their course
catalogs and on their websites, so that students can shop for
the best prices.
In addition to holding the cost of college down, we're
doing more to ensure that students receive all the aid
they're entitled to by reforming the application process for
federal student aid. Today, the process is needlessly
complex. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA)--the basic form that all students must complete to
determine their eligibility for federal aid--is currently
seven pages long. That's longer than the standard federal
income tax form.
Such complexity has unfortunate consequences for students.
Each year, an estimated 1.5 million students eligible for
Pell Grants don't receive them, either because they aren't
aware of federal aid or because they find the process too
complicated to navigate. It's time to make the process
simpler.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act will replace the 7-
page FAFSA with a 2-page ``EZFAFSA'' for low-income students.
Within five years, the longer FAFSA will be phased out for
all applicants. The bill also includes pilot programs to
simplify the federal aid applications even further. To help
more of our neediest students understand that college aid is
available for them, a pilot program will give low-income
students a federal aid determination in their junior year of
high school, rather than their senior year.

[[Page 17626]]

We also encourage the Secretary of Education to work with the
IRS to share income tax data, so the federal aid form can
include the data needed to determine a student's eligibility
for college aid.
In addition, to ensure that this aid is directed to
students, we must keep them informed about their choices and
hold colleges and lenders accountable for giving students the
best loan deal possible.
Investigations by our Committee found that many lenders are
entering into sweetheart deals with colleges, offering gifts
to college and university employees in order to obtain their
students' loan business.
Lenders who participate in the federal student loan program
have offered ``educational conferences'' at luxury hotels and
offer free entertainment and free tickets to sporting events
to college officials in order to entice those officials to
recommend the lenders to their students. The Higher Education
Opportunity Act makes these practices illegal, and protects
students by ensuring that when a college recommends a lender,
it's based on the best interest of students and nothing else.
The bill also creates a new process with respect to private
educational loans--which now account for a quarter of all
borrowing for college--to make sure that students know what
low-cost Federal aid they're eligible for, and how much more
they really need to borrow to cover the cost of college
attendance with a private loan.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act also enhances grant
aid for the neediest students, adding to the dramatic
increase in student aid Congress approved in last year's
student bill. For the first time, we allow students eligible
for Pell Grants to receive those grants year-round, so they
can accelerate their courses of study.
But ensuring access to adequate grants and loans is only
one component of solving the college access crisis. We must
also ensure that more students are graduating from high
school ready for college. In 2001, colleges required one-
third of all freshmen to take remedial courses in reading,
writing, or math.
Because so many high school students are not learning the
basic skills to succeed in college or work, the nation loses
more than $3.7 billion a year. This figure includes $1.4
billion to provide remedial education to students who have
recently completed high school, and $2.3 billion that the
economy loses because remedial reading students are more
likely to drop out of college without a degree, thereby
reducing their earning potential.
To address this problem, our bill includes provisions to
maintain the strength of the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, which
provide underprivileged students with the support they need
to go to prepare for and graduate from college.
We also strengthen efforts to help students with
disabilities enter and succeed in college. For the first
time, the bill allows students with intellectual disabilities
to receive Pell Grants and Federal Work-Study funds to
participate in transition programs at institutions of higher
education.
We create new grant programs to help colleges offer even
more of these transition programs, and make course materials
more accessible for students with print disabilities. We
establish a new center at the Department of Education devoted
to helping students with disabilities and their families get
the help and assistance they need to prepare for college and
go to college.
These provisions to help students with disabilities will be
one of the lasting legacies of this legislation, and I'm
proud we've been able to do so much.
I'm also proud of the steps we take in this bill to help
service men and women pursue a higher education. They risk
their lives for us every day, and they deserve whatever we
can give them to help them build a brighter future. Our bill
provides a number of new benefits for servicemembers,
including provisions to allow them to defer payments on their
student loans--interest-free--while they're on active duty,
provisions to help servicemembers re-enroll in college
without delay, and a new online clearinghouse for
servicemembers to learn about college benefits available to
them.
Our bill also takes other much-needed steps to ensure that
all citizens are able to enjoy the benefits of higher
education. As we know, discrimination has long limited the
opportunities of minorities and women in higher education. As
a result, these groups are still under-represented today
among graduates of institutions of higher learning, and among
professors, attorneys, and other professionals.
Decades of reports and studies document the under-
representation of women and minorities in higher education.
In 2006, a report, Faculty Gender Equity Indicators by the
American Association of University Professors found that
women are significantly under-represented among university
faculty--they make up just 39 percent of full-time faculty at
institutions of higher education, and just 34 percent of such
faculty at doctoral institutions. The Department of
Education's most recent Digest of Education Statistics
indicates that women continue to be underrepresented among
those obtaining professional degrees, such as in law and
business.
As the National Center for Education Statistics states in
its Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2006
report, minority students are underrepresented at every level
of higher education, with numbers dwindling further in
graduate and professional education. Likewise, law school
enrollment surveys by the American Bar Association show that
minorities are underrepresented among students at those
institutions, and among law school tenured faculty and deans.
This legislation takes needed steps to address this under-
representation of women and minorities and to help make the
goal of equal educational opportunity a reality for all our
citizens.
The bill also provides new support for educational
institutions that serve minority groups historically denied
access to higher education because of prejudice and
discrimination. These institutions--many of which were
founded in direct response to the refusal by other colleges
and universities to admit minority students--have long had an
indispensable role in overcoming the legacy of discrimination
in education that has led to under-representation of
minorities in academia and in legal and other professions.
These institutions help ensure a diverse pool of qualified
professionals in the nation's economy. They're particularly
important because they provide postsecondary educational
opportunities specifically tailored to students--especially
low-income students--who have been denied access to
adequately-funded elementary and secondary schools, or have
been educated in schools marked by racial and ethnic
segregation. As documented by studies and described in the
Committee reports, these institutions have a proven track
record of educating minority students. They graduate a
disproportionate number of the nation's minority doctors,
lawyers, teachers, and other professionals. They offer
affordable, high quality college education and job training
to tens of thousands of students every year.
In addition to these measures, the legislation includes
several provisions to help colleges and universities improve
student and campus safety. More than a year ago now, the
nation was shocked by the worst shooting rampage in history--
a shock made worse by the fact that it occurred at an
institution of higher education. What happened at Virginia
Tech was a wake-up call for Congress and the Nation--that
tragedy can strike anywhere, including college campuses.
The bill takes steps to apply some of the lessons learned
from that overwhelming tragedy, and ensure that students are
safer in the future. It helps colleges upgrade their safety
and emergency response systems with the latest technology,
and requires them to have specific procedures to deal with
serious situations on campus, including informing students
immediately when such situations erupt. These steps are
essential parts of the responsibility of colleges and
universities in protecting the students entrusted to their
care and we can help them do better.
This bill is the product of many months of hard work, and
it couldn't have completed without the bipartisan cooperation
of every member of the HELP Committee and the House Committee
on Education and Labor. I commend our Ranking Member, Senator
Enzi, for his strong support for moving this bill forward,
and Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon in the House
for their enormous contributions to this legislation.
I'm especially grateful to my friend, Senator Mikulski, for
going above and beyond the call of duty to help resolve some
of the most difficult issues in this bill over the past
several months.
I also commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for the
assistance the Banking Committee has provided on the private
loan provisions in the bill, and all the Members of both
committees for their individual contributions.
We owe an immense debt of gratitude as well to the many
staff members on both sides of the aisle who have dedicated
hundreds of hours to working on this legislation. I'm
grateful for the efforts of Dvora Lovinger and Robin Juliano
on Senator Mikulski's staff, and Ilyse Shuman, Greg Dean,
Beth Buehlmann, Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Lindsay Hunsicker,
Aaron Bishop and Kelly Hastings on Senator Enzi's staff.
From Chairman Miller's office, I'm grateful for the efforts
of Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Gabriella Gomez, Julie
Radocchia, and Jeff Appel. From Ranking Member McKeon's
office, I thank Sally Stroup and Amy Jones.
I also thank Mary Ellen McGuire and Jeremy Sharp with
Senator Dodd; Rob Barron with Senator Harkin; Michael Yudin
and Michele Mazzocco with Senator Bingaman; Kathryn Young
with Senator Murray; Seth Gerson with Senator Reed; Mildred
Otero, Latoya Johnson, and Chelsea Maughan with Senator
Clinton; Steve Robinson with Senator Obama; Huck Gutman with
Senator Sanders; Will Jawando with Senator Brown; Allison
Dembeck with Senator Gregg; David Cleary and Sarah Riffling
with Senator Alexander; Celia Sims with Senator Burr; Glee
Smith with Senator Isakson; Karen McCarthy with Senator
Murkowski; Juliann Andreen with Senator Hatch; Alison Anway
with Senator Roberts; Jon VanMeter with Senator Allard; and
Elizabeth Floyd with Senator Coburn.

[[Page 17627]]

As I mentioned, the Banking Committee provided special help
during this process and I thank Shawn Maher, Amy Friend, and
Roger Hollingsworth with Senator Dodd; and Jim Johnson with
Senator Shelby.
As always, we're grateful for the hard work of our
Legislative Counsels, the Senate Budget Committee, and the
Congressional Budget Office for helping us prepare this bill.
I thank Mark Koster, Kristin Romero, Amy Gaynor, and Laura
Ayoud from the Senate Legislative Counsel's office, Steve
Cope and Molly Lothamer from the House Legislative Counsel's
office, Debb Kalcevic and Justin Humphrey of the
Congressional Budget Office, and Robyn Hiestand with the
Senate Budget Committee.
And from my own staff, I thank Michael Myers, Carmel
Martin, J.D. LaRock, Erin Renner, Missy Rohrbach, Emma
Vadehra, Jennie Fay, Shawn Daugherty, Roberto Rodriguez,
David Johns, Michael Zawada, and Jane Oates.
As President Kennedy said in 1961, ``Our progress as a
nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. Our
requirements for world leadership, our hopes for economic
growth, and the demands of citizenship itself in an era such
as this all require the maximum development of every young
American's capacity. The human mind is our fundamental
resource.''
President Kennedy was speaking then about the aspirations
that gave life to the original Higher Education Act of 1965.
His words rang true then, and they still ring true today. We
can all be proud that with passage of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act, we're recognizing our responsibility to help
all our citizens obtain a higher education, not only to
improve their own lives, but also to strengthen our nation
and our future. I commend all my colleagues and their staff
members on both sides of the aisle for coming together to
make passage of this vital legislation possible.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to add to this. I won't repeat
what Senator Kennedy reminds us are the good things in this bill.
In addition to our empowerment opportunity, which was expanding Pell
grants from $4,800 to $6,000, we are also making sure Pell grants are
available all year long, not just during the academic year, as well as
getting rid of the cronyism in private lending where there were
kickbacks going on between lenders and those at colleges who were
offering it.
In addition to that, one of the things I am very proud of is how we
met two major shortages in our country. Right now, there are the issues
related to the nursing shortage. This bill recognizes the fact that
though there is a nursing shortage, there are now several thousand
people who want to go to nursing school but can't get in because the
nursing schools either have no room, no labs, or no faculty.
Working together, we have been able to pass in this bill a very
significant empowerment opportunity that will expand faculty and
laboratory capacity so that we can crack the nursing shortage code by
making sure all who want to go have the opportunity to go. By the way,
there are 40,000 qualified applicants who could not get into nursing
programs. They were smart enough. They were good enough. There was even
financial aid to help them, but there just wasn't room. But we are
making room for them.
Another issue that we were able to deal with was promoting innovative
and effective teacher preparation programs. Our Nation faces a shortage
of high-quality K-12 teachers, and new approaches are needed to make
sure that every child has an effective teacher. In this legislation, we
create a pipeline for high-quality teachers to teach in high-need
schools by promoting partnerships with teacher education programs in
higher need districts. We hold institutions of higher education
accountable for the quality and progress of their teacher preparation
programs as well as encouraging them with substantial help to develop
alternative certification programs.
The Presiding Officer would be interested to know that on this 25th
anniversary of Sally Ride going into space, neither Dr. Ride nor I
could teach in a Baltimore high school. Dr. Ride has a Ph.D. in
astrophysics, two undergraduate degrees--one in physics and one in
Shakespeare. I have a master's degree in sociology. I think I am
qualified to teach current events but couldn't do it. That is OK. We
should be qualified, but it would be darn hard to get into an
alternative certification program.
I think there is a lot of talent coming out of our military, retired
people who are looking for second careers--an experienced core. We need
to give them an opportunity to come into our college classrooms,
bringing knowledge, expertise, and the kind of mentoring that goes on.
This is what is in this bill. It is not a laundry list of programs. It
is about helping those young people who want to get into school, making
sure we deal with some of the critical shortages facing our country,
and at the same time having empowerment opportunity where we help
important historic institutions, such as our Historically Black
Colleges.
I am going to speak about this bill in more detail, but for now I
wish to yield to Senator Enzi, who has been such an able partner and
who has a particular area of expertise, because of his accounting
background, in the fiscal reforms we did and a real passion for the
community college.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the
conference agreement of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, which
would reauthorize the Higher Education Act. This conference agreement
represents a major victory for America's students and families. I can't
say enough about the tremendous role that Senator Mikulski has played
in getting this wrapped up. I often say, on bills it takes 90 percent
of the time to get the 90 percent done, and the other 10 percent also
takes 90 percent of the time. I think she did a significant job of
cutting that other 90 percent to get the 10 percent done.
My only regret is that Senator Kennedy isn't here to share in this
great moment. He has been working on this with me for 3 years. We
actually worked a little bit on it before that. Without his able help
on this bill and the superb help of his staff, who have continued to
work on it, we wouldn't be in this position today. I will be eternally
grateful, though, that he asked Senator Mikulski to step in and help
out. She has been tireless and has done a phenomenal job. Without her
leadership, we also wouldn't be here at this moment.
This is an important step, and it will have an impact on the lives of
students of all ages for years to come. It is much like the launch just
over 50 years ago of the Sputnik satellite that sparked a great debate
about our place in the space race. The success of Sputnik sent
shockwaves through the Nation. Russia was getting the better of us
technologically, and we couldn't allow that to happen. It sparked a
change in our education policies, and it sparked America to do what it
does best, which is to rise to the challenge with innovation and a
marked determination to be second to none. No longer could we rest on
our past triumphs as a nation. We met the challenge of Sputnik through
the National Defense Education Act.
Today, we are again being challenged but in a different way.
Now, instead of a race for space, it is a race for knowledge and
skills that confronts us. It is a race we dare not lose, for the stakes
this time are even higher. What is at risk is our strong economy. The
solution to this difficult problem is to make a college education more
accessible, more affordable, and more accountable for more Americans.
It is more important than ever to make sure students and their families
have good information to use on making decisions about college.
We find ourselves at a time when 200 of the 230 highest wage, highest
paying, and in-demand jobs require some college education. In this
environment, it is necessary for America's students to be able to
access the tools and assistance they will need to complete their
college education and acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable
them to be successful in the 21st century economy.
Institutions of higher education and employers have expressed their
dissatisfaction with the fact that our high school graduates need
remediation in order to do college-level work or to participate in the
workforce. Each year, taxpayers pay an estimated $1 billion to $2
billion to provide remedial education to students at our public
universities and community colleges. The cost to employers is even
greater.
The legislation before us will take historic steps to provide
students with

[[Page 17628]]

the tools, the means, and the power to get a higher education.
We can all appreciate the complexity of the Federal student aid
system. Filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or
FAFSA, prevents many of our students from even considering college. We
have taken that from multipages down to three pages--incidentally, that
is both sides. One of the significant things is that it has kept people
from even applying for financial aid, and without the financial aid,
they cannot go to college. In 2004, an estimated 850,000 individuals
who would have been eligible for Pell did not file a FAFSA. Completing
bureaucratic financial-aid forms should not be a barrier to thousands
of students who need financial aid to attend college.
This bill breaks down FAFSA to just those necessary questions to
determine a student's financial need. In addition, Federal agencies
will be required to examine and reduce the amount of information needed
to establish eligibility for student aid. We also have included
sunshine and transparency requirements for institutions, lenders, and
guaranty agencies to restore confidence in student loan programs and
eliminate the appearance of inappropriate arrangements.
As important as it is to increase the number of first-time college-
going students, the fact is that nontraditional students are the
students of the future. With seven community colleges in Wyoming, I
know the value of serving adult learners who are returning to college
for additional education and training. This agreement provides Pell
grants for year-round education. You can think of it as 9 months and 3
months off, but people who are in this position need to be able to go
continuously until they get the certification or degree they are
working for. Again, this agreement provides Pell grants for year-round
education, so students can complete their programs more quickly.
One issue I have concerns with is the maintenance of effort
provision. I am worried that it may serve as a disincentive to States
to reasonably allocate resources to higher education. I expect that we
will find the provision unworkable, and we will be back in the future
to make technical changes to fix it. We will leave that for another
day.
For students today, a higher education is no longer optional. Without
a lifetime of education, training, and retraining opportunities for
everyone, we will not meet the 21st century challenges. This historic
piece of legislation goes a long way toward meeting our commitment to
all Americans.
This conference report is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill
and an important accomplishment because we followed the 80/20 rule. We
focused on the 80 percent of the issues we could agree on, not the 20
percent we disagreed on. We also followed the regular order to craft
this bill. It went through committee and was considered on the floor.
The House did the same. Then we met with the House to draft a
conference report. This process takes time, but the result is an
important accomplishment for America's students and their families.
What we are doing today will make a great difference in the lives of
our children and our grandchildren for many years to come.
I thank all of the members of both the Senate and the House
committees, and in particular Senator Kennedy for working toward this
goal for years and keeping his commitment that we would get this done.
Senator Kennedy has long been a champion for education in our country.
He shares my determination that the education we provide to students of
all ages will be second to none. That is a difficult challenge. When he
and I started on this challenge to reauthorize the Higher Education Act
3\1/2\ years ago, we knew there would be many bumps along the way. I
believe we hit every single one of those bumps, but he provided the
kind of leadership in committee, in the Senate, and in the Congress
that made it possible for us to reach this agreement today.
I also thank Senator Mikulski for the key role she played in assuring
that we reached agreement on the bill.
In addition, I acknowledge the tremendous work of Chairman Miller and
Ranking Member McKeon of the House Education and Labor Committee. There
were a tremendous number of meetings between us to work in a very
positive way toward getting to this point.
As well, I thank Congressmen Hinojosa and Keller of the subcommittee.
They helped to shepherd this bill through the House so we could take it
up on the Senate floor.
There are many congressional staff who worked on this conference
report. The breadth and importance of the issues, not to mention the
length of the legislation, requires many people working on it to get it
done.
I have always said that I have a staff worthy of gold medals and my
staff who worked on this bill have shown their gold medal status once
again. I must first acknowledge and thank Beth Buehlmann, my education
policy director. It is no exaggeration to state that without Beth there
would be no Higher Education Act reauthorization bill today. She truly
was the force to start the reauthorization 3 \1/2\ years ago. She
worked tirelessly to ensure that we drafted a bill to reflect the
changing nature of our student bodies as well as to ensure that we, as
a Nation, will maintain our status as having the best education system
in the world. Her team of Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Kelly Hastings,
and Lindsay Hunsicker is comprised of remarkable individuals who
brought their talents and knowledge to the forefront in this bill. I
would also like to thank my staff director, Ilyse Schuman, and Greg
Dean, Amy Shank, Randi Reid, John Hallmark, and Ron Hindle who also put
in many hours and added invaluable input into the bill as well as the
overall process.
I would also like to thank members of Senator Kennedy's staff for
their hard work--Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, JD LaRock, Missy
Rohrbach, Erin Renner, Roberto Rodriquez, and Emma Vadehra.
Additionally, I would like to thank all of the other HELP Committee
staff for their hard work throughout this process, especially David
Cleary and Sarah Rittling of Senator Alexander's subcommittee staff.
Also deserving thanks are our Republican members' staff, including
Allison Dembeck, Celia Sims, Glee Smith, Karen McCarthy, Juliann
Andreen, Alison Anway, John van Meter, and Elizabeth Floyd, as well as
their Democratic staff counterparts. Also, I would like to thank Scott
Raab from Senator McConnell's office for helping us work through some
of the more difficult issues in the negotiations.
Also deserving my gratitude is the House staff including Mark
Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Gabriella Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel
with Chairman Miller's staff and Sally Stroup, James Bergeron, and Amy
Jones with Mr. McKeon's staff.
Also, with any piece of legislation that we draft, we should not
forget the legislative counsels in both bodies who worked tirelessly to
put this 1,000 plus page agreement together--Steve Cope, Molly
Lothamer, Mark Koster, Kristin Romero, and Amy Gaynor--who all deserve
to be recognized.
I look forward to getting the conference report to President Bush for
his signature soon so that students and their families who are making
plans to attend college this fall will have the benefits of this bill
to help them.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico, a member of the HELP Committee, who played a
significant role in crafting this bill as it moved through our
committee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask, through the
Chair, the Senator from Maryland if I might speak after the Senator
from New Mexico.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If I may say to the Senator two things. One, I believe
the agreement is that we have from----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Maryland has
50 minutes and the Senator from Wyoming has 30 minutes. The Senator
from Tennessee has 30 minutes.

[[Page 17629]]

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our order of agreement was that after
Senator Enzi spoke, we would take 10 minutes for Senator Bingaman and
Senator Reed. If Senator Reed is not here, we can then see how we can
accommodate the Senator from Tennessee. The Senator from Tennessee was
to go after the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. I can wait until there is available time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Gregory Simon

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
devastating loss that Bob Simon and the Simon family suffered today
with the loss of their beloved son and brother Gregory. Bob has been
the staff director of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for
nearly 10 years, and worked with me in other capacities for a number of
years before that. During that period, Bob has gone through harrowing
times both personally and professionally. He has always handled these
times with grace, strength, and his own personal brand of dry humor.
Bob, his wife Karen, and their three other children--Stephen, Cathryn,
and Anne-Marie--have spent countless hours at Gregory's bedside since
Gregory fell ill on July 10, exactly 3 weeks ago, and throughout that
time, they have shown extraordinary courage. Their devotion to Gregory
reflects their devotion to one another as a family.
Greg was a really inquisitive, artistic, creative individual. He
always drew cartoons and comics. He didn't like math. He looked exactly
like Bob except with blond hair. He had Bob's temperament--he was such
a positive young man.
Gregory was always small for his age, but he refused to let his
stature get in the way of anything he wanted to do. He was a fighter,
and he fought valiantly for the last 3 weeks. In the end, though, the
odds were too great to overcome, and Gregory died at the age of 16.
Mr. President, there are no words that can properly capture the pain
the Simons must feel now, and no words we can say that can truly
provide comfort. The best we can do is be sure that those who are
bereaved know that they have our love and our prayers, and so we send
both in great measure to the Simon family.
Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about the legislation
that is before the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report on this Higher
Education Opportunity Act. The title to the legislation indicates that
the bill is about providing greater opportunities for families to send
their children to college and greater opportunities for students to
succeed in and graduate from college.
I particularly thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their
untiring commitment and dedication to the college students of this
country. Of course, I thank Senator Mikulski as well for her leadership
in getting this legislation to the Senate floor for a vote this
evening.
Only 1 year after passing the largest student aid package in more
than 50 years, this body is poised to pass legislation that will take
the next step to make college more affordable and accessible to
students and their families. There are many important provisions in the
bill, but I will highlight just one provision in particular.
Native American enrollment in postsecondary education more than
doubled between 1976 and 2002, with almost 166,000 Native American
students enrolled in higher education. Student enrollment in tribally
controlled colleges and universities has increased in recent years to
almost 16,000 students in 2002.
It is important to note the critical role tribally controlled
colleges play in educating Native American students and the unique
educational opportunity these schools offer Native American students.
We need to continue to do all we can to strengthen and support those
schools. But that means that approximately 150,000 Native American
students are enrolled in higher education in non-tribally controlled
colleges.
We know, unfortunately, that Native American students are still much
less likely to enroll in college than their peers. Only 18 percent of
Native American students have enrolled in college, as compared to 42
percent of other students. We also know, however, that Native American
students are less likely to persist once in college. And 77 percent of
Native Americans did not have a postsecondary certificate or degree, as
compared with 37 percent of others.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act, the bill before us today,
addresses the reality that the overwhelming majority of Native American
students are being educated in non-tribally controlled colleges and
universities and that we need to do a better job to support these
students within these schools. This legislation authorizes the Native
American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program to enable such
colleges to improve and expand their capacity to serve these Native
American and low-income individuals.
Right now, there are 43 colleges and universities that serve large
Native American student populations. In my State, we have three such
schools that serve large Native American student populations. In fact,
the student population at the University of New Mexico at Gallup, NM,
is close to 80 percent Native American.
Native American students in New Mexico would not be the only students
to benefit from this provision. Colleges and universities around the
country would also qualify in other States, including schools in
Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, North Carolina, and Utah. Out of the 43
schools that could be eligible to benefit from the provisions in this
legislation, 24 of the schools are located in the State of Oklahoma.
I am very pleased this provision has garnered strong bipartisan
support. It is a part of this very important legislation.
I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for a long overdue
graduate program for Hispanic-serving institutions.
I thank the chairman and Senator Enzi for their strong support of
these provisions. I urge my colleagues to support the conference
report.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, following our agreement and time
allocation, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island--the
other Senator from Rhode Island, the senior Senator, Senator Jack Reed,
also a member of the HELP Committee. He is a very persistent person in
engaging in the content of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for not only the
time to speak about this important measure but for her leadership. I
particularly wish to recognize the extraordinary contribution of
Senator Kennedy who has been the architect of this legislation and many
previous reauthorizations. And I wish to give particular thanks to
Senator Enzi whose quiet, thoughtful, and determined approach made a
contribution to this legislation. I thank him for his hard work.
I rise in strong support of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of
2008. It will be an important way in which we fulfill our obligation to
the American people, and keep opportunity and hope alive throughout
this country. Education is truly the engine that pulls people forward.
It allows individuals and families to move up the economic ladder, and
not only for their own progress, but also for the benefit of the
communities in which they live.
This might be one of the most important pieces of legislation we ever
considered on this floor. I am proud it has been so well handled and so
meaningful that today we are debating legislation which I believe will
get overwhelming support. I am particularly pleased it is being
reauthorized at this time. We have seen an economy in turmoil. One of
the realizations that is taking place is that the housing sector of our
economy is so central to everything we do. I can imagine, as we all
can, that there are literally hundreds of thousands of

[[Page 17630]]

families across America who are counting on the equity in their homes
to send their son or daughter to college. That equity has been
diminished, if it has not disappeared altogether.
Today we are responding to that urgent need by providing more
assistance to families to send their children to higher education. I am
particularly pleased the aspects of the legislation I helped author are
included in this final version. I introduced legislation called the
FAFSA Act, which is the acronym for the federal financial aid form, to
streamline the financial aid application process. There will now be a
short EZ-FAFSA form for low-income students and families while also
allowing students to apply earlier so they have an idea of what their
financial options are as they consider college. These provisions will
make the sometimes daunting task of getting financial aid, I hope, a
little easier and a little more efficient.
I am also pleased that aspects of my legislation called the ACCESS
Act have been included. This legislation deals primarily with the LEAP
program. The LEAP program is a partnership between States and the
Federal Government to provide grants to students who need the help--not
loans, but grants. The States put in some resources; we match those
resources. It is a way in which we can fulfill our commitment and our
promise to many low-income families. This legislation builds on the
LEAP program by providing critical additional financial resources,
particularly resources and that will be useful for helping middle- and
low-income families attend college.
We are all concerned about another aspect of our educational system,
and that is teacher quality. This legislation incorporates some other
provisions which I advanced that will help prepare teachers for the
reality of today's classroom. I am very pleased they are included also.
We also included in this legislation a Perkins student loan
forgiveness for librarians and for members of the Armed Forces. The
Perkins program provides need-based loan assistance for students
attending college. We are going to forgive the debt on that loan
assistance for librarians and members of our armed services.
This is a wonderful act. I am pleased and proud to support it and be
a part of it. I once again thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and
Senator Mikulski for their great work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, do I understand I have up to 30
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may
bring demonstrative evidence on the floor and use it during my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in case anyone is wondering, these
boxes, which are nearly as tall as I am, are the rules and regulations
that our 6,000 colleges and universities must comply with in order to
receive students who have a Federal grant or loan. As I will make clear
in my remarks, my primary objection to the legislation I am about to
address is that the legislation doubles the size of this stack of
boxes. My fear is we are undermining the quality of American higher
education. The greatest threat, I believe, to American higher education
is not underfunding, it is overregulation.
Before I say that, let me first say a word, as has been said before,
about Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Mikulski. While they
have, among themselves, different philosophical views, I regard each of
them as institutions whom I greatly admire. In other words, they like
to work within this body across party lines to get a result. I thank
both Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski for the courtesy accorded me in
the development of this result. And as every other Member of this body
does, I greatly admire Senator Kennedy for his tenacity and his
commitment to education. Obviously, we wish he were here tonight to
join us.
Because I admire Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski and Senator
Enzi does not mean I have to admire the particular result of this work.
After 4 years, the Senate has spewed forth a well-intentioned
contraption of unnecessary rules and regulations that waste time and
money that ought to be spent on students and improving quality. It
confirms my belief that the greatest threat to the quality of American
higher education is not underfunding, it is overregulation.
Current Federal rules for the 6,000 higher education institutions
that accept students with Federal grants or loans fill a stack of boxes
that is nearly as tall as I am. The former President of Stanford,
Gerhard Casper, estimated that it cost these institutions from Harvard
to the Nashville Auto Diesel College 7 cents of each federal dollar to
do all the busy work to fill out these regulations.
The legislation which we are considering tonight doubles those rules
and regulations with 24 new categories and 100 new reporting
requirements. These new requirements include a total of 54 so-called
college watch lists which I believe will be too confusing for families
to understand, and complicated rules involving textbooks which only
will prove that Members of Congress have no idea about how faculty
members prepare their courses.
Most of these complications of rules, graduation rates in 48
different categories, disaggregation of student reporting dates by 14
racial, ethnic, and income subgroups, employment of graduates of
institutions will leave college administrators scratching their heads
and create thousands of new jobs for people who know how to fill out
forms.
All of this will be put on the Web, I suppose, and most of it will be
sent to Washington, DC, for someone to read. Having once been the
Secretary of Education myself, I do not know who will read all these
new regulations and all these new reports, and I don't know what they
would do about them if they did read them.
The American higher education system is far from perfect, but it is
one thing in our country that works and it works well. It is our secret
weapon in maintaining our brain power advantage so we can keep our
higher standard of living and keep our jobs from going overseas.
The United States not only has the best colleges and universities in
the world, it has almost all of the best colleges and universities in
the world. Some are big, some are small, some are public, some are
private, some are profit, some are nonprofit. They are community
colleges, historically Black colleges and church-affiliated
institutions.
Tuitions range from $50,000 a year at some private institutions to an
average of $6,200 a year for 4-year public institutions, to $2,400 for
community colleges. In Tennessee, some cities are even making community
college free.
Their foremost advantage, the advantage of all these 6,000
institutions, is that in a rapidly changing world, these 6,000
autonomous institutions are flexible and able to meet the needs of
their student customers.
Federal support for higher education goes almost all to these
students. It does not go to the institutions. A little of it does, but
almost all of it goes to the students who then choose the schools,
forcing the institutions to compete, stay flexible and meet real needs.
That is the precisely opposite way we fund kindergarten through the
12th grade. We give the money to elementary and secondary institutions,
tending to freeze them into whatever they have been doing for the last
50 years.
We can compare the success of our higher education system with the
lack of success of our K through 12 system and wonder whether the
reason might not be that in higher education, we focus on autonomy,
choice, and competition.
Generous research dollars in higher education are for the most part
competitively awarded, which also helps to keep the institutions on
their toes.
The rest of the world is busy trying to emulate the American system
of higher education, which means other countries are creating more
autonomy,

[[Page 17631]]

more choices, and more competition. Yet here we are in the Senate today
cluttering up our secret weapon with the same bureaucratic nonsense
that has stifled excellence in universities in other parts of the world
and will do it here if these trends are not reversed.
There is a great deal of beating of breasts about how much good this
bill does to address the problem of college costs. It is ironic that
the same legislation would add to tuition costs by imposing unnecessary
regulations. And it is especially ironic that the very Members of
Congress who are complaining the most about rising tuition costs fail
to see that at least for public institutions, which about 70 percent of
our students attend, Members of Congress are the cause of the rising
costs. This is why it is true that State support for higher education
has been low during this decade.
Between 2000 and 2006, State spending for higher education increased
by only 17 percent, while tuition at public institutions during that
time was up 63 percent. It is also true that the reason tuition costs
are up is that State spending is down.
But what Members of Congress seem to be missing is that the principal
reason State support of higher education is down is because Congress
has mandated that States pay so much for programs such as Medicaid or
fail to meet their commitments to programs like the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. When the Governors and legislatures
are through paying for the mandates for Medicaid or to make up the lack
of the Federal Government's commitment to IDEA, there is very little
left for higher education.
When Federal requirements for Medicaid dictate that State spending
for Medicaid goes up 7 or 8 percent a year when the overall State
budget is only going up 3 or 4 percent a year, the money has to come
from somewhere. States have to balance their budgets, and in State
after State, the money has been coming from higher education. That was
true in Tennessee during the 1980s, when I was the Governor, and it is
even more true today.
During the 1980s, my major goal was to try to help us to spend at
least 50 percent of our State tax dollar on education. My major
adversary was Federal Medicaid. While I ultimately did succeed in
getting to 50 cents, I had to squeeze it and push it and try to control
it, and still it grew faster than everything else in the State budget.
I was able to do that then because Medicaid and other health services
were only about 15 cents of the State tax dollar. But by this decade,
2003 and 2004, the number was 40 percent of the State tax dollars in
Tennessee went to education, not 50, and 31 cents went to Medicaid and
health services. I am confident most of the cutting came out of higher
education, which resulted in most of the tuition increases so the
universities could operate and pay their bills.
I would respectfully suggest that we in Congress need to start along
two completely different tracks if we want to retain the autonomy,
competition, and choice that has led to quality and access to American
higher education. First, we need to deregulate, not overregulate higher
education. Cut this stack of rules and regulations in half and use the
time and the money for students and for academic excellence.
Second, we need to stop loading State budgets with so many unfunded
Federal mandates. For example, if Congress were to fully fund IDEA, the
program for students with disabilities, at 40 percent of its cost,
which is what Congress said it would do in the 1970s, that would add
$250 million to Tennessee's revenue stream. I am sure much of this
would go straight to higher education, whose annual budget is about
$1.2 billion.
More importantly, we need to give States more flexibility in dealing
with Medicaid costs and give them an opportunity to take steps to make
it easier to free themselves from outdated Federal Court consent
decrees, which restrict the ability of Governors and legislators to
direct money to higher education priorities. Then, of course, there is
the REAL ID, another $4 billion in unfunded mandates for the States,
and out of which pot do you think the States might take that? Higher
education would be my guess. Most Governors and legislators can point
to many more unfunded Federal mandates.
These two steps are the best way to drive down college costs and to
maintain academic excellence.
There are major accomplishments in this bill, some of which I have
worked on and of which I am proud. They include simplifying the Federal
student aid form and allowing year-round Pell grants for students
making progress toward a degree. There is a new compliance calendar,
which the Secretary of Education will be required to develop, that will
set forth all of the reports and the disclosures required under the
Higher Education Act. I am proud to say I suggested that. In other
words, the new Secretary of Education will have to make a calendar
listing every single report that has to be complied with, so the small
Catholic college in Baltimore might not have to hire three more people
in to go through this growing stack of requirements.
I authored the restrictions prohibiting the Secretary of Education
from regulating student learning standards or requiring accreditors to
adopt specific measures of learning assessment, which would have been
additional federalizing of our 6,000 autonomous institutions.
There is an accountability research grant in this bill to focus
attention on institutions making progress in measuring student
achievement and asking the advisory committee, which has already done
such good work in simplifying the student application form, to review
this stack of growing Federal regulations. I also sponsored the new
discretionary grant program for Teach for America.
All these actions in this bill are for the good, as is the increase
in the availability of Pell grants for students who need help attending
college. But I cannot support a piece of legislation that so undermines
the excellence in higher education that comes from institutional
autonomy.
I would like to offer a few letters and statements, and I ask
unanimous consent they be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the first of these is a release today
from the National Governors Association, which points out that
Governors are responsible for making funding decisions that serve the
best interests of all citizens. The Governors, in their release, say:

Maintenance of effort undermines governors' authority and
guarantees students and their families will be writing larger
not smaller tuition checks in the future. This is not the
answer to affordable higher education. Governors oppose the
higher education bill because of the negative impacts of the
maintenance of effort and implore Congress to vote against
it.

We had a vote on stripping out the maintenance-of-effort bill, but I
lost that by one vote in the conference committee. Basically, what it
says is that Members of the Senate and the House will substitute their
judgment for that of Governors and State legislators. My suggestion was
that if we are going to pass a bill and take credit for requiring
States to spend more money on higher education, whether or not they
have other priorities, then we might as well also go back down to our
State capitals and join in the pain and suggest to the Governors whom
to lay off or what school to close or what mental hospital to limit or
what tax to raise because of our requirement about higher education
maintenance of effort.
The second letter I would like to include in the Record comes from
the commissioner of the Department of Finance and Administration in
Nashville. Our Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen, who has done a great
many good things for higher education during his 6 years, is in the
midst of a budget crisis. He is reacting to the very idea that during
the midst of that, when he is laying off employees and making cuts in
virtually every program, that we would take it upon ourselves to say
that if he doesn't increase funding for higher education, we are

[[Page 17632]]

going to cut his Federal funding. All when we ourselves are one of the
reasons he is having a hard time funding higher education, because of
all our unfunded mandates.
The third letter I would like to include is from the chancellor of
Vanderbilt University in Nashville, one of our most distinguished
research universities and one of which I am proud to be an alumnus. It
is a well-modulated letter, as you would expect from the chancellor of
Vanderbilt. The letter argues very eloquently why the autonomy,
competition, and choice that characterizes excellence in higher
education is so important and so fragile and needs to be respected by
us as we pass higher education bills, rather than to use a blunderbuss
and start stacking boxes and boxes of regulations on institutions such
as Vanderbilt.
Why do we think we can do a better job in the Senate making
Vanderbilt University a better university by complying with all this
stuff, when it takes money that might be used to educate the students
and improve academic excellence? They already have deans, vice
chancellors, provosts, chancellors, and a board of trustees. If they
are a public institution, they have a Governor, they have a higher
education commission. They have plenty of overseers. They do not need
us.
Two other letters, one from the president of Duke University, office
of the president, Richard Brodhead, an equally thoughtful letter about
the Federal role in higher education. I might say that North Carolina
has done one of the best jobs of any State in accountability for higher
education.
No one is doubting we need accountability for the money the Federal
Government spends. As I mentioned earlier, the dollars we spend for
research, tens of millions a year, are made accountable by being
competitively granted, for the most part. The dollars we spend for
colleges and universities don't go to the colleges and universities,
they go to the students, and the students choose the school. If they do
not like the school or the cost of the school, they may go to another
school. Each of those schools has to be accredited before the student
can choose the school. That has been a marvelous system for helping to
give autonomous institutions the freedom to be good, while at the same
time allowing for accountability for the money we spend.
Finally, two letters that were written to Senator Isakson of Georgia.
One is from the president of the University of Georgia, Mike Adams, who
was president of two other colleges before he was president of the
University of Georgia. A distinguished educator. Georgia, of course, is
one of our distinguished public universities in America.
Finally, a letter from the President of Emory University, James
Wagner, and the president of Georgia Tech, Gary Schuster, to Senator
Isakson, making the same objections.
As I said at the beginning, I admire my colleagues, I admire their 4
years of hard work, and I admire their commitment to a result. My hope
would be we could go on two different tracks from here. One would be to
look for ways to deregulate higher education, not add regulations to
it. Realize that in America, where we are worrying that this might work
or that might work, our system of higher education, with all its warts,
is the best in the world. The rest of the world is trying to emulate
it. Its greatest threat, in terms of its quality, is overregulation,
not underfunding.
That leads me to the second track we go on. I hope we will be careful
as Members of Congress that if we have a great idea for States, that we
don't pass it and send them the bill. Because I know from having been
Governor and having been president of a university and having been
Secretary of Education, and seeing it in different areas. As a Governor
making up a budget, it's pretty well set that you start with K-12. That
is pretty well set. He then goes to prisons, and that is probably in
the courts. Then he does mental health. That might be in the courts
too. Then he or she goes to highways, and that comes from the gas tax.
Then they are pretty well down to the choice between Medicaid and
higher education. I can guarantee you that if we continue to increase
requirements for funding of higher education at the State level, at the
rate of 7, 8 or 9 percent a year, when State budgets are only going up
2 or 3 or 4 percent a year, we will significantly reduce the quality of
our State universities and colleges. We will significantly increase the
tuition costs that we say in this bill we would like to lower.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association Statement on Higher Education Bill

governors Say Inclusion of Maintenance of Effort Will Raise Tuition for
Students

Washington.--The National Governors Association released
the following statement regarding the impending vote on the
Higher Education Reauthorization bill:
``The nation's governors are committed to providing
students in their states with affordable access to higher
education and agree that the reauthorization of the Higher
Education bill is a priority. However, inclusion of the
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provision in the bill has
negative implications for states; therefore governors oppose
the passage of the conference report with this provision.
``Governors must balance their budgets in both good and bad
economic times. This mandate means that states will be unable
to make major increases or invest one-time surpluses in
higher education during good times because they will be
penalized if forced to reduce spending during difficult
times. In the end, this will increase the cost of college for
students and their families.
``Governors are responsible for making funding decisions
that serve the best interest of all their citizens. MOE
undermines governors' authority and guarantees that students
and their families will be writing larger, not smaller,
tuition checks in the future. This is not the answer to
affordable higher education. Governors oppose the higher
education bill because of the negative impacts of the
maintenance of effort and implore Congress to vote against
it.''
____

State of Tennessee,

Department of Finance and Administration, State Capitol,

Nashville, TN, July 29, 2008.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
United States Senate, Via Email.
Dear Senator Alexander, The State of Tennessee shares your
concerns with regard to the MOE mandate provided in the
higher education bill and appreciates your efforts in
defending our state interests. These restrictions on a
state's ability to manage its way through a fiscal downturn
would be a terrible mistake.
Under Governor Bredesen's leadership, we have made public
education a priority. We know sufficient funding is critical
to achieving success in primary, secondary and higher
education. During the good economic times, we've increased
funding for higher education operating costs and put over $1
billion into capital projects.
However, when times are tough economically, we have to
share the downside. When budget cuts have been necessary,
education programs were always last to be considered.
Unfortunately, Governor Bredesen has experienced two very
tough budget fiscal years during his six years in office, FY
2003/2004 and FY 2008/2009. The severe problems required some
base reductions in higher education's operating budgets. In
FY 2003-04 there was a 9 percent base reduction of
$101,327,200. In the current fiscal year, we were facing a
$464 million total shortfall, and again had to ask higher
education to do its part. As a result, higher education
received a base reduction in its operating budget of $55.8
million. These reductions were not made lightly. However, our
constitution requires us to balance, and in a relatively poor
state, we have no choice but to spread the reductions as
broadly as possible.
Our economy remains uncertain. We already face numerous
restrictions on the state's ability to manage from our
federal partner. An MOE mandate that reduces our flexibility
even further is not warranted. We appreciate your efforts to
oppose this measure.
Warmest Regards,
M. D. Goetz, Jr.,
Commissioner.
____

Vanderbilt University,

July 23, 2008.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: After nearly five years of work and
ten years since the last reauthorization, I understand that
the Higher Education Act reauthorization is nearly complete.
It has been a long process, and I commend the Congress for
its fortitude to enact the bill this year. My regret is that
this final product is not one that I can be proud to share
with the Vanderbilt campus.
As a new chancellor, I have the luxury, or some would say
misfortune, of only seeing the end result of the past five
years of negotiations. When I accepted the position as
Vanderbilt's chancellor, I did so knowing that my first and
most important priority is, and always will be, our students.
Vanderbilt's mission states:

[[Page 17633]]

Vanderbilt University is a center for scholarly research,
informed and creative teaching, and service to the community
and society at large. Vanderbilt will uphold the highest
standards and be a leader in the: quest for new knowledge
through scholarship; dissemination of knowledge through
teaching and outreach; creative experimentation of ideas and
concepts.
In pursuit of these goals, Vanderbilt values most highly:
intellectual freedom that supports open inquiry; equality,
compassion, and excellence in all endeavors.
With this mission in mind, I have been evaluating the
conference agreement for the Higher Education Act. While
there are provisions in this agreement that will support and
enhance our mission, there are many other provisions that
deeply trouble me and, I think, have the potential to
profoundly threaten our ability to be a ``center for
scholarly research, informed and creative teaching, and
service to the community and society at large.''
I believe you share my view that at the heart of the
American system of higher education are its autonomy and its
great diversity. What works for Vanderbilt may not work for
Rhodes College, MTSU, Volunteer State Community College, or
any other school in Tennessee. I firmly believe that
increased federal intrusion into higher education would
fundamentally and irreparably damage our system of
postsecondary education. For these reasons, I am saddened to
conclude that Vanderbilt cannot wholeheartedly endorse this
conference agreement. However, before I enumerate the reasons
for our reservations, I would be remiss in did not
acknowledge and applaud the Congress--and you in particular--
for preserving institutional autonomy with respect to the
accreditation process. As you know, this has been our top
priority throughout the reauthorization, and we are extremely
pleased by the final outcome on this issue. Vanderbilt
strongly supports an institution's ability to choose how it
will demonstrate success with respect to student achievement
as well as the standards by which such achievement is
measured. We have consistently opposed any effort to make
accrediting agencies agents of the federal government; in
particular, we believe that the Secretary of Education should
not be able to regulate in this area. This responsibility
must lie with individual institutions.
The issue of accreditation is of such paramount concern to
Vanderbilt that, had this not been adequately addressed, we
would have strongly considered opposing the entire agreement.
We are grateful that we do not have to take this drastic
action, and we have you--and your staff--to thank for this.
Without your unyielding persistence on the matter of
institutional autonomy with respect to accreditation, the
outcome would have been far different. Vanderbilt is
immensely proud to call you one of our own and is indebted to
you and your staff for your efforts.
Nonetheless, there is a lengthy list of provisions with
which we have serious concerns. We recognize that many
Members and staff have worked diligently on this legislation
for years, and we regret that more reasonable language was
not agreed upon.
Chief among our concerns are the countless number of new
regulations with which universities are going to be forced to
comply, covering such topics as peer-to-peer file sharing,
campus emergency notifications, data on alumni, charitable
gifts, student diversity, immunization records, missing
person reports, and lobbying efforts. These new regulations
will place an immense burden on institutions and carry with
them a heavy implementation price tag. At the same time that
we are trying to rein in costs, we are facing spiraling
expenses associated with complying with federal regulations.
Overregulation of higher education institutions threatens the
core of what makes our system successful--its autonomy and
its diversity.
We also remain concerned about provisions that could lead
us along the path toward federal price controls through the
creation of innumerable ``Watch Lists;'' a mandatory
Department of Education developed net price calculator;
mandatory ``Quality and Efficiency Task Forces;'' projecting
future tuition; and reporting on tuition based on income
categories. Vanderbilt is committed to ensuring that every
admitted student can afford to attend Vanderbilt, regardless
of their financial situation and regardless of what the
``sticker price'' is. We are very proud of the fact that we
meet 100 percent of a student's demonstrated financial need.
Finally, provisions related to textbook prices continue to
concern us. Requirements that ISBN numbers for textbooks be
disclosed in course catalogs are, frankly, unworkable as many
courses have not finalized their textbooks at the time the
catalog is printed. We recognize that textbook costs have
grown considerably and are committed to finding ways to
address this; federal requirements and a ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach, again, fail to recognize the immense
diversity of our nation's colleges and universities.
In short, other than the accreditation language, there is
very little to support in this final agreement. Ultimately,
in my estimation, this bill will do more harm than good for
the students it purports to serve. Legislation that hampers
an institution's ability to educate its students threatens
our institutional mission. I am deeply troubled that the
conferees will agree to this woefully misguided legislation,
and I worry about how it will be implemented and the
ramifications of that implementation. Therefore, I urge you
to think carefully about whether this is the direction we
want to take postsecondary education and whether this
legislation supports the fundamental nature of our system of
higher education.
Thank you again for your strong and principled leadership
on so many issues about which we care deeply.
Sincerely,
Nicholas S. Zeppos,
Chancellor.
____

Duke University,

Office of the President,

Durham, NC, May 28, 2008.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael Enzi,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. George Miller,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Representative Miller
and Representative McKeon: As you work to complete conference
consideration of the Higher Education Act (REA)
reauthorization, I write to add my voice to those expressing
concern about a number of issues your committees are facing
as you finalize this important legislation.
I appreciate the time and thoughtful consideration you and
members of your staff have devoted to the REA bill. Two years
ago I wrote the North Carolina congressional delegation
urging our representatives to vote against the House version
of the REA because of the significant steps the legislation
took toward eroding the role of trustees in institutional
governance and the longstanding, successful relationship
between the federal government and institutions of higher
education. While the current legislation is somewhat more
palatable, I fear that it still represents a major intrusion
and regulatory encumbrance for higher education and that the
proportion of bureaucracy relative to public value will be
extremely high.
Please allow me to highlight several troublesome provisions
that I urge you to revise or eliminate before the bill moves
forward:
It is apparent that you have taken our concerns about the
inappropriateness of unnecessary federal control of
accreditation seriously. Including language that limits the
authority of the Secretary of Education from prescribing
standards and otherwise regulating measures of student
achievement success is welcome. But, the language is not
restrictive enough. I urge you to modify it specifically to
prevent the Secretary from regulating standards for faculty,
facilities, equipment, supplies, student services and the
fiscal and administrative capacity of institutions.
Duke takes the accreditation process with great
seriousness, and we use what we learn from our intensive
self-study, as well as external evaluations, to help guide
the high quality of the educational experiences we offer our
students. Duke is currently in the midst of its decennial
review with the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association--of Colleges and Universities (SACS). I am
impressed with the thoughtful questions the SACS team asks of
us regarding a wide range of issues. Maintaining this quasi-
independent system of assessment and assurance of quality is
an important contribution to the unique success of American
higher education. While there are areas of accreditation that
may need some tinkering, it is not role, nor is it wise
public policy, to have the responsibility of institutional
trustees and accreditation usurped by federal intrusion. I
urge you to fully close the door on the Secretary's ability
to dictate the measurement of standards that should remain
outside the scope of the federal government's responsibility
in higher education.
At a time when institutions are struggling to find ways to
reduce administrative costs, I am struck by the number of new
reporting requirements in the bill, which inevitably will
lead to greater bureaucracy both at the institution and at
the Department of Education. For example, the reporting of
graduation rates in 48 different student categories gives
pause and raises questions about the usefulness of such
information.
Penalizing institutions for increasing tuition by requiring
a report to the Department of Education about cost reducing
strategies is an egregious notion, at best. There is little
doubt that the quality of the educational experience Duke
provides does not come cheap. Our trustees invest in
progressive and aggressive financial aid programs to make a
Duke education affordable to the more than 40 percent of Duke
students who receive financial aid under Duke's need-blind
admissions policy. In the coming year alone, we are budgeting
more than $86 million from institutional funds to help ensure
that no admitted student is denied access to the Duke

[[Page 17634]]

educational experience for financial reasons. Our trustees
have developed over time both policies and procedures to
ensure that the university's budget--including our tuition
and financial aid programs--is consistent with the mission of
the university. Inserting the Department of Education into
this conversation eats away at the delineation between
governmental responsibility and institutional autonomy.
Please remove this provision.
Along those same lines, the proposed requirement to provide
non-binding, multi-year estimates of future tuition and fee
levels, is misleading and inappropriate. In order for this to
be of minimal assistance to an entering student, each
institution of higher education would need to forecast every
individual student's financial situation in advance. Each
year we reassess all of our students' financial aid packages
to make sure we are meeting each student's demonstrated need.
If their financial situation changes during the year--for
instance if their mother loses her job or wins the lottery--
the aid package is appropriately adjusted. We simply can't
predict what will happen to the, student, nor can we predict
the needs of the university as far in advance as the proposed
legislation would require.
There is much in the proposed REA that will benefit
students, their families, and institutions of higher
education, and I applaud the Congress for these positive
steps. As the bill works its way to passage, I urge you and
your colleagues to reconsider the inappropriate regulatory
burden that will be placed on institutions of higher
education if this legislation passes as currently written.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Brodhead.
____

The University of Georgia,

Office of the President,

Athens, GA, July 16, 2008.
Hon. Johnny Isakson,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Isakson: As conference consideration of the
Higher Education Act Reauthorization progresses, I would like
to take the opportunity to comment on the latest draft of the
proposed legislation.
As you know, we have followed the process to reauthorize
the Higher Education Act very closely. We at the University
of Georgia appreciate that, during this process, you have
been an advocate for higher education nationally as well as
for our institution and the University System of Georgia.
In the latest draft, many improvements have been made,
particularly in the areas of accreditation, teacher education
reporting, and collection of data on alumni. While such
improvements are laudable, the legislation, in its current
form, still represents a major intrusion and regulatory
burden for higher education.
It is always difficult to balance the need for transparency
in the educational process with the burdens associated with
new regulations. In a time of declining state funds for
higher education and a need to reduce administrative costs, I
am concerned about the wisdom of creating new unfunded
mandates for reporting data from our universities. Many of
the new requirements contained in the draft of this bill are
unnecessary and/or duplicative, and they would impose
significant compliance costs in exchange for little, if any,
benefit. I fear these reporting requirements will lead to
greater bureaucracy both at the institution level and at the
Department of Education.
Please allow me to highlight a few troublesome areas that
UGA and other members of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges are seeking to revise or
eliminate before the bill moves forward:
College Costs and Transparency: The proposed ``watch''
lists in Title I of the bill for institutions that must raise
tuition; the reporting requirements related to the lists; and
the proposed provisions in Title VIII of the bill (Tierney
provisions) that would establish new requirements for costs
reporting and reducing net tuition. All of these could be
simplified, and Section 830 of the conference legislation
would place additional reporting requirements on institutions
with respect to costs and is inconsistent with the cost
provisions of Title I.
Multi-year Tuition Price Estimates: The Murphy-Myrick
Amendment would require institutions to publish non-binding,
multi-year estimates of future tuition and fee levels.
Although ``non-binding,'' these figures would create the
potential for ill will between universities and prospective
students if the state of the economy or other events force
institutions to take action. As you know, tuition at state
universities is inextricably linked to funding from the
state. This provision is fundamentally flawed and should be
addressed.
New Reporting Requirements: This legislation would impose a
host of new reporting requirements on colleges and
universities that would be virtually impossible to meet. For
example, the bill would require universities to obtain
information on alumni employment, salary, and graduate
education. Such data is very valuable, but we cannot compel
graduates to report it.
Student Diversity and Graduation Rates Reporting
Requirements: Institutions would be required to report to the
Department of Education the percentage of enrolled, full-time
students who are male, female, Pell Grant-eligible, and self-
identified members of a major racial or ethnic group. These
categories would also be applied to existing reporting of
graduation rates. Institutions would have to report
graduation rates in no fewer than 48 separate categories. To
determine Pell Grant eligibility, institutions would have to
demand private financial information.
Peer-to-Peer File Sharing/Copyright Infringement
Requirements: Institutions would be required to disclose
``the development of plans to detect and prevent unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted material on the institution's
information technology system, which shall, to the extent
practicable, include offering alternatives to illegal
downloading.'' Although our institutions offer alternatives
to illegal downloading, the technology simply does not exist
to prevent all unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
material on our IT systems.
While it has the potential to benefit students, their
families, and institutions of higher education, the
regulatory requirements and the additional costs relative to
benefits are such that I would recommend that you vote
against this bill. We hope for a better version to come along
shortly.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Adams,
President.
____

Emory University,

Office of the President,

Atlanta, GA, July 14, 2008.
Hon. Johnny Isakson,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Isakson: As conference consideration of the
Higher Education Act Reauthorization progresses, we
respectfully write to offer our comments on the latest draft
of the proposed legislation.
As you are aware, we have followed very closely the process
to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. We appreciate that,
during this process, you have been an advocate for higher
education nationally as well as in the state of Georgia.
Specifically, we have been pleased with improvements in the
areas of accreditation, teacher education reporting, and
collection of income data.
While improvements have been made, the legislation in its
current form represents a major intrusion and regulatory
encumbrance for higher education. At a time when institutions
of higher education are struggling to find ways to reduce
administrative costs, we are gravely concerned about the
collective weight of these new federal requirements. The
draft bill would significantly increase the number of federal
requirements with which universities must comply. Many of the
new proposed requirements are unnecessary and/or duplicative,
and they would impose significant compliance costs in
exchange for little, if any, benefit. We fear these reporting
requirements will lead to greater bureaucracy both at the
institution level and at the Department of Education.
Please allow us to highlight several other troublesome
areas that we hope can be revised or eliminated before the
bill moves forward:
College Costs: The proposed 400 ``watch'' lists in Title I
of the bill; the reporting requirements related to the lists;
and the proposed provisions in Title VIII of the bill
(Tierney provisions) that would establish new requirements
for costs reporting and reducing net tuition should be
simplified. The proposed reporting requirements in Title I
and Title VIII of the bill would require ``high-cost''
institutions to form cost efficiency task forces and issue
reports to the Department describing actions they are taking
to reduce costs and net tuition.
Tuition Price Estimates: The Murphy-Myrick Amendment would
require institutions to publish non-binding, multi-year
estimates of future tuition and fee levels. In order for this
to be of even minimal assistance to an entering student, each
institution of higher education would need to forecast every
individual student's financial situation in advance.
Furthermore, public universities are highly dependent on
state funding, making such estimates nearly impossible.
Alumni Reporting Requirements: Institutions would be
required to report on alumni employment and enrollment in
graduate and professional education programs. Although we
would like to have more detailed information on our alumni,
we cannot force them to provide us with this information.
Student Diversity and Graduation Rates Reporting
Requirement: Institutions would be required to report to the
Department of Education the percentage of enrolled, full-time
students who are male, female, Pell Grant-eligible, and self-
identified members of a major racial or ethnic group. These
categories would also be applied to existing reporting of
graduation rates. Institutions would have to report
graduation rates in no fewer than 48 separate categories.
Although

[[Page 17635]]

we already collect some of this information, other data, like
Pell Grant-eligible, would require us to demand personal
financial information that our students, and their parents,
may not want to share with us.
Peer-to-Peer File Sharing/Copyright Infringement
Requirements: Institutions would be required to disclose
``the development of plans to detect and prevent unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted material on the institution's
information technology system, which shall, to the extent
practicable, include offering alternatives to illegal
downloading.'' Although our institutions offer alternatives
to illegal downloading, the technology simply does not exist
to prevent all unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
material on our IT systems.
We have asked our staff to provide your staff with more
information detailing our concerns with this legislation in
its current form. The proposed HEA has the potential to
greatly benefit students, their families, and institutions of
higher education. We applaud Congress for these steps.
However, we urge Congress to reconsider the inappropriate
regulatory burden that will be placed on institutions of
higher education if this legislation passes in its current
form.
Sincerely,

James W. Wagner,

President,
Emory University.

Gary Schuster,

Interim President,
Georgia Institute of Technology.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, under our agreement, I will yield time
to our colleague, Senator Harkin from Iowa, but before I do, I wish to
do two things.
First, a few minutes ago we heard from our colleague, Senator
Bingaman, about the untimely death of one of Senator Bingaman's key
staffer's sons. Bob Simon is a staff director on his Energy Committee.
Bob Simon's 16-year-old son passed away, and he, Senator Bingaman, was
paying an eloquent tribute about this very melancholy situation. On
behalf of the Senate, we would like to extend our condolences to the
Simon family.
The other comment I wish to make is in response, very quickly, to the
comments my colleague from Tennessee made.
First, I would like to thank my colleague from Tennessee for his very
collegial and thoughtful efforts as we moved our bill through. I
enjoyed our conversations, from talking about bluegrass and Grand Old
Opry, we went on to high notes and higher education, and then we went
on to maintenance of effort.
I am sorry you took out the regulatory stack you had because it is
bigger than I am. As we said in our conversation, I look forward to
working with the Senator from Tennessee to see if some of the regs
might be dated, arcane, duplicative, and so on and how, over the next
year or so, we could look forward to doing that.
But before I move off from the reg comment, I do wish to comment
about the maintenance of effort. In many ways, I understand the point
the Senator from Tennessee is making. My own home State of Maryland's
Governor O'Malley inherited a $1.7 billion budget deficit that was not
of his making, and at the same time I understand Governors and State
legislators are facing real obstacles. However, we need to be
realistic. Congress is doing its part by increasing Pell grants, and
families can be assured that as the Federal Government increases its
commitment to colleges, funds will not be offset by the States.
Last night we did pass an amendment offered by another gentleman from
Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney. What his amendment does is provide
incentives and funds to Governors, which they can use for a broad range
of college access activities. They would be able to access $66 million
to States to use on a variety of very important college access
activities, particularly need-based grants and college prep programs.
But I also want to acknowledge the validity of the issues raised by
the Senator from Tennessee on unfunded mandates.
Over here we have a champion.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, may I have 60 seconds to respond?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, but I am not done with my comments so I have not
yielded the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I am sorry.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish to comment on the unfunded mandates. The Senator
who will speak shortly has been a champion of the disability community
and a leader of the IDEA community. We have been fighting to double
IDEA and we have been trying to do it on both sides of the aisle. We
look forward to having the Senator's support to do exactly that. We
look forward to increasing the Federal role in Medicaid, particularly
in SCHIP, which would be a very important component of Medicaid.
Last, but not at all least, in Medicaid, 80 percent of the money goes
to 20 percent of the population. That 20 percent of the population that
gets that Medicaid is primarily old or fragile people in nursing homes,
many of whom have serious cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's.
Let's get the Coburn hold off my bill to double funding for
Alzheimer's. One of the ways to lower the cost of Medicaid is to find
the cure of the cognitive stretchout for people with Alzheimer's. It is
estimated by NIH and other institutions that comment on these things
that we could reduce Medicaid by $5 to $11 billion a year if we could
do that.
I think we can work our way through this, but I must say, working
with the Senator from Tennessee has been indeed a pleasure. It has been
based on intellectual rigor, good conversation, excellent exchanges of
ideas. I look forward to doing more of it and trying to solve some of
the problems that we both strongly believe need to be addressed.
Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may just acknowledge the remarks of the Senator,
I feel the same way about working with her. I am delighted we will be
working together to take a look at the rules and regulations that we
impose from here in Congress to make sure they are useful and needed.
The natural thing here is to add. It is also very natural for us to
have good ideas, but we might discover that the dean or the provost or
the Governor or somebody else might have a good idea as well.
This is one of those issues that has no partisan attribute
whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, the Republicans are as bad as the
Democrats on unfunded Federal mandates and unnecessary regulations. I
look forward to an opportunity to work with the Senator from Maryland
to see if we can identify a process that makes certain that
institutions are accountable for the Federal dollars, but at the same
time we leave them free to be excellent in their own autonomous ways.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, also
a member of the Health-Education committee and who is a prime mover in
the area of expanding access for people with disabilities to be able to
have access to higher education.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I came here to speak, obviously, in favor
of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Passage of this bill today
restores the Federal commitment to make a college education a reality
for Americans from all walks of life. I commend Senator Kennedy and
Senator Enzi for all of their hard work in passing this bill. I
recognize and thank my good friend, Senator Mikulski, for stepping in
and shepherding this bill to final completion the other evening.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act is the first reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act in 10 years. It takes clear and strong action
to make college more affordable for low- and middle-income students and
their families, our top higher education priority.
This legislation will provide families with accurate information on
the cost of college at any school, as well as hold colleges accountable
for skyrocketing tuition and fees.
I am also proud we have saved money for students by requiring
publishers to no longer bundle unnecessary materials with their
textbooks, giving students the freedom to buy only what they need for
their classes.
I have heard from students about the need to reform the unnecessary
long form that is required to receive Federal student aid. It is called
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid

[[Page 17636]]

form--FAFSA, I understand is the short term nomenclature for that.
The bill we have here cuts through much of the redtape to immediately
provide a 2-page application for low-income students and to phase out
the current 7-page form for all students in 5 years.
In recent years we have seen corruption and mismanagement in the
student loan arena. This bill takes strong action to root out the
lenders' improper gifts and inducements for school financial aid
officers and to protect students from scurrilous private lending
practices.
I am proud of the many achievements of this bill. I want to take the
time to highlight two initiatives included in this bill that I was
proud to sponsor.
I started my legal career as a legal aid lawyer. It is an experience
I will never forget and always cherish. Our promise of equal justice
under law rings hollow if those who are most vulnerable are denied
access to representation. But right now it is almost impossible for a
new lawyer, a new young lawyer, newly admitted to the bar, to make the
choice that I made, to work for legal aid. The average starting salary
for a legal aid lawyer is now about $35,000 a year. But the average
annual loan repayment burden for a new law school graduate is $12,000.
That doesn't leave a lot left over for rent or food or for starting a
family.
The Legal Aid Loan Repayment Program, which we have included in this
bill, will make it possible for young lawyers to make a longer
commitment to equal justice. The program is simple. If a legal aid
lawyer agrees to make a minimum 3-year commitment, he or she will be
eligible for up to $6,000 a year to help repay their student loan debt.
This is a critical step to ensuring that qualified lawyers can be
recruited and retained to represent low-income Americans.
I particularly again thank Senator Mikulski for her great leadership
in this area, both on this committee and on the Appropriations
Committee, in making sure we have adequate funding for the Legal
Services Corporation and now, in this bill, to make sure we have a
commitment to helping legal aid lawyers repay their student loans if
they want to be a legal aid lawyer for at least 3 years.
I am also proud this legislation includes a Realtime Writers Program,
an initiative I have long fought for to improve the quality of life for
more than 30 million Americans who are deaf or have a hearing
impairment. As many know, my late brother Frank was deaf for all of his
life. I know from personal experience that access to culture and to
news and other media was important to him and to others in having a
good quality of life.
Closed captioning, which many of us now take for granted on our
television sets, doesn't benefit those with a hearing impairment,
however. Captioning improves the quality of life of individuals seeking
to read or to speak better, adults who may be functionally illiterate,
immigrants learning English as a second language and children just
learning to read. Captioning also helps travelers trying to get
emergency information in loud settings such as airports or bus
terminals or train stations. I would guess that every American at some
time or another relies on the captioning on their television to get
some kind of information.
As part of the 1996 Telecom Act, I offered an amendment, a
requirement in that bill now, that all English language television
broadcasts must be realtime captioned by 2006. Every television program
must be realtime captioned by 2006. That date has come and gone and all
television programs are still not realtime captioned. This is due to a
lack of captioners. So what has happened is that stations all across
the country have asked the FCC for waivers from this requirement, which
they should have because we simply do not have the supply of people
trained to be realtime captioners. Passage of the Realtime Writers Act,
which is now in this bill, authorizes competitive grants to recruit and
train realtime writers to alleviate this shortage.
This is a very good bill. It has a lot of good things in it to help
low-income families and kids to be able to get to college. It
alleviates some of the burdens, some debts kids have hanging over their
heads when they get through. It provides, as I said, for some of the
unbundling of textbook materials and things that students buy that they
do not need all of. Of course, as I said, it does a lot to weed out the
corruption and mismanagement in the student loan program.
To close here, I often speak of the necessity of having a ladder of
opportunity for our kids in this country, a ladder of opportunity for
all of our citizens. A college education is an essential rung on that
ladder. I am proud to support the Higher Education Opportunity Act
which I believe extends that ladder of opportunity to more Americans
who want to better themselves, their communities, and our country with
a college education.
Again, I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, and in particular
Senator Mikulski for stepping in and helping, with Senator Enzi, to
bring this bill to completion. Hopefully we will have an overwhelming
vote in favor of this conference report later this evening.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI. I believe under the previous order we will move to Senator
Murkowski for 5 minutes at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the
conference report to the Higher Education Opportunity Act. The
reauthorization of this act, the Higher Education Act, has taken 5
years and thousands of hours to complete. I congratulate Senator
Kennedy and Senator Enzi for guiding us through passage of the Senate
bill and then through a long and somewhat contentious conference
process. Their leadership has brought us to an achievement of which we
can all be proud. It is a bipartisan product that will have a positive
impact on the lives of American students.
I also acknowledge and thank Senator Mikulski for the good work she
has done, stepping in for Senator Kennedy during his period of absence,
in order to help us resolve these last issues.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act includes many provisions that
will benefit students and student loan borrowers in my home State of
Alaska. One provision of which I am particularly proud will assist
members of the military, particularly those who are in the lowest
ranks. It will help them and help their spouses and their children to
afford college or job training.
I had the opportunity last winter to visit Fort Richardson, outside
of Anchorage. I met with the spouses of the deployed soldiers who were
over in Iraq. It was kind of a townhall meeting. I was there to ask
them what I could do to help make their lives a little bit easier, help
them get through the long winter. One of them told me that the one
thing that was keeping her from being able to afford to go to college
was the money that the military pays to help offset a portion of their
housing costs. The housing allowance prevented her from being eligible
for a Pell grant.
Given the low rate of pay for many members of our military,
particularly those in the lowest ranks, they could not afford to take
on any student loan debt. So I made contact with the National Military
Families Association and learned that so many military spouses are in
that same position.
So what we included in this legislation, through my provision, is
language that excludes the cost of the basic allowance for housing for
servicemembers who live off base, as well as the value of on-base
housing. We exclude that from being calculated in the final
calculations for financial need.
Excluding the basic housing allowance, which in the vast majority of
cases does not completely cover military families' housing costs, and
the value of on-base housing will benefit the least well paid members
of our military and their spouses, whether they be privates, seaman
apprentices, lance corporals, airmen--those folks whose base pay is
less than $35,000 per year. While they are off defending our country at
war, we want to be able to help the spouses and family members who
remain at home.

[[Page 17637]]

I am very pleased to know that this wonderful woman I had the
privilege to meet last winter, and potentially thousands like her, will
have a better chance now of being able to attend college or obtain job
training.
Another provision I was pleased to participate in and to author
authorizes a program dedicated to improving science, technology, and
engineering and mathematics education, with a focus on Alaska Native
and Native Hawaiian students.
There are three programs in Alaska, Washington State, and Hawaii.
They have had outstanding success using an innovative model to recruit
and support Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students through
engineering, science, and technology programs. These are available at
the University of Alaska, the University of Hawaii, and also through
the Maui Economic Development Board.
The programs' graduation rate is phenomenal. By identifying the
students who have an interest in math, science, and technology while
they are still in middle school, helping them to graduate from high
school with the courses they need to be successful in those disciplines
in college, and then mentoring them throughout the college program,
these entities have helped so many of our young students, Natives and
the non-Natives alike, to really succeed in these demanding and high-
need fields.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act includes many provisions of
which Members of the Senate can be proud. Suffice it to say that before
the fall semester begins at many colleges around the country, we will
have authorized: improvements to the Federal Pell grant; changes
designed to help colleges and textbook publishers take steps to make
the textbooks more affordable; increased and improved information about
the cost of college and financial aid; rules intended to increase
students' safety on campus; and greater State involvement in and
accountability to the public for the success of our teacher preparation
programs.
There are so many provisions in this legislation that I think we have
to be proud of, and I thank my colleagues for their good work and
certainly urge all Members to support this legislation. And my thanks
to those who have led this through the process: Senator Kennedy,
Senator Enzi, and Senator Mikulski.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator from Vermont 2 minutes so he can
make a brief statement before he presides, and then to Senator Brown.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Brown. I will be
very brief.
In the United States today, there is a nursing shortage approaching a
crisis. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1.2
million new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2014. We are not
educating enough nurses to meet this need, which is why the U.S.
Department of Health foresees a nursing shortage of over 1 million by
2020. Yet, even with such an enormous need for nurses, U.S. nursing
schools turned away--turned away--41,000 qualified applicants for
baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs in 2005 because they do not
have the resources to train more nurses. If community college nursing
programs are included in these numbers, 150,000 well-qualified
applicants are turned away each year from nursing programs.
The College Opportunity and Affordability Act includes an important
new program which will enable our colleges to train more nurses to meet
the nursing crisis. It provides extra capacity for nursing students in
a very simple, efficient, and cost-effective way.
The nursing provision in title VIII provides colleges, community
colleges, and universities a grant for each additional student their
nursing program enrolls over their previous average enrollment. The
nursing program gets a $3,000 grant for each additional student, money
which will help defray the increased cost required to teach and train
that student. With this program in place, nursing programs can expand
to admit an additional 10,000 student nurses each year, or more, at
modest costs.
I thank Chairman Mikulski, and I thank Huck Gutman of my office for
his outstanding work over the last year. This is an outstanding
program, and we are going to begin to address a serious problem.
I yield for Senator Brown.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I control the time. I now yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. I wish to thank Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi, and
especially Senator Mikulski for her terrific work, and their staffs.
J.D. LaRock was especially helpful; Erin Renner, Carmel Martin, and
Missy Rohrbach. I wish to give special thanks to Will Jawando in my
office for his terrific success on this legislation. He celebrated the
success of the full conference committee, which was earlier this week,
by taking the Maryland bar for those 2 days during the actual passage
of the conference committee.
The conference report before us takes important steps toward breaking
down the barriers to higher education by addressing affordability and
access. With college costs at alltime highs, family income and student
aid simply have not kept up.
In my home State of Ohio, between 2001 and 2006, the cost of
attendance has increased 53 percent at 4-year public colleges. Yet the
median income in Ohio, household income, increased only 3 percent. We
know the purchasing power of the Pell grant has fallen dramatically.
Students and parents are finding it harder and harder to figure out a
way to finance their education. But our bill, as we know, increases
Pell grants to $8,000 by 2014, enabling thousands of low-income and
first-time students to attend institutions of higher education. For the
first time, low-income students can receive Pell grants year-round,
allowing them to accelerate the completion of their degrees.
The Free Application for Federal Student Aid required for the receipt
of Federal student aid is currently seven pages long and acts too often
as a barrier for students seeking college aid. We have begun the
process of taking care of the complexities and the bureaucracy of that.
In the last 2 years, I have held about 110 roundtables around my
State, in 75 of the 88 counties, listening to people telling me what we
should do with higher education and other issues.
Last Memorial Day, I met with veterans who were also students at
Cleveland State University. I met with them at a veterans hospital and
heard directly about their experiences transitioning from the
battlefield to the classroom.
This bill takes steps to ensure student veterans get the assistance
they need. It authorizes funds for campuses to create Centers of
Excellence for Veteran Student Success. It is modeled after a program
at Cleveland State University. It will allow schools to provide student
veterans with a one-stop shop for assistance with financial aid, with
class selection, with VA benefits, and with other transitional issues.
In addition to the unique challenges many student veterans face,
others have their academic career interrupted by deployments. When
students head off to war, they know they will be given the time and
support they need now, because of this legislation, without falling
unnecessarily behind academically or financially when they return to
their life as a college student.
By allowing servicemembers to defer payments, interest free, on
Federal student loans while serving on Active Duty, we have removed a
financial penalty for student veterans.
I would also like to thank the committee and the chairman for working
with me to include several other provisions in the conference report.
Among them is a program that creates an early childhood educator
workforce development system to ensure that all children are taught by
great teachers in their developmental years. I spoke with the head of
Ohio Head Start today in Dayton, who is very excited about what this
will mean for Head Start students in all of Ohio.
Also included was a program that helps increase the enrollment rates
of rural students at institutions of higher education.

[[Page 17638]]

Finally, provisions are included that will reauthorize the
Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program and establish a
Perkins loan forgiveness program for our nation's firefighters. We did
it for the nurses, teachers, and police officers. We inadvertently left
out firefighters in the bill last year. This takes care of that.
While there are many other issues we must address in higher
education, including the rise in private student loans, this bill makes
important progress on assisting needy students, increasing
affordability for all, and enhancing protections for our servicemembers
because of this legislation, because of Chairman Mikulski's work. It
means a whole lot of working-class kids, a whole lot of poor kids, a
whole lot of middle-class kids will be able to go to college. It will
be easier for them to finish their college degrees, not drop out with
huge student loans. It will enable most of these students to graduate
without the onerous burden of huge student loans.
I thank Chairman Kennedy and I thank Ranking Member Enzi for their
work. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. The Senator from Oklahoma has up to 20 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will assure everyone I will not take 20
minutes.
First of all, let my thank all of those on the committee who worked
on this bill.
The Higher Education Act of 1965, HEA, authorizes the Federal
Government's major Federal student aid programs, as well as other
programs which provide institutional aid and support. HEA also
authorizes services and support to disadvantaged students, and to
students pursuing international education and certain graduate and
professional degrees. The last time the act was reauthorized was over a
decade ago, in 1998.
The Senate passed HEA reauthorize on in July of 2007, with a vote of
95-0. The House of Representatives passed their version February 7,
2008, with a vote of 354-58. The final conference agreement is the
product of nearly 6 months of work between the House and the Senate.
The Higher Education Act conference report, by the numbers, is nearly
1,200 pages, authorizes for appropriation of roughly $3.7 billion,
creates 65 new programs, requires 24 new government studies, and
requires the Department of Education to create and publish 26 different
lists with information from more than 6,463 schools.
This bill seeks to address an enormous concern for many American
families and students who are struggling to afford the cost of a
college education. During the 2006-2007 academic year, more than $130
billion in financial aid was distributed to students in the form of
grants, Federal loans, work-study, and tax credits and deductions.
However, this financial aid is hardly keeping pace with the increasing
rate of tuition.
According to the College Board, from 1996 to 2006, tuition rose 51
percent at 4-year public colleges and universities, after adjusting for
inflation. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Education's
National Center for Education Statistics, the average rate for
undergraduate tuition and fees has nearly tripled over the past decade.
No one argues that the cost of college is rapidly rising, or that
Congress, the States and institutions of higher education should
examine this issue and work together to increase access and
affordability for students. However, we must ask ourselves, is this
bill the right solution? This bill dramatically increase general
Federal financial aid to students through the following:
Increase the Pell Grant maximum from $5,800 to $8,000 at a cost of
potentially $1.6 billion per year;
Permits students to receive Pell Grants year-round at a cost of $2.6
billion over 5 years;
Increases the loan fund for Perkins loans at a cost of $1 billion
over 5 years;
Expands deferment for PLUS Loans and accrued interest would reduce
direct spending $75 million over 5 years; and
Extend Federal loan forgiveness to the following groups--at a cost of
$10.9 billion over 5 years: Public-sector employees (including Federal
Government employees in Washington DC), nutrition professionals, mental
health professionals, medical specialists, dentists, STEM employees,
physical therapists, occupational therapists, superintendents,
principals and other administrators, fire fighters, librarians, early
childhood educators, nurses, foreign language specialists, speech
language pathologists, school counselors, and others.
Dramatic increases in Federal student aid may sound like a helpful
solution at first. However, research shows that increases in government
funding only lead to further increases in tuition. According to a
report by the Cato Institute, for every dollar increase in Pell Grants,
private 4-year colleges increased tuition by more than two dollars.
The findings of the College Board in ``Trends in Student Aid 2007''
are even more astounding. The College Board reported that student aid
increased by about 82 percent over the decade from 1997 to 2007, and
Federal loans increased by 61 percent. Interestingly, this increase in
aid covered about two-thirds of the increase in tuition at private 4-
year colleges and almost all of the increase in tuition at public 4-
year institutions.
These statistics demonstrate that both public and private
universities are increasing tuition at the same pace--if not faster--
than the Government increases funding. If we truly wish to make college
education more affordable for students and families, we must focus on
why tuition is increasing, despite increased subsidies from the Federal
Government.
A July 31 editorial in the Washington Times discusses the correlation
between increased government funding and rising tuition. The editorial
states of the higher education conference agreement.

This bill would do nothing to rein in rampant tuition
inflation, by far the biggest problem in higher education.
Indeed, by giving students yet more taxpayer-furnished aid,
it will just keep exacerbating the problem . . . Just look at
the numbers: It's no coincidence that while the inflation-
adjusted price of college has gone up roughly 70 percent over
the last two decades, aid per-student rose almost 140
percent.

The best way to make improvements in higher education is to begin
removing the Federal Government from the equation. When Congress and
the U.S. Department of Education interject themselves into education
matters, the result is generally less competition and individual
control, more bureaucracy and an ultimately an inferior outcome.
The American Council on Education states that the higher education
conference agreement ``would create a huge number of new reporting and
regulatory requirements . . . Complying with these new unfunded
mandates will take time and will increase the administrative costs
facing colleges and universities.''
Rather than increasing the role of the Federal Government in
subsidizing and regulating higher education, Congress should create
incentives for families to save money and ease tax burden for students.
Federal education tax credits and the Federal tuition tax deductions
generated $5.9 billion in savings for taxpayers in 2006.
The Higher Education conference agreement does more than expand
financial aid for students. The bill authorizes 65 new programs, many
of which are duplicate, wasteful and unnecessary. By authorizing
appropriations for these programs, Congress is allowing them to take
funding away from student aid. Consider the following examples of
misplaced priorities in the bill:
Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna Memorial Archives: Provides a grant to
the University of Hawaii Academy for Creative Media for the
establishment and maintenance of memorial archives--such sums as
necessary;
Campus-Based Digital Theft Prevention: Provides grants for schools to
develop programs to prevent illegal downloading and distribution of
music, movies and other intellectual property--such sums as necessary;

[[Page 17639]]

Pilot Program for Course Material Rental: Provides grants for college
bookstores to operate textbook rental programs--such sums as necessary;
Off-Campus Community Service: Authorizes work study grants to
institutions for recruiting and compensating students to supplement off
campus community service employment--such sums as necessary;
University Sustainability Programs: Provides grants to establish
sustainability programs and practices on campus. The term
``sustainability'' is not defined in the bill--such sums as necessary;
Modeling and Simulation Programs: Establishes a task force to study
modeling and simulation and to support the development of the model and
simulation field--such sums as necessary; and
Teach for America: Authorizes a 5-year grant to Teach for America,
Inc. for $20 million in FY 2009, $25 million for FY 2010 and such sums
for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.
It is important to note that if a Federal audit of Teach for America
recently found that the organization did not properly account for
$775,000 in Federal funds. The Department of Education Inspector
General found that Teach for America was unable to provide documents to
support roughly half its claimed spending. The New York Times reported
that there was no documentation that any teachers actually attended and
completed the class or that there even was a class. Rather than
cleaning up the waste, Congress authorizes $45 million for the
organization.
According to a July 11 CBS Evening News report titled, ``Teach for
America Gets Schooled; Organization That Trains Teachers Gets a Failing
Grade for Its Accounting Skills,'' after the audit, Teach for America
tried handing over some newly-found documents, but it didn't help. The
Inspector General said they contained ``significant discrepancies.''
Another important way to help contain the skyrocketing costs of
education is to simply ensure taxpayers' dollars and students' tuition
are directed towards educational purposes, and not lobbying or
earmarks. We cannot continue to earmark millions of dollars to
universities with billion dollar endowments, while students and
families struggle to afford the cost of college.
The total cost of earmarks for colleges and universities exceeded $9
billion between 1995 and 2003. At the same time, average annual tuition
at public 4-year institutions increased by 137 percent, from $2,357 to
$5,836. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that
Congress set aside a record $2.3 billion in pet projects for colleges
and universities last year, $300 million more than in 2003, when the
total was $2.01 billion.
Furthermore, in 2005 and 2006, colleges and universities spent more
than $127 million on lobbying activities. This amount could have paid
the full tuition for more than 21,760 students to attend public
colleges and universities. Most students struggling to pay for housing
and tuition may not be able to afford a tutor, much less a lobbyist.
They should not, therefore, be forced to pay higher tuition so their
school can hire Washington lobbyists.
Nobody who listened to Senator Alexander can come away saying we have
not done what we need to do. And this is certainly a compromise piece
of legislation.
But it is very worrisome to me that the only thing rising faster than
the cost of health care in this country, other than gasoline in the
last year and a half, is the cost of a college education. The only way
we can compete globally is with an educated workforce. We have to ask
ourselves the question, Why is it costing so much? Could it be the 10-
foot tall--now with the passage of this bill--group of regulations that
require billions of dollars to comply with every year that has taken
away from the educational opportunities in this country?
I think another thing that was not addressed in the bill that should
have been added in the bill is the fact that we have had over $9
billion worth of earmarks in the higher ed bill over the last 7 years.
That is $9 billion that did not get prioritized. It was put in in the
dark of night, inside a bill, inside an appropriations bill, that did
not go out on the basis of merit, did not go out on the basis of a
competitive grant.
And when the American people hear that $127 million was spent last
year by colleges and universities to lobby this place, is it not any
wonder that we are spending $9 billion on earmarks?
I also want to spend a moment talking about realtime writers. I held
that bill; am still in opposition to it. I know it is in the bill. That
is the way things work around here. I am going to lose that. But I want
you to ask yourself the question: If there is greater demand for
realtime writers and we are seeing the salaries rise and we are seeing
the numbers start to come in, why in the world are we going to create a
program to pay for it when the market is going to create the demand and
the pay to get people to do it? We are going to blow that money because
those people are going to go do that because the amount of money that
is being paid for someone to do that is rising. So we are going to get
in the middle of the economics of that. We are going to create a false
level of it because we are going to train them. Now, do you know what
is going to happen? Everyone who is a realtime writer now is going to
make less money in the future.
So we are going to disown the economics of supply and demand, much
like we are doing on energy, and we are going to put a grant program
in, we are going to make sure these people are there, but everyone who
is doing it now is going to make less money, and then we are going to
have an overage. And so then what is going to happen is the people who
went out and did it on their own and invested in it, they are going to
go look for another job because we did not trust what has made this
country great, which is the idea that if there is a demand, someone is
going to fill the supply, and if they do not, the price is going to
rise. So we have put that in this bill.
It will be a part of the bill. It is going to become law. But we are
going to waste that money. It is shortsighted. It is wasteful. This
bill creates 65 new Federal Government programs. Thirty-six reports are
demanded from this bill, and it gets rid of six programs. Of the
programs we create, nary a one has a metric on it so we can measure it
2 years from now to know whether what we did was right or wrong. In
Oklahoma we call that peeing into the wind. It is going to come back on
us.
As to the cost of a college education, we are seeing families
squeezed by $2,400 a year in energy costs because we didn't act when we
should have acted on energy, and we are not acting now. So they have
less resources. Even with the wonderful increase in Pell grants and
everything that we have done in this bill, the cost of a college
education is going to rise about 9 percent a year. They can't keep up
no matter what we do with Pell grants.
The better part of wisdom would be to ask the question: Is what we
are doing really making a difference to increase the availability of a
4-year education or a 2-year education post high school?
The maintenance of effort in this bill will kill every community
college in Oklahoma because they design programs for certain things and
then walk away from them because there is not a demand for them
anymore, whether it be for a new business, a new industry, or a new
area where there is a shortage, and then they walk away. Now they have
a maintenance of effort requirement. There is no exemption on that. You
have killed one of the best things we have in Oklahoma, which is our
community colleges. You are going to strangle them with this
maintenance of effort. Now they will be very hesitant to create a new
program that will make a big difference in the lives of Oklahomans,
even though they will only run the program for 2 years because they
will have to continue to fund it to be able to get anything else from
us. It is shortsighted.
I will not go on. I know everybody who worked on this bill is well
intentioned. Their heart is in the right place. They want us to have
better educational opportunities. They want us

[[Page 17640]]

to be able to afford it. They want greater excellence in terms of
academia. I just don't think we did it. If we didn't do it, we are not
going to be able to measure because we don't have any metrics.
The hope would be that maybe we could learn from this exercise. Maybe
we ought to put in metrics. If we are going to create 65 programs,
maybe we ought to think about getting rid of 65 instead of 6, and maybe
we ought to measure the effect of what we are doing.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of the
conference report reauthorizing the Higher Education Act of 1965. This
law is the main Federal law governing higher education in this country
and authorizes a number of important federal programs including Pell
grants and other need-based grant programs as well as Federal student
loan programs. This conference report, the Higher Education Opportunity
Act, will improve college access and affordability for our nation's
students in a number of ways including, raising the authorized level of
Pell grants, allowing Pell grants to be awarded on a year-round basis,
and simplifying the financial aid application process. Congress has
been working on revisions to the Higher Education Act for many years
and it is welcome news that Congress has finally completed its work on
this important, if imperfect, legislation.
Access to postsecondary education is becoming more and more important
in this increasingly competitive 21st century. In Wisconsin and around
the country, we continue to see a significant gap in which students can
afford to obtain a higher education and which students cannot, with
students from low income and middle class families increasingly unable
to attend college due to escalating costs and less availability of
financial aid. Furthermore, students increasingly have to turn to
federal and private student loans to cover the costs of a higher
education because of declining grant aid. Some of these students are
then saddled with heavy debts upon graduation from college, which
impact what sort of career decisions and life choices they can make for
themselves.
Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have made increasing funding
for the federal Pell grant program one of my top higher education
priorities. I have worked with Senators Kennedy, Collins, and Coleman
to lead efforts to increase funding for the Pell grant program as part
of the yearly budget and appropriations process. I am pleased that the
110th Congress has taken some important steps to boost the availability
of Pell grants for our Nation's students. Soon after the 110th Congress
convened in January of 2007, we passed a continuing resolution funding
the government for fiscal year 2007. As part of that continuing
resolution, we increased the maximum award for the Pell grant for the
first time since 2003, from $4,050 to $4,310.
As part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act which was signed
into law last September and the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations
bill, Congress further increased the maximum Pell grant award from
$4,310 to $4,731. These recent increases in the maximum Pell grant
award represent a good step to improved access to higher education for
our Nation's students most in need, but much more remains to be done.
This conference report builds on these efforts to boost the Pell grant
program, by increasing the authorized levels for the maximum Pell grant
award to $8,000 by 2014 and by allowing students to use their Pell
grant awards year round. I will continue to work to help ensure that
Congress appropriates funds for the Pell program consistent with these
new authorized levels.
This conference report also reauthorizes another critical need-based
grant program, the federal TRIO programs, which include Upward Bound,
Student Support Services, Ronald McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement,
and Talent Search programs, among others. Every year, students who have
participated in TRIO programs at Wisconsin's universities come out to
Washington to meet with myself or my staff to discuss how the various
TRIO programs are improving access to higher education and providing
support services once these students have enrolled in college. These
students' testimonials illustrate how important the TRIO programs are,
and have guided my yearly efforts to work to boost Federal funding for
the TRIO programs. I am pleased that this conference report also
includes language based on previous legislation I introduced that
defines the terms ``different campus'' and ``different population'' for
purposes of administering the federal TRIO program. The language
included in this bill ensures that higher education institutions with
branch campuses geographically apart from each other, like some of the
campuses in the UW System, can compete on an equal footing for these
important TRIO grants.
This conference report also includes language to modify the
application progress for Federal financial aid in order to make it
simpler for students and parents to complete the process. I often hear
from students and parents in Wisconsin that applying for financial aid
is a time consuming and confusing process and this legislation should
help to simplify the process for Wisconsin's families. This legislation
establishes a two-page FAFSA application for certain low-income
students and broadens the use of this simplified FAFSA to other
students within the next few years. This legislation also improves the
process whereby students can reapply for financial aid so that they do
not have to fill out a new FAFSA every time they want to apply for
additional financial aid. Many of Wisconsin's students fill out these
FAFSA forms every year and I hope that the new provisions in this
conference report can make the FAFSA application process less
burdensome in the coming months and years.
This conference report also retains language from the Senate-passed
bill to ensure that the grants for training of teachers will promote a
wide range of teaching skills, including measuring students on
different forms of assessment, such as performance-based measures,
student portfolios, and formative assessments. In an era of increased
accountability at the local, State, and Federal level, we need to do
all we can to promote more responsible and accurate assessment of
students in our K-12 schools.
I remain concerned about the increased use of high-stakes
standardized testing at the K-12 level, including using high-stakes
standardized tests to make decisions regarding school accountability.
By broadening the definition of student learning and teaching skills as
this new title II language does, we can better ensure that teachers are
trained to more accurately and responsibly measure student achievement
through alternatives to high-stakes standardized testing. I hope that
Congress can build on these efforts to promote better and more
responsible assessments of our Nation's students when we reauthorize
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by providing increased
funding for the development of these types of assessments as well as
the teacher training that is needed to implement these assessments in
our classrooms.
The student loan industry has also seen some tumultuous times over
the past 2 years, with a number of abuses involving lenders and some
financial aid administrators brought to light as well as ongoing unrest
in the lending business due to the current instability in our credit
markets. While we should do all we can to boost Federal funding for
grant aid so that students are not as dependent on student loans to
finance their higher education, we also need to make certain that our
Nation's students have access to Federal student loans to help cover
any unmet costs they face. Wherever possible, we should help students
participate in the various Federal student loan programs before making
them turn to private loans, which do not offer our students as many
safeguards as the Federal student loan programs. Earlier this year,
Congress passed a law designed to help ensure students' continued
access to Federal loans in the upcoming school year and this conference
report seeks

[[Page 17641]]

to help prevent certain abuses in the student loan markets from
happening in the future. For example, this conference report requires
schools and lenders to create codes of conduct governing their lending
practices and relationships. This legislation also bans lenders and
colleges from accepting gifts as part of their student loan business. I
cosponsored many of these provisions in Senator Kennedy's standalone
legislation, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and I am pleased that these
provisions were included in this conference report.
I know a number of colleges are concerned about the increased
reporting requirements in this legislation related to college costs and
tuition increases. These reporting requirements and the provisions
creating searchable college cost lists and Web sites are designed to
improve access to information for students and their families. This
sort of information is important to Wisconsin families deciding which
colleges they can afford. I hope that these provisions can be
implemented in a reasonable way that addresses the concerns of our
Nation's universities while ensuring that students and their families
have access to this valuable information.
This legislation has broad bipartisan support and it is good news
that we were finally able to reach agreement on this reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act. The conference report Congress is set to pass
this week strengthens a number of existing Federal student aid programs
and creates new programs to boost access to and affordability of higher
education for America's students who wish to attend college. With the
new school year set to begin in about a month, I hope that the
President will quickly sign this legislation into law and that the
Department of Education will work to implement this legislation in a
fair and responsible manner.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a topic that
has been important to me for some time the role of veterinarians in
safeguarding the public health. Yesterday, the Senate passed the
Higher-Ed bill which contained historic language improving veterinary
education in this country. This language has important implications for
human health. We have been overdue to invest in veterinary medicine as
a national asset. Today, there are only 28 colleges of veterinary
medicine across the Nation which collectively graduate a mere 2,500
veterinarians per year.
Unfortunately, this number is insufficient to meet demand and leaves
our Nation vulnerable to emerging infectious diseases such as west nile
virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, Monkeypox and Avian
Influenza although there are numerous other examples of animal-born
infectious diseases, some of which could be used as biological agents
in a terrorist attack.
To meet the critical shortage of public health veterinarians and to
augment the ability of veterinary expertise to guide public health, I
introduced the Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act, S. 746, this
Congress and the two previous Congresses. I am pleased that part of the
Veterinary Workforce Expansion Act made it into the higher-ed
reauthorization.
The language in the higher-ed bill will establish a new competitive
grant program for capital improvements to allow veterinary medical
colleges to expand and graduate more veterinarians trained in public
health. As both a veterinarian and a member of the HELP Committee, I
have seen first-hand the links between human and animal health. A half-
century ago, more people appreciated this too and we were able to all-
but eradicate malaria and other animal-born infectious diseases with
techniques such as mosquito control and inoculations.
Veterinarians are uniquely qualified to address high-priority public
health issues such as animal-to-human transmission of infectious
diseases because the curriculum in veterinary medical colleges is
significantly different from that of other health professions. In
addition to the basic biomedical sciences and the surgical and medical
training that physicians receive, veterinarians receive extensive
training in population medicine. Veterinary colleges also provide a
broad, multispecies, comparative medical approach to disease prevention
and control, which is fundamental to understanding the transmission and
life cycle of infectious disease agents, especially those that animals
share with humans.
Although I hope awareness of the part veterinarians play in promoting
public health will improve, I want to note that I am by no means the
first Government official to recognize the importance of veterinarians
in public health practice. Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, noted that, ``Eleven
of the last 12 emerging infectious diseases that we're aware of in the
world have probably arisen from animal health sources.'' CDC estimates
that more than 60 percent of all infectious organisms that are harmful
to people are transmissible between humans and animals. In addition,
more than more than 75 percent of newly emerging infectious diseases
fitj into this category and, even more important, more than 80 percent
of biothreat agents of concern are shared between animals and man.
These are the harmful biothreat agents most likely to be used in a
bioterrorism attack.
So in closing, I would like to thank Senators Kennedy, Enzi,
Mikulski, and Burr for working with me to include this program in the
bill. I am grateful for their hard work and support. My hope is that
through this new grant program, veterinary colleges will be able to
fulfill the needs of the communities that they serve and on a national
level will augment the expertise of other public health specialists in
preventing or mitigating the effects of possible pandemics or
biological terrorist attacks.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the
reauthorization of the Tribally Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978, which is included in H.R. 4137, the Higher
Education Reauthorization and College Opportunity Act of 2008.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I worked
closely with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and
the House of Representatives to ensure that provisions enhancing tribal
colleges and universities were included in the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Opportunity Act.
H.R. 4137 reauthorizes the Tribally Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978. Additionally, it will authorize two tribally
controlled postsecondary career and vocational technical institutions:
United Tribes Technical College and Navajo Technical College. Both of
these institutions are critical to strengthening tribal higher
education and providing the necessary resources for Indian students.
I have been a longtime supporter of tribal colleges and universities
because of the benefits they provide to both the community and the
individual student. There are 36 tribal colleges and universities
throughout the United States. I am very fortunate to have 5 of these
tribal colleges in my State of North Dakota.
Tribal colleges and universities offer a wide range of accredited
programs from business administration to nursing. In addition to
college-level courses, tribal colleges and universities also offer high
school completion programs, job training, and college- preparatory
courses.
These colleges and universities are essential to their communities,
often serving as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career
and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting
places and childcare centers.
Because most tribal colleges and universities are located on or near
Indian reservations, they provide a greater level of access to higher
education for a group of Native students who would otherwise be unable
to attend college.
Approximately 28,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students
attend tribally-controlled colleges and universities across the
country. Characteristics of American Indian students enrolled in tribal
colleges differ from those of most other undergraduate students:
Students attending these schools often come from geographically
isolated communities with high

[[Page 17642]]

unemployment rates where the average family income is $13,998.00. This
is 27 percent below the Federal poverty level. Most students attending
tribal colleges are the first generation in their family to go to
college. American Indians who earn a bachelor's degree or higher can
expect to earn two times as much as those with a high school diploma
and four times as much as those with no high school diploma.
I am committed to finding ways to strengthen tribal colleges because
they are truly a success story in Indian country. The reauthorization
of the Tribally Controlled Colleges or University Assistance Act is a
strong step in that direction.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, access to higher education is increasingly
important in a competitive, global economy where training beyond a high
school education is frequently required. On average, a student who
earns a bachelor's degree will earn 70 percent more annually than a
student who has only a high school diploma.
Last year, Congress approved more than $17 billion in new Federal aid
for college students, the largest Federal investment since the GI bill
with the enactment of the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. This was
a great victory for students and families all across America, including
my home State. Michigan will receive over $80 million in new assistance
above the current $429.8 million for the upcoming academic year and an
additional $689.6 million over the next 5 years.
However, we still need to do more to help students achieve their goal
of attaining a college education as college cost continues to rise. The
legislation before us, the conference report of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008, is another major step forward to support
students and families in this endeavor. It contains several important
policy changes to increase access to college and help protect students,
families and taxpayers from high college cost and unmanageable debt.
It expands need-based grant aid further by increasing Pell grants,
from $4,800 to $6,000 for 2009 and to $8,000 for 2014; and allows
students, for the first time, to receive Pell grants year-round, to
help them accelerate the completion of their degrees. The legislation
also creates the Grants for Access and Persistence, GAP, program, a new
matching grant program to allow States to increase need-based grant aid
to students. This will give a major boost to the 5.3 million students
who qualify for the Pell grant, 182,000 in Michigan.
The bill enhances and strengthens TRIO and GEAR UP, proven programs
that help students, many of whom are first generation college-bound,
prepare for and succeed in higher education. It expands required
activities with a special focus on improving students' financial and
economic literacy, and encourages student enrollment in challenging
secondary coursework and professional development.
The legislation also replaces the complex, 7-page Free Application
for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, with a 2-page EZ-FAFSA; bans lenders
from offering gifts to college officials as a condition of making
student loans, and requires colleges to adopt a code of conduct
regarding student loans; promotes innovative and effective teacher
preparation programs for new and prospective teachers; and creates a
pipeline for high-quality teachers to teach in high-need schools by
promoting partnerships between teacher education programs and high-need
districts.
The bill also makes college a reality for more students with
disabilities through a number of new initiatives, including supporting
model demonstration projects to make college course materials more
accessible; and expands and strengthens nursing faculty by creating a
new grant program to help nursing schools enroll more students.
Finally, this legislation also includes a much-needed amendment
introduced by Senator Durbin, which I cosponsored, that creates a
targeted student loan repayment assistance program that will bolster
the ranks of attorneys in this country's criminal justice system. It
will provide up to $10,000 a year in student loan forgiveness for those
who will work a minimum of 3 years as State or local criminal
prosecutors or as State, local, or Federal public defenders. This would
benefit many young law graduates who want to take a job as a young
prosecutor or public defender, but find it difficult to do so because
of a mountain of student debt. The need for this amendment is apparent.
Prosecutor and public defender offices throughout the country are
having serious difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified
attorneys. In a recent survey, over a third of prosecutor offices
nationwide reported problems with keeping attorneys on staff. Over 60
percent of prosecutor offices that serve populations of 250,000 or more
have reported serious problems with the retention of attorneys. The
story is the same for public defender offices. Another recent survey
found that over 60 percent of State and local public defender offices
reported difficulty in attorney recruitment and retention. When
prosecutor and defender offices cannot attract new lawyers or keep
experienced ones, their ability to protect the public is compromised.
Caseloads become unmanageable, cases can be delayed or mishandled,
crimes may go unprosecuted, and innocent defendants may sit in jail.
A student's access to higher education ought not to depend on his or
her family's income. Working families and aspiring students across this
country are struggling to obtain the financial resources to secure a
college education. Low and middle income students who have managed to
enter and stay in college are graduating with unprecedented levels of
debt. This legislation, coupled with the legislation Congress passed
last year responds to this crisis.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008 that would renew major programs that
ensure our Nation's students have access to a college education.
This important legislation would increase grant aid to our neediest
students, provide new measures to address rising college costs, and
would reform the student loan system so that it better serves students.
Students and their families in California and nationwide are
struggling to pay the growing costs of a college education.
Specifically, this bill will increase Pell grants from $4,800 to
$6,000 for 2009 and to $8,000 for 2014. Over 625,000 California
students rely on Pell grants to afford college.
It will allow low-income students, for the first time, to receive
Pell grants year round, including summer school. This will help
students complete their degree programs more quickly.
It will allow military servicemembers to defer payments, interest
free, on Federal direct loans while they are on active duty. Our
service men and women risk their lives for our Nation and deserve to
not have to worry about paying their student loans while they are on
duty.
It will authorize the U.S. Department of Education to award
competitive grants for Teacher Preparation Programs that help recruit
and retain high-quality teachers in high-need schools.
It will require the U.S. Department of Education to publish detailed
data about college pricing trends on its website to ensure more
transparency.
It will simplify student financial aid forms by creating a new 2-page
form for low-income students, and phase out the current 7-page form
within 5 years.
It is critical that we help make college more affordable and
accessible for students at a time when they are taking on more debt to
pay for school.
More than half of California students who graduate from 4-year public
colleges have debt averaging over $12,000.
Nearly 1 year ago, the President signed into law major legislation
that provides over $17 billion in new grant aid to low-income college
students--$2.5 billion of which would go to help California's students.
And the key reforms in the renewal of this Higher Education legislation
before us today will further help ensure that college is more
affordable for our young people and that they receive the education
they deserve to succeed.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, education is at the core of America's basic

[[Page 17643]]

promise--that all Americans should be able to make the most of their
potential.
Every young person should graduate from high school, and every young
person who works hard and wants to go to college should be able to
afford it. And all Americans should be able to get the skills they need
to succeed throughout their lives.
Today, I am supporting the Higher Education Opportunity Act
conference report because it will advance key reforms that will address
the soaring price of a college education and remove obstacles that make
it harder for qualified students to attend college. This legislation is
an important step forward for students and their families. It will help
reduce their college costs and will help expand the future growth of
our economy.
This legislation would not have been possible without the leadership
of Senator Edward M. Kennedy who has tirelessly dedicated his time in
the Senate to helping children and their families gain increased access
to education. It is another victory for Senator Kennedy, whose record
of achievement in the Senate has helped benefit the lives of virtually
every man, woman and child in the country. As we adopt this
legislation, I want Senator Kennedy to know that we miss him, that we
are thinking of him as he recovers from his illness and we congratulate
him on this important accomplishment.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act will hold colleges more
accountable for increasing costs and will simplify the federal
financial aid application process. The legislation will make textbook
costs more manageable for students by helping them plan for textbook
expenses in advance of each semester. It will increase college aid and
support programs for veterans and military families. This legislation
will ensure equal college opportunities and fair learning environments
for students with disabilities. It includes new measures to curb
unethical practices in the student loan industry, increasing federal
grant aid to our neediest students, and strengthen college pipeline
programs.
The Higher Education Reauthorization Act will help ensure that all
Americans can make the most of their God-given talents. Educating our
children is a key part of ensuring a strong economy in the future. It
will help make college affordable for all and expand lifelong learning.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wanted to affirm my support of the
Higher Education Act, which will help many young Americans realize
their dream of a college education.
As president of West Virginia Wesleyan years ago, I saw firsthand
that given the opportunity, student will perform to the highest degree.
Our goal as legislators should be to provide quality, affordable
education for every American. While we have done a good job giving high
school students the opportunity to attend higher education, the time
has come to do more to make it affordable.
Tuition rates have steadily increased over the last few years while
our Nation's financial aid programs have failed to keep up, causing
college students to graduate with higher amounts of debt than ever
before. In West Virginia alone, the cost of college education has
increased at least 30 percent since the 2000-2001 school year, while
the median family income of most West Virginians has increased only 13
percent. Additionally, the percentage of higher education that is paid
for with grants has decreased significantly, from 77 percent in 1975-
1976 to just 20 percent in 2004-2005.
The Higher Education Act before us today will modernize the financial
aid system. The act will revitalize title IV loans, including Pell
grants. Pell grants help over 35,000 West Virginia students attend
college, a value of $92 million annually. An increase in assistance is
needed to help students cope with the rising cost of tuition. The bill
will invest $20 billion to improve Pell grants. The loan amount will
increase approximately $500 next year, and in 2012, the maximum Pell
grant should be $5,400. These improvements will allow more low-income
students to have the opportunity to pursue higher education that before
would have been out of their reach.
An important provision in the act will protect students by giving
them greater access to information about their loans by requiring
student loan providers to be up front about terms and rates. This new
law will reduce interest rates on Federal student loans, allowing
students to graduate college with less debt and on a stable financial
foundation. The law even addresses the real concern about the rising
costs of textbooks with balanced provisions to disclose prices.
The act would also increase TRIO funding and provide better tools to
encourage high school students to apply for college. Every year, I meet
with TRIO leaders and students from across the state of West Virginia
about the importance of this program. The Higher Education
Reauthorization Act allows our dedicated TRIO counselors to focus on
tutoring, college exam preparation, and assisting students with
application and financial aid applications. West Virginia has 30 TRIO
programs which will benefit by the increase in the grant duration and
funding. This increased support, will better enable the 8,000 plus West
Virginian TRIO students to reach their potential in high school, and
achieve their goal of pursuing higher education.
Another vital part of this legislation is the emphasis it places on
sciences and mathematics. The greater assistance and grant money going
to students who study science and mathematics, will ensure that our
Nation has a group of educated individuals who are ready to handle
future challenges.
To support our troops and their families, this legislation allows
service members to defer payments on loans, and stop interest on
Federal direct loans while they are on active duty. It will ensure that
military benefits do not count against service members' eligibility for
Federal grants and loans they need to pay for college. It will provide
for easy reenrollment for service members when they return from duty
and go back to school.
The Higher Education Reauthorization Act will provide opportunity to
students in West Virginia and throughout the country. This bill also
encourages public service and puts a new emphasis on science and math,
causes that I have long promoted. This is an important bill and I
commend my colleagues and the leadership for forging bipartisan
consensus to enact this legislation that should inspire students to
pursue their dreams of a higher education.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I was pleased to vote in favor of
the conference report to accompany the College Opportunity and
Affordability Act, H.R. 4137. I congratulate my colleagues,
particularly my good friend, Senator Kennedy, for their dedication and
bipartisan efforts in moving this vitally important legislation
forward. It is imperative during these difficult economic times, to do
all that we can to help students achieve their educational goals by
making college more accessible and more affordable. This legislation
will assist students and their families in Hawaii and across the Nation
by, among other things, simplifying the Federal financial aid
application process, increasing the amount of Federal grants to
students and their families who need them most, providing more
authority to regulate private student loan lenders engaged in predatory
practices, and holding colleges accountable for growing tuition rates.
As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a senior member of
the Armed Services Committee, I was also pleased to support this
legislation which will make higher education more accessible for the
men and women who have volunteered to protect and defend our Nation. It
includes a provision allowing the members of our Armed Forces to defer
their payments, interest free, on Federal Direct Loans while they are
on Active Duty and making reenrollment easier for service members who
left college to join the military. It also benefits the families of our
soldiers and sailors who have also sacrificed so much. First, by
providing new scholarships for the children and family members of
service

[[Page 17644]]

members who have died since 9/11. And, second, by providing instate
tuition for members of the military and their dependents who have lived
in a state for more than 30 days.
This legislation also incorporates several provisions which will
specifically benefit students in Hawaii. These include the
authorization of the creation of the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna
Memorial Archives at the University of Hawaii as a repository for
Native Hawaiian historical artifacts and the expansion of authorized
grant programs for Native Hawaiian Institutions to include education
designed to improve financial literacy. It also clarifies that Native
Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are eligible for the Federally
funded McNair Scholars Program. In addition, it benefits our State by
authorizing the development and expansion of programs to improve
science, technology, and mathematics education specifically focused on
meeting the educational and cultural needs of Native Hawaiian students.
Today, more than ever, a college education has become a key to future
opportunities and financial stability. A student who desires to attend
college should not have to delay or give up their dreams of a higher
education because of the cost.
With the passage of this bill today, we are helping students achieve
this dream and I applaud its passage. Now, it is time for the President
to sign this critically important bill into law and make it a reality.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last year, as Democrats took control of the
Congress, we made college affordability and access one of our top
priorities.
In the fall, we completed work on the first part of that promise--the
College Cost Reduction and Access Act. This landmark legislation
provided nearly $20 billion in new student aid and benefits, including
a significant increase to the Pell grant and a reduction in student
loan interest rates, which went into effect last month, providing a
tangible benefit to college students across this country.
It's been a full decade since the Congress last reauthorized the
Higher Education Act. Today, as a result of a strong bipartisan effort,
we take up the final piece of our commitment to make a college
education more affordable and accessible.
Among other key provisions, this conference report addresses the
scandals that have tainted the student loan industry. Through increased
disclosure requirements, a prohibition on payments and gifts from
lenders to colleges and financial aid administrators, and new
restrictions on preferred lender lists, we are finally putting an end
to these unacceptable practices, and making sure that the student loan
system works in the best interests of our students.
Just as importantly, the Higher Education Opportunity Act tackles the
rising costs of college. Despite the billions in new student aid and
benefits we approved last year, if college costs continue to rise at
the rate they have been--nearly tripling over the past 20 years--higher
education will continue to remain further and further out of reach for
too many Americans.
I am pleased that students in Nevada have the good fortune of a state
university system with some of the lowest tuition costs in the nation.
But the same is not true everywhere and this bill will hold colleges
and universities accountable if their costs increase too dramatically.
It also ensures that students and parents have the information they
need to make objective decisions based on the cost of college, and
attempts to rein in the high cost of textbooks, by requiring greater
disclosure of prices and purchasing information.
On the issue of costs, the Federal Government has raised the bar in
its commitment to higher education. While statehouse budgets are
undoubtedly strained in these difficult economic times, I am hopeful
that these efforts will not result in a reduced State commitment to
making sure that a college education is affordable. I am concerned,
along with students and college administrators in my own State, about
harmful budget cuts to colleges and universities in Nevada. The Federal
Government is doing its part for students, and I hope State governments
will continue to do the same.
To further assist students, the bill authorizes an increase in the
maximum Pell grant to $6,000 in 2009 and $8,000 by 2014, and makes it
available to college students year-round, instead of just during the
traditional academic year. This is particularly important for low-
income, nontraditional students in Nevada--those juggling college, jobs
and a family--or for those students at community colleges taking summer
courses so they can finish their degrees.
Additionally, to help low-income and first generation students, this
legislation strengthens the GEAR UP and TRIO programs, programs which
have helped thousands of young Nevadans achieve their dream of a
college degree.
A final point I want to highlight is the simplification of the
federal financial aid form--the FAFSA. Currently seven pages long and
probably more complicated than filling out a tax return, the bill
creates a two-page ``EZFAFSA'' for low-income kids, and phases out the
current form within five years. This will help get federal aid to the
students that need it most.
While Senator Kennedy and Enzi, and the entire HELP Committee deserve
enormous credit for their work to move this legislation forward in a
bipartisan way, I also want to thank my friend from Maryland, Senator
Mikulski, who stepped into some very big shoes with Senator Kennedy's
absence, to help get this bill across the finish line.
Combined with our efforts last year, passage of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act reaffirms our commitment to making sure higher
education is affordable and accessible for students across America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Who yields time?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator from Illinois 3 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. What a great job she
did pinch hitting for our friend Ted Kennedy, with Senator Enzi,
bringing this bill to the floor tonight and the conference report.
There are three or four provisions in here I worked hard to include,
and I think they are going to help provide an affordable college
education.
You would be surprised to know that about one-fourth of the expense
that college students face when they go to college is for textbooks.
Textbooks cost twice as much as ordinary books. Until we put this
provision in, students couldn't go on Amazon and other places to find
discounts. Now they will be able to. They will have the information so
they can search for the most affordable books. We make the publisher
split up the books into pocket parts and CDs so they don't bundle them
together, and students can buy only what they really need.
Secondly, I have been working for years with my friends who are
prosecutors and public defenders. Kids graduating from law school today
have a mountain of debt. They can't afford, usually, to take a job as a
young prosecutor or public defender. We have a student loan forgiveness
program in here. It went through the Judiciary Committee, now through
the HELP Committee. It will provide up to $10,000 a year in student
loan forgiveness for those who will work a minimum of 3 years. That is
the way to build the professionals we need as both prosecutors and
defenders. It is the John R. Justice Act. It is one that will help our
Nation and help the enforcement of law all across the country.
I also have a provision to help campuses deal with insecurity and
terrorism. We have seen too many instances of violence on campus. This
will provide for coordination on campuses to develop plans to keep
their students safe. That is something every parent wants to feel when
they leave their kids at school.
These are all steps in the right direction. I thank all those who
worked on this bill. Most of us in the Senate would say flat-out we
wouldn't be here today were it not for higher education. It has become
a more difficult challenge for today's students. This bill is going to
give those students a helping

[[Page 17645]]

hand. I will be happy to cast my vote in favor of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who
also chairs the Banking Committee. On behalf of all of us who worked on
this bill, I thank Senator Dodd for helping us resolve some very
serious issues that existed between the Banking and Education
Committees on the student loan issue. His steadfastness and work with
Senator Shelby actually helped us bring this bill to the floor. I thank
him.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me return the compliment by commending
our colleague from Maryland, who has taken on the Herculean task in the
absence of our colleague from Massachusetts, of shepherding, along with
Senator Enzi, this very important piece of legislation. My compliments
to Mike Enzi, the Republican leader on this issue, along with Barbara,
and the House leaders--George Miller, with whom I was elected to
Congress many years ago--and the members of the House Education
Committee.
This is a very important bill. A few days ago we passed the housing
bill to make a difference for people facing foreclosure. We tried to
pass legislation dealing with low-income energy assistance. I remind my
colleagues, the Presiding Officer led the effort on that issue, and we
will come back to it.
Education costs are critical to address. This bill is sweeping in its
reforms, making a difference for average Americans and their families
to deal with those costs and allow them to achieve the goal of a higher
education, which not only has tremendous advantage for them
individually but for us, as a country. It is a small price to pay for
the reward we receive. The GI bill, which was adopted during World War
II, is another example of this sort of effort, providing 8 million
Americans benefits. Over the years it cost a lot of money, but the
benefit to our country has vastly exceeded the cost of that program.
This bill is like that one in many ways. This bill is not inexpensive,
but it provides benefits to our country.
I am particularly proud of a number of provisions. One is the Pell
grant increase, up to $8,000, which will help us in dealing with the
cost of a public education, though not close enough when it comes to
private education. The Patsy Mink Fellowship Program, which I am proud
to have authored, creates scholarships and makes it possible for young
women and minorities to become college professors, and addressing the
very small number of women who are providing a college education. The
provisions designed to get colleges and universities to control their
costs, including both transparency and incentives for schools who
succeed in this endeavor. I am also proud of the improvements we have
made to TRIO and GEAR-Up and the expansion of child care in this bill.
Lastly, as my friend and colleague from Maryland pointed out, the
inclusion of the Private Student Loan Transparency Improvement Act,
which Senator Shelby and I, along with 19 other members of the Banking
Committee authored unanimously, will make a difference when it comes to
protecting student borrowers from excessive debt. These provisions
require lenders to provide more accurate and timely information to
their customers about interest rates, terms and conditions of their
private loans, and prohibits documented private student lending
practices that have harmed students and their families, keeping them
from obtaining the most competitive and affordable student loans.
The bill also ensures that private lending is done on the fairest and
most transparent terms. It prevents kickbacks and co-branding that may
allow steering of students to specific lenders, and it guarantees
borrowers time to consider their options and shop around for better
terms without losing the loan they have been offered. These are very
important steps.
Finally, I end where I began. None of this would have happened
without the senior Senator from Massachusetts who has dedicated his
life to working families. This bill is yet further testimony to his
commitment to those constituencies, the people of this country. We have
missed him terribly lately, but he had a champion in the Senator from
Maryland. If I had to pick one person to replace Ted Kennedy, I would
choose Barbara Mikulski every day of the week. She did a fabulous job
on behalf of students and their families. We thank her immensely. I
know my friend from Massachusetts is watching tonight, and he thanks
her as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I won't use nearly that much time, and I
would be happy to share with my colleague, if she wants to make some
closing remarks as well.
I rise to summarize why the Higher Education Opportunity Act is a
major victory for America's students and their families and for our
future economic security. Simply put, it ensures that a college
education, which is the gateway to the future for working families and
for businesses, will be within their reach in the years to come.
I thank those who have made their comments earlier: the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander,
who pointed out some things that still need to be done in the area of
higher education. It would have been nice to have been able to do them
in the bill.
One of those is deregulation. If we have that much paper, that many
billions of dollars' worth of paper that need to be done, it is time
for us to appoint a task force to evaluate their usefulness. I did that
with some of the elementary education issues the first year I was here,
and we found that every single paper that was submitted to the
Department of Education was looked at to be sure that every blank was
filled in and every ``t'' was crossed and every ``I'' was dotted. Our
disappointment was that they were then filed away and nobody made any
use of them.
We were able to get rid of some of those forms. Obviously, this is an
even bigger opportunity.
The Senator from Oklahoma pointed out the lack of metrics for
progress in these areas. Although there are new programs, past
experience has been that many of them do not get funded because they
have to come out of discretionary funds. They are good ideas that
probably will never happen. But it would be a good idea to have metrics
in there so we can gauge how well things are doing. We have a law that
provides for that kind of measurement and requires each agency have a
program to set up the guidelines by which we can measure, and then they
are required to measure. I have noticed over the years that there are a
number of agencies that are actually failing their own evaluations. We
never do anything with that, which is another challenge.
Our country is being challenged today, and it is a challenge we
cannot afford to lose. We are engaged in a race for knowledge and
skills, and the nation that wins will have a head start on building a
stronger economy. The solution to this challenge is to make a college
education more accessible, affordable, and accountable for all
Americans. That is what we are trying to do in the Higher Education
Opportunity Act.
In this era of rising college costs, students and families must have
good information to use when making decisions about which college to
attend, how to finance their college education, and how to manage their
student loans once they are out of college. This agreement is about
good information, sunshine, and transparency. College is no longer an
option. It is a necessity. Most good jobs today require some college. I
want to make sure everyone has access to the education and training

[[Page 17646]]

they will need to be successful in the global economy. This legislation
gets us much closer to that goal.
I am pleased to say that with the passage of this agreement, we will
have completed the work of two of the four pieces that make up Federal
education and training policy.
Late last year we finished Head Start. Today we will finish higher
education. We still have more work to do because we must reauthorize
and improve the Workforce Investment Act so that our workers have the
skills they need to be successful in an increasingly skill-driven
economy. That leaves reauthorizing No Child Left Behind to complete our
education task.
Mr. President, as this debate on this legislation comes to a close,
it is necessary to thank those who have worked long and hard on this
bill. First and foremost, I thank Chairman Kennedy for his commitment
to keeping this process bipartisan, and working with me and all of my
Republican colleagues on the HELP Committee throughout this entire
process, lately by telephone, but with the same passion and enthusiasm.
I also thank Senator Mikulski for taking the helm and getting us to
the finish line when others might have given up.
Because this has been a bipartisan, bicameral process, I want to
thank our House counterparts--Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon,
Congressman Hinojosa, and Congressman Keller--for their commitment to
working with us to find ways to reach an agreement on issues that many
thought would be impossible to achieve.
There are many other Members I wish to thank for contributing the
time and effort they did to make sure we were putting together good
policy. It is difficult to single out just a few. I have to immensely
thank every single Senator who is on my committee, both Republican and
Democrat. That is where we share ideas. That is where most of the
changes in the bills are made. That is where people are able to get
together and debate at length their ideas for how to make things
better. And we do.
I thank Senators Alexander, Burr, and Coburn for their comments. They
have disagreements on some of the key issues in the conference report,
but, nonetheless, they continued to work to reach a resolution and
improve the final product.
There are many congressional staff who worked on this conference
report. The breadth and importance of the issues, not to mention the
length of the legislation, requires many people working many hours to
get it done. Actually, it is not only many hours or many days or many
weeks or many months--but this one has been many years.
I have always said I have a staff worthy of gold medals, and my staff
who worked on this bill have shown their gold medal status once again.
I must first acknowledge and thank Beth Buehlmann, my education policy
director. It is no exaggeration to state that without Beth, I do not
think there would be a Higher Education Act reauthorization today. That
is what I hired her for several years ago. She truly was the force to
start the reauthorization 3\1/2\ years ago. She worked tirelessly to
ensure that we drafted a bill to reflect the changing nature of our
student bodies, as well as to ensure that we, as a nation, will
maintain our status as having the best education system in the world.
Her team of Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Kelly Hastings, and Lindsay
Hunsicker is comprised of remarkable individuals who brought their
talents and knowledge to the forefront in this bill.
I also thank my staff director, Ilyse Schuman, and Greg Dean, Amy
Shank, Randi Reid, John Hallmark, and Ron Hindle, who also put in many
hours and added invaluable input into this bill as well as the overall
process.
I also thank members of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work:
Michael Myers, who has been tireless on this and has provided the kind
of leadership that coordinated it through some of these difficult
times; Carmel Martin, the expert on education; JD LaRock; Missy
Rohrbach, who, incidentally, had twin babies today, a boy and a girl.
It is my understanding she is doing well. She worked while pregnant and
helped to get this pregnant bill done. I also thank Erin Renner,
Roberto Rodriguez, and Emma Vadehra of Senator Kennedy's staff.
Additionally, I thank all of the other HELP Committee staff for their
hard work throughout this process, especially David Cleary and Sarah
Rittling of Senator Alexander's subcommittee staff. Also deserving
thanks are our Republican Members' staff, including Allison Dembeck,
Celia Sims, Glee Smith, Karen McCarthy, Juliann Andreen, Alison Anway,
John van Meter, and Elizabeth Floyd, as well as their Democratic staff
counterparts. Also, I thank Scott Raab from Senator McConnell's office
and Jim Johnson in Senator Shelby's office for helping us work through
some of the more difficult issues in the negotiations.
Also deserving my gratitude is the House staff, including Mark
Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Gabriella Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel
with Chairman Miller's staff, and Sally Stroup, James Bergeron, and Amy
Jones with Congressman McKeon's staff.
Also, with any piece of legislation that we draft, we should not
forget the legislative counsels in both bodies who worked tirelessly to
put the 1,500-page agreement together. They are Steve Cope, Molly
Lothamer, Mark Koster, Kristin Romero, and Amy Gaynor, who also deserve
to be recognized.
It has been 10 years since the last major reauthorization. I believe
it was worth the time and the effort to get it to this point. The
changes we make today will affect today's students and students for
generations to come.
I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time to the Senator
from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
We are now heading to our wrap-up.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of 48 letters in
support of the bill be printed in the Record. They range from the
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, to the United
States Student Association, to the Chamber of Commerce, and many
others.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Letters of Support Received for Higher Education Opportunity Act

American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), U.S.
Public Interest Research Group/United States Student
Association, United Negro College Fund, Association of Jesuit
Colleges and Universities, Council for Opportunity in
Education, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
(NAFEO), National Council for Community and Education
Partnerships (NCCEP), National Council of La Raza, National
Education Association, American Federation of Teachers,
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, National Down
Syndrome Society/National Down Syndrome Congress, National
Federation for the Blind, and Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bar Association,
American Association of University Women, American
Association of School Administrators, American Association of
Colleges of Teacher Education, Career College Association,
Council of Graduate Schools, National School Board
Association, National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators, National Association for the Education of
Young Children, New York State Education Department,
University of North Carolina, California State University,
Midwestern University, Student Loan Servicing Alliance, and
National HEP/CAMP Association.
Hispanic Education Association, Center for Law and Social
Policy (CLASP), Direct Loan Coalition, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Endicott College (MA), College
Summit, Motion Picture Association of America, National
Association of College Stores, Legal Action Center, EdInvest,
International University of Nursing, St. George's University
School of Medicine, University of Phoenix, Massachusetts
Educational Opportunity Association, St. Matthew's
University, and Saba University School of Medicine.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I too thank the very hard-working staff
on this bill. There have been many compliments of me tonight, but I
could not

[[Page 17647]]

have done what Senator Kennedy asked me to do without the very able
help of Senator Kennedy's staff. Senator Enzi articulated them by name,
but especially Mike Myers, Carmel Martin, JD LaRock, and others. I
could not have done it without them. Also, I say to Senator Enzi, we
could not have done this without you. I worked with you on pensions and
I knew how solid our relationship was and how carefully you pursue
these matters. Senator Kennedy said you were a prince of a guy to work
with, and he was absolutely right. I extend my thanks to you and to
your professional staff as well.
There were also other Democrats who worked on the bill on our side--
two who could not speak tonight, but I acknowledge the very hard-
working role of Senator Obama, who was a very aggressive advocate on
many of these issues, along with Senator Clinton.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the staff
thank-yous be printed in the Record so we do not forget one person who
helped make this legislation possible.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

List of Staff Thank-You's for HEA

Senator Kennedy: Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, J.D. LaRock,
Erin Renner, Missy Rohrbach, Emma Vadehra, Jennie Fay, Shawn
Daugherty, Michael Zawada, Roberto Rodriguez, David Johns,
Jane Oates.
Senator Enzi: Ilyse Shuman, Greg Dean, Beth Buehlmann, Ann
Clough, Adam Briddell, Lindsay Hunsicker, Aaron Bishop, Kelly
Hastings.
Chairman Miller: Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Gabriella
Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel.
Ranking Member McKeon: Sally Stroup, Amy Jones.
Senator Dodd: Mary Ellen McGuire, Jeremy Sharp.
Senator Mikulski: Julia Frifield, Dvora Lovinger, Robin
Juliano.
Senator Harkin: Rob Barron.
Senator Bingaman: Michael Yudin, Michele Mazzocco.
Senator Murray: Kathryn Young.
Senator Reed: Seth Gerson.
Senator Clinton: Mildred Otero, Latoya Johnson, Chelsea
Maughan.
Senator Obama: Steve Robinson.
Senator Sanders: Huck Gutman.
Senator Brown: Will Jawando.
Senator Gregg: Allison Dembeck.
Senator Alexander: David Cleary, Sarah Rittling.
Senator Burr: Celia Sims.
Senator Isakson: Glee Smith.
Senator Murkowski: Karen McCarthy.
Senator Hatch: Juliann Andreen.
Senator Roberts: Alison Anway.
Senator Allard: Jon VanMeter.
Senator Coburn: Elizabeth Floyd.
Senate Banking Committee: Senator Dodd: Shawn Maher, Amy
Friend, Roger Hollingsworth.
Senator Shelby: Jim Johnson.
Senate Budget Committee: Robyn Hiestand.
Senate Legislative Counsel: Mark Koster, Amy Gaynor,
Kristin Romero, Laura Ayoud.
House Legislative Counsel: Steve Cope, Molly Lothamer.
Congressional Budget Office: Debb Kalcevic, Justin
Humphrey.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also thank our colleagues in the
House. Congressman Miller and Congressman McKeon were absolutely
stalwarts in working with us. Congressman Miller and I had daily
conversations on how to move this bill forward, and it was both
fruitful and productive, and what the Congress should be.
A word about working with my colleague, Senator Enzi. We had
disputes. We had issues. We had things that had to be worked out. You
heard some of them this evening from the Senator from Oklahoma, the
Senator from Tennessee. But at the end of the day, the day was over. We
would be able to work and follow that kind of Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neill
rule that when the day was over, the dispute was set aside. We went
home and thought about what we could do to move this bill.
I wish the whole Senate could work the way we worked on this bill,
starting with Senator Kennedy's leadership, and Senator Enzi's, as they
held the hearings, listened to us, and included us. We need to do more
bipartisan work. When all is said and done, we have to start doing
things and less saying things. Because one of the great things I like
about this bill is it achieves a very important American freedom.
Our Constitution explicitly guarantees many rights: the freedom of
speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of religion, the freedom
of press. But implicit in our Constitution, our Declaration of
Independence, and all of our documents, all of our beliefs, and all of
our values, is we believe in the freedom to achieve, that in the United
States of America you can be anything you want to be, and you have
access, and should have access, to an opportunity ladder that enables
you to participate in the American dream.
We are a country whose values say: Dream about what you can be and
dream about what you can contribute. And when you want to follow that
dream, you should not be barred from it because of the size of your
wallet. Your dream should only be shaped by the size of your talents.
I think this bill today, tonight, will advance this whole freedom to
achieve, this opportunity ladder for our young people. I am very
honored to participate in it. I am very honored Senator Kennedy asked
me to take on this conference. But we could not have advanced this idea
without Senator Ted Kennedy.
Senator Ted Kennedy is a giant in this institution and in this
country. His whole life has been devoted to access to opportunity,
access to education, access to health care, that there be no barriers
in the area of civil rights where people were sidelined or redlined.
So tonight, as we move to the adoption of this bill, I say to my
colleagues here, I urge the adoption of this bill.
I want Senator Kennedy to know many of us today, and while he has
been recovering from his illness, have worn these blue armbands. They
say: ``Ted Strong.'' Well, we know Ted is strong.
So, Ted, this is for you tonight.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand that the actual vote on the
conference report will occur at a time to be determined by our
leadership.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4137 be set aside; and the Senate
now proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4040, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission Act; there be debate on the
conference report until 8 p.m. this evening, with the time equally
divided and controlled in the usual form; that at 8 p.m. the Senate
proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R.
4040, that upon disposition of that report, the Senate then resume the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4137 and the Senate proceed to vote
on adoption of the report, without further intervening action or
debate; that prior to the second vote, there be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the
Members, there will be two votes at 8 o'clock.

____________________

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will lay before the Senate the
conference report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4040), to establish consumer product safety

[[Page 17648]]

standards and other safety requirements for children's
products, having met, have agreed that the House recede from
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to
the same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by all of the conferees on the part of both Houses.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of July 30, 2008.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the conference report for H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Today is a great day for American families. This bill is the first
step toward revitalizing an important safety agency and restoring
confidence in the safety of consumer products for years to come.
Media reports and consumer advocates have called this bill the most
important consumer product safety legislation in a generation. I call
it legislation that is long overdue. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission--Commission--is a small agency with an exceptionally broad
and important charge, as the name suggests, the protection of
consumers, particularly children from dangerous products. The
Commission is responsible for ensuring that the more than 15,000
products--everything from infant cribs to all-terrain-vehicles--are
safe to use. Every year, more than 28,000 Americans die and an
additional 33 million are injured by consumer products. These numbers
are too high, and an effective CPSC with increased funding, staff, and
authority is essential to reducing these losses.
I am very pleased that many of the key provisions which originated in
the Senate, such as the searchable database, whistleblower protection,
phthalates restrictions, mandatory toy safety standards, and all-
terrain vehicle safety standards were included in the final bill.
Several of these initiatives faced significant initial opposition from
the administration, industry, and indeed, from the chair of the
Commission itself, and I am pleased that we have come together in the
House and the Senate to overcome these challenges.
H.R. 4040 restores needed resources and authority to the Commission.
Starting in fiscal year 2010, the bill would authorize $626 million
over a 5-year period to provide the agency the manpower and the
technology it needs to police a complex consumer marketplace. The
legislation would restore the CPSC to a full complement of five
Commissioners in order to expand expertise, maintain continuity and
avoid the losses of quorum that have plagued the agency in recent
years.
In addition, State attorneys general gain clear authority to bring
civil actions to seek injunctive relief for clear violations of
statutes enforced by the CPSC. Creating a joint enforcement
relationship with the states has proven to be successful in the area of
consumer protection, and this collaboration would provide CPSC a strong
partner to help protect American families in a meaningful way.
H.R. 4040 would require manufacturers to use independent labs to test
children's products and to certify their compliance with mandatory
safety standards, including the mandatory toy safety standard
established in the bill. This new toy standard would provide the CPSC
with necessary enforcement tools to keep dangerous toys out of the
hands of children.
Essential and groundbreaking provisions that will improve the health
of every child include the bans of lead and certain phthalates from
children's products. Dangerous substances have no place in children's
products. This legislation provides a significant shift in policy in
favor of children and. Children have no business being used as guinea
pigs or becoming victims of the expediency of the manufacturing
process.
Our bill also would provide better information to consumers and the
CPSC. It would create a searchable, publically available database of
information from nonindustry sources, such as hospitals, child care
providers, public safety agencies, and consumer reports about product
hazards collected by the CPSC. The database would provide consumers
with potentially life-saving information, in an organized and timely
fashion, which would better equip them to assess product safety risks
and hazards. To aid in the Commission's enforcement mission, H.R. 4040
would provide whistleblower protections for employees of manufacturers
of consumer products when they find and report violations of consumer
product safety laws.
Reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate was no
easy task, but I had no doubts that the work of the committee would
come to a timely and successful conclusion. The Senate conferees worked
countless hours since the passage of the Senate amendment last March.
Senator Pryor authored the original Senate bill reported by the
Commerce Committee, which became the backbone of the Senate amendment
to H.R. 4040. His stewardship and attention to the details of this bill
were essential to negotiating the conference report with the House. I
also commend my good friend Senator Ted Stevens. Without his guidance
and support, the Senate amendment would not have passed, and we would
not have this groundbreaking legislation before us today.
I would also like to recognize several Senators who were not
conferees for their contributions to the original Senate amendment and
for working with the conference committee on the provisions they
championed in the Senate. Senator Nelson was the leader in crafting
mandatory toy standards and the independent third party testing mandate
in the Senate bill. Senator McCaskill's work on the whistleblower and
the inspector general provisions helped convince the conferees to
provide whistleblower protections to millions of workers in the
consumer products sector. Finally, Senator Feinstein's amendment to ban
certain phthalates from children's products was the foundation of the
compromise provision that was ultimately accepted by the conference.
I thank my friend Congressman John Dingell, the chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, who has shown his legislative skill and
care for the American people for more than 50 years. His partnership
with me this Congress has led to the passage of two monumental bills.
We worked together to increase fuel economy standards last December,
and to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission today.
The conference committee staff have labored on a nonstop basis since
May. I want to thank David Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Jana Fong-
Swamidoss, Mia Petrini, and Jared Bomberg of my Commerce Committee
staff for a job well done. I would also like to thank Paul Nagle,
Rebecca Hooks, and Megan Beechener of the Republican Commerce Committee
staff, and Lloyd Ator and Christopher Knox of the Commerce Committee's
Office of Legislative Counsel.
I also wish to recognize the efforts of the following staff of the
Senate conferees: Erik Olson, Bridget Petruczok, Price Feland, Kate
Nilan, Tamara Fucile, Brian Hendricks, and Peter Phipps; the House
Energy and Commerce Committee staff: Consuela Washington, Judy Bailey,
Christian Fjeld, Andrew Woelfling, Valerie Baron, Brian McCullough,
Will Carty, and Shannon Weinberg; and House legislative counsel Brady
Young.
I would also like to thank CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore and Michael
Gougisha and Pamela Weller of his staff for their assistance.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this conference report, and I
look forward to the President signing this landmark measure into law.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my house and senate colleagues
for their hard work and dedication these past months as we have worked
for a bipartisan, bicameral consumer product safety bill. This is a
product of a bipartisan effort in both chambers and I am proud to have
been a part of it. This final product will provide essential resources
to a commission badly in need and help ensure the safety of our
children from hazardous products.

[[Page 17649]]

The number of toys coming from overseas has increased greatly, while
the resources of the Consumer Product Safety Commission have decreased.
The result is unsafe products making their way to our store shelves and
into our homes. We all remember the wave of recalls last year. Passage
of this bill will help assure consumers that products are safe.
This bill provides the commission with $626 million over the next
five years and directs it to significantly increase the number of
staff, also adding to the number of CPSC employees stationed at our
ports of entry inspecting products for safety defects.
In addition to these increased resources, the CPSC will have greater
authority to punish violators of its statutes. The amount the CPSC can
collect in civil penalties for a single violation will be raised to
$100,000, with a maximum penalty cap of $15 million. And, as a way to
ensure compliance, state attorneys general will have authority to
enforce particular violations of CPSC statutes, including violations of
consumer product safety rules, regulations, standards, and bans, as
well as product recalls.
I am pleased that the all terrain vehicle (ATV) provision that I
included in the Senate-passed bill remains in this final bill. For many
Alaskans ATVs are the primary means of transportation in the summer.
More than a third of the ATVs sold in 2006 came from overseas--many
ATVs from overseas do not meet our safety standards. ATVs injured over
146,000 people in 2006, and approximately 39,000 of those injuries were
to children under 16. This bill requires all ATVs, both foreign and
domestic to be subject to the same safety standards.
Additionally the bill establishes tough lead standards and calls for
safety rules for durable infant and toddler products such as strollers
and cribs. Selling, reselling, offering or providing for use any of
these products not meeting our new safety standards will be illegal.
Consumers will also have the option of registering their purchases so
they can be notified in the event of a recall.
Consumers are purchasing more products over the internet or through
catalogues, and it is sometimes difficult to ascertain a product's
dangers by the photo online.
Advertisements providing a direct means of purchase will be required
to contain a cautionary statement. By including these statements,
consumers, will be able to make an informed decision when purchasing
products for a young child.
I congratulate everyone who worked so diligently on this bill. It
took some time, but we have a solid bill to send to the President that
will better protect our children and give the Consumer Product Safety
Commission the resources it has been missing.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up
the conference report on legislation to accomplish the urgent task of
preventing dangerous consumer products--especially those intended for
children--from entering the country or reaching store shelves. The
conference report contains a wide variety of measures that, taken
together, deserve our support because they will greatly bolster
defenses against hazards that must not reach American homes.
I want to commend the chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Pryor, for
his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him.
We all remember last year's alarming and, too often, tragic stories
of product hazards and recalls that demonstrated the need to strengthen
protections for consumers, particularly children. Unfortunately, those
dangers continue. In 2008, new Consumer Product Safety Commission,
CPSC, recalls have included 19,000 baby rattles that present choking
hazards, 685,000 wireless helicopter toys whose batteries can catch
fire, and 91,000 horseshoe-shaped magnet toys whose coating contains
high levels of lead.
Lead, as we know, is a particular concern because of its use in
plastics and paints can expose children to the risk of serious nervous
system damage and other health effects. The conference report's
dramatic reduction in the permissible lead content in products marketed
for children under 12--starting at 600 parts per million and ratcheting
down to 100 parts per million over 3 years--is just one example of the
bill's aggressive pursuit of safety.
Even with these tighter restrictions on lead content, we must
continue to pay special attention to imported products that violate our
safety rules. As we have seen with the lead issue, the bulk of toys
sold in American stores come from China, where cases of careless or
unscrupulous factories or suppliers using cheaper lead paints in
violation of factory or official standards make clear the need to
upgrade our ability to police safety violations in global supply
chains.
I am, therefore, pleased that the conference report contains four key
provisions from the Senate-passed bill, S. 2663, that emerged from an
in-depth investigation conducted by my staff on the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee. Combined with important
enhancements to CPSC authorities and funding provided in the conference
report, these four provisions will ensure that unsafe imported consumer
products, including toys and clothing that endanger our Nation's
children, are effectively screened at the border and, when necessary,
destroyed.
Last August, I asked my HSGAC staff to review the effectiveness of
Federal safety standards governing children's toys and clothing. The
committee investigators conducted numerous interviews of manufacturers'
representatives, retailers, consumer advocacy groups, and Federal
regulatory agencies, and visited a manufacturer's testing lab and two
ports. Their findings confirmed several weaknesses in our current
consumer product safety regime; namely; the CPSC is understaffed,
inadequately resourced, and lacks crucial authorities needed to fulfill
its mission; voluntary standards applicable to many classes of products
can be useful in quickly addressing safety issues, but lack the full
force of law; and the inability to effectively enforce safety standards
at our ports limits our Nation's ability to stop hazardous imported
products from entering the American marketplace.
My staff investigation made it clear that our border inspections
regime must target and intercept foreign products that fail to meet
U.S. safety standards. As our committee found, Customs and Border
Protection currently lacks the authority to seize and destroy dangerous
imported products even if the agency suspects that an unscrupulous
importer turned away at one port might attempt to bring these products
in through another U.S. port.
The committee's investigation also revealed that coordination and
information sharing between CBP and CPSC were often ad-hoc--providing
CBP with little useful information that would allow its agents to
target shipments that are more likely to contain dangerous goods.
The provisions that I authored, and worked with Senators Inouye,
Stevens, and Pryor to include in the bipartisan reform bill that the
Senate passed, specifically target problems with unsafe imports by
ensuring that CPSC and U.S. Customs and Border Protection work
effectively together to keep unsafe consumer products out of our
country. These provisions: authorize CBP to seize and destroy dangerous
consumer products entering our ports, long before they reach store
shelves or American homes; enhance information sharing between CPSC and
CBP so that inspectors at our Nation's ports can focus their resource
on the most risky shipments, targeting products, manufacturers, and
importers with poor consumer-safety records; task CPSC with developing
a comprehensive risk assessment tool to help CBP quickly evaluate
imported products that might violate our Nation's safety standards; and
direct the CPSC to develop a plan to ensure that Commission employees
are assigned to the National Targeting Center at CBP to increase
interagency collaboration in evaluating the potential risks of inbound
shipments for potential safety issues.
I am pleased that the conferees retained these provisions in their
report.

[[Page 17650]]

They will help the CPSC and Customs and Border Protection identify
dangerous products that enter our ports and prevent them from reaching
American homes.
Other measures in this conference report--increased staffing and
funding for the CPSC, tougher civil and criminal penalties for
violations of safety laws, a ban on reselling recalled products,
enhanced whistleblower protections, safety certifications, and product
tracking labels--will also strengthen the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's ability to protect American consumers. With the new
authorities in this bill, the CPSC will be able to work more
effectively with importers, retailers, consumers, and industry
associations to develop and enforce product-safety standards.
This legislation will make a real difference in protecting America's
children and other consumers from hazardous toys and other products.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report to H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. As
many of my colleagues know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or
CPSC, is responsible for protecting children and families against
unreasonable risks associated with 15,000 consumer products. Over the
past year, Congress has worked to improve the ability of the CPSC to
ensure the products in their jurisdiction are safe for children and
families across the Nation. The legislation before us today will
provide increased funding and expanded authorities for the CPSC to
accomplish their mission.
This conference report is a comprehensive measure that reflects
months of hard work on both sides of the aisle and between both
Chambers. It is a compromise measure that reflects the give and take of
each Chamber and each party. It is a bipartisan measure, demonstrated
by the fact that the House of Representatives voted 424-1 on Wednesday
in favor of this conference report.
Among the many items in this report, it takes a tough stand on lead
in children's products by banning lead in products made for children 12
and younger in 6 months, setting a maximum threshold of 600 parts per
million, ppm, which is reduced over time to 100 ppm after 3 years.
The conference report includes a significant increase in civil fines,
with a maximum fine of $15 million, more than 8 times the current
maximum, and it raises the per violation penalty cap to $100,000 from
the current level of $8,000. It also includes language to consider the
economic impact on small businesses when levying a fine. Further, it
toughens criminal penalties on bad actors who commit ``knowing and
willful'' violations of product safety laws by making them eligible for
up to 5 years in prison, fines, or both.
The conference report establishes testing and certification
requirements for children's products made for those ages 12 and under
before they are sold in the U.S. It also accredits third party labs to
do such product testing, including qualified proprietary labs.
The conference report includes a searchable consumer database that
the CPSC will have on-line in 2 years. It will contain minimum
reporting requirements for data to be posted, including: a description
of the product; identification of the manufacturer; a description of
the harm related to the use of the product; the submitter's contact
information; and verification that the submitted information is true
and accurate. Companies would have ten business days to review whatever
information is slated to go on the database, and post their own
comments. If necessary, the CPSC would remove inaccurate material and
redact confidential information.
The report gives authority to the CPSC to pick the recall remedy that
a business must follow, to either replace the product, repair the
product, or refund the consumer's money. It also makes it illegal to
sell a recalled product, or export a recalled product without explicit
permission. Further, it requires tracking labels for children's
products and packaging where it is practicable, to make sure products
are identifiable for more effective recall purposes.
Under the report, all foreign and domestic-made all-terrain vehicles,
or ATV's, will be required to meet the same mandatory safety standards.
It also bans the sale of new 3-wheeled ATV's in the United States.
On one of the more contentious items dealt with in the conference, a
compromise was reached earlier this week to ban three specific
phthalates, and place an interim ban on three other phthalates while a
formal health assessment is done. Once complete, the CPSC would
consider the findings of this assessment and conduct a rulemaking to
see if the interim ban should stay in place or be removed.
Finally, the conference report provides a significant increase in the
amount of funding available to the CPSC. Beginning in fiscal year 2010
and running through fiscal year 2014, the agency is authorized to
receive a total of $626 million. A specific authorization for travel is
included in the overall funding level to meet the ban placed on travel
paid for by outside groups. Given the new and expanded authorities the
CPSC will be required to undertake, this level of funding will meet
those needs.
Mr. President, the American people expect the CPSC to protect them
from dangerous toys and household products and ensure the consumer
goods they use every day are the safest possible. Congress is giving
them the tools to meet that goal.
I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to Senator
Inouye, who chaired this conference committee, for the bipartisan
process in which the conference was run, and how this report was
crafted. I would also like to thank my fellow conferees--Senators
Pryor, Boxer, Klobuchar, Stevens and Hutchison--for their hard work and
due diligence in putting together a measure that should enjoy the
support of a majority of our colleagues.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for H.R. 4040, the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act. The conferees have reached a
responsible compromise that makes important reforms to the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, CPSC, that are long overdue that will make
products safer for consumers and children.
This bill takes important steps to shore up a weak and ineffective
Consumer Product Safety Commission. As a grandfather and consumer, I am
appalled at the lack of resources and enforcement authority of the CPSC
and its inability to adequately protect our children, our food supply
and the general public from harmful or contaminated products.
We can and should be doing much more to protect the American
consumer. As was recently underscored by the alarming number of
children's products with high lead content, contaminated pet food, and
defective imported tires, there are a lot of cracks in the systems that
were supposed to be watching out for consumers.
We need to know our children's and grandchildren's toys are safe. We
need to know that the food we import is not tainted with harmful
chemicals. We need to know the products we buy will not harm us or our
children. I believe it is the government's basic responsibility to
protect the public.
Those who work for the companies that make these products may often
be in a position to detect and prevent serious problems or injuries
before they occur. I am pleased that this bill includes important
protections for corporate whistleblowers that will encourage employees
to come forward about violations and defective products without the
fear of retaliation by their employer.
Many of the defective and contaminated products are imported. Even
with its current limited resources and reach, CPSC recalled
approximately 150 tainted products from China in 2007 including tires,
toys, baby cribs, candles, bicycles, remote controls, hair dryers, and
lamps. Imagine how many more contaminated or defective products are
slipping through the cracks and reaching American consumers without
being detected.

[[Page 17651]]

We are being deluged by cheap imports from China and elsewhere. We
should at least be making sure the products we import are not
contaminated or dangerous. That is why I wrote to President Bush
requesting that his administration investigate dangerous products that
have been imported from China. We need to strengthen our agencies and
laws so that products that do not meet our health and safety standards
are stopped at our borders. To do this we need to give the CPSC the
necessary tools and resources, including more manpower to adequately
inspect imports.
This bill makes the legislative changes needed to give the CPSC the
necessary tools and resources to improve on its past poor performance
and reassure consumers that there will be more oversight of the
marketplace in the future.
This bill will: increase overall funding for the CPSC ; increase CPSC
staffing; prohibit the use of dangerous phthalates in children's toys
and child care articles; streamline product safety rulemaking
procedures; ban lead beyond a minute amount in products intended for
children under the age of 12 and require certification and labeling;
increase inspection of imported products so we are not allowing
recalled or banned products to cross our borders; increase penalties
for violating our product safety laws; strengthen and improve recall
procedures and ban the sale of recalled products; require CPSC to
provide consumers with a user-friendly database on deaths and serious
injuries caused by consumer products; and ban 3-wheel all terrain
vehicles, ATVs, and strengthens regulation of other ATVs, especially
those intended for use by youth.
The legislation has the strong support of consumer, scientific and
public health organizations. In a letter to Senate leaders, key
representatives of these groups called H.R. 4040, a ``ground-breaking
measure, which will help ensure that the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) has the resources and regulatory authority it needs
to protect consumers and repair our long-broken product safety net.''
Organizations supporting the bill include the following, among
others: Thomas H. Moore, Consumer Product Safety Commissioner; Alliance
for Patient Safety; American Academy of Pediatrics; American
Association of Law Libraries; American Association of University
Professors, AZ Conference; American Library Association; Circumpolar
Conservation Union; Coalition for Civil Rights and Democratic
Liberties; Consumers Union; Consumer Federation of America; Doctors for
Open Government; DoorTech Industries, Inc.; Ethics in Government Group,
EGG; Federation of American Scientists; Federal Employees Against
Discrimination; Focus On Indiana; Fund for Constitutional Government;
Georgians for Open Government; Government Accountability Project; HALT,
Inc.--An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform; Health Integrity
Project; Information Trust; Integrity International; Kids in Danger;
Liberty Coalition; National Consumers League; National Association of
State Fire Marshals; National Employment Lawyers Association; National
Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.; National Research
Center for Women & Families; National Whistleblower Center; No Fear
Coalition; OMB Watch; OpenTheGovernment.org; Parentadvocates.org;
Patrick Henry Center; Project on Government Oversight; Public Citizen;
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Sustainable Energy
and Economy Network; Taxpayers Against Fraud; The 3.5.7 Commission; The
New Grady Coalition; The Semmelweis Society International, SSI; The
Student Health Integrity Project SHIP; Truckers Justice Center; Union
of Concerned Scientists; U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; U.S. Public
Interest Research Group; and Whistleblowers USA.
I support this bipartisan legislation and I am please that it will
now become law.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I fully support many of the changes that H.R.
4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, makes to
ensure that America's consumers are safe. However, one of the main
goals of the bill is to provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
CPSC, with the tools and resources it needs to protect American
consumers. Although this conference report does take some steps towards
that end, it simultaneously hurts businesses without providing
commensurate benefits to consumers. For this reason, I will vote
against the conference report.
The CPSC was created in 1972 to establish a single set of product
safety regulations for manufacturers and distributors to follow
throughout the country. This conference report, however, includes a
section that would expand the power of state attorneys general to bring
actions on behalf of their own states against businesses they believe
violate federal consumer protection statutes mandated by the CPSC.
Giving 50 attorneys general discretion over consumer product safety
laws would lead to 50 different interpretations of the law, and, thus,
a confusing patchwork of safety standards that would make it more
difficult for the CPSC to enforce uniform, national policies. Moreover,
in recent years, some State attorneys general have used their positions
to garner national attention to advance their careers. I am worried
that this conference report leaves enough discretion to the state
attorneys general to enforce CPSC rules that would tempt some to file
frivolous lawsuits that could ultimately undermine the effectiveness of
the CPSC.
The conference report also keeps intact a requirement for the CPSC to
create a public database of product-related complaints. This public
database provides the opportunity for parties to post false information
online, and allows minimal oversight by the CPSC or an opportunity for
manufacturers to defend themselves. Inaccurate information about a
company's product on a government-endorsed website could irrevocably
harm a company's reputation, and I cannot support such a provision.
I also oppose the section in the conference report that would extend
new whistleblower protections to millions of employees of consumer
product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Under this bill,
once an employee notifies the CPSC of an action he ``believes to be'' a
violation of a consumer product safety regulation, the employer faces a
fine if it discharges or takes any negative action against the
employee. Including such a provision would grant any disgruntled
employee a powerful incentive to report erroneous or unsubstantiated
information as an alleged product safety violation in order to insulate
himself from unrelated disciplinary actions. There is no reason for
such a provision except to dramatically unbalance the employee-employer
relationship, and the failure to fix this section after repeated
attempts causes me even greater concern that it has little to do with
legitimate whistleblowers and more to do with hamstringing employers
from dealing appropriately with problem employees.
It is unfortunate that I am forced to vote against this conference
report because I do believe the CPSC's resources ought to be bolstered.
However, this conference report carries with it too many of the
problems that existed when the bill left the Senate.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support
of the H.R. 4040 conference report.
The issue of consumer product safety--and particularly the safety of
toys and other children's products--has long been an important issue
for me.
Over the last few years, however, we've seen ample evidence that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's authority to protect the public
was not up to the task. This breakdown in authority was made crystal
clear by last year's ``summer of recalls''--when we saw recall after
recall of children's products, including:
Children's jewelry and toys covered in lead paint. Toys with
detachable magnets that can cause fatal intestinal obstructions.
Stuffed animals with small parts that can detach and become a choking
hazard. A children's craft kit containing beads that--when

[[Page 17652]]

swallowed--metabolized into the same chemical compound as GHB, the date
rape drug.
Unfortunately, I saw some of the impacts of harmful toys first hand.
Last July, I visited with a team of emergency room doctors in Tampa who
treated children with intestinal obstructions due to magnets that had
detached from toys. In some cases, the doctors noted that the
intestinal obstructions were so severe that the children had to undergo
surgery to remove the blockages.
Invasive surgery like this is scary for most adults--so you can only
imagine what it was like for a 4- or 5-year-old to go through something
like this.
That August, I also visited with a family in Jacksonville who left
two of their children in a room with a disco ball toy. The disco ball
toy later overheated, caught fire, and emitted enough carbon monoxide
to kill both children.
After visiting with the families of these children, I also learned
first hand about the weaknesses in our product safety laws--and the
general failure of leadership at the CPSC. This regulatory breakdown
was highlighted by the fact that the CPSC had only one full time
employee--who worked in this cramped, antiquated lab--responsible for
ensuring the safety of our children's toys.
Quite frankly, I was outraged by this--and last summer I introduced
S. 1833, the Children's Product Safety Act, which would, require third-
party testing of toys and other children's products.
These third-party testing requirements were incorporated by Senator
Pryor into the Senate version of the CPSC Reform bill--along with an
amendment I offered in the Commerce Committee that would mandate the
first mandatory safety standards for toys.
And I am very pleased that they are included in the final conference
report.
Taken together, these provisions will ensure that toys and other
products intended for children 12 and under will be tested by a
rigorous third-party screening process that is continuously updated to
address new and emergency hazards. And that is a big victory for
America's families.
I would like to thank the members of the conference and the staff of
the Senate Commerce Committee for all of their hard work on this issue.
This legislation will help ensure that we never face another ``summer
of recalls.''
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and get it to the White
House as soon as possible.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Bill, while
well intentioned, will do little to improve consumer product safety.
Since when should the Government be held responsible for the safety
of consumers when time and time again the Federal bureaucracy has
failed in its other safety obligations and responsibilities?
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina was a stark and sad reminder that a
bloated, inefficient, and incompetent bureaucracy does not have the
ability to protect citizens.
Just last year, the interstate bridge collapse in Minnesota reminded
us all of the misplaced priorities of the Federal Government. Instead
of ensuring the structural soundness of bridges, politicians were more
concerned with their earmarks, and diverted funds away from bridges
such as the one in Minnesota for their own political benefit.
In another example of Government incompetence, the census is
currently in grave peril of not completing its constitutional duty
effectively and on time. This speaks volumes about the inefficiencies
of our Government, as we have 10 years to prepare for the census with
over two centuries of experience to draw upon to execute this
responsibility.
This bill is a perfect example of politicians rushing to legislate on
a problem that really isn't there in order to pat themselves on the
back to try to curry favor with their constituents in an election year.
The truth is the paranoia and hysteria currently with consumer
product safety is not proportional to the reality of the situation.
Nancy Ord, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, stated
in January, ``Last year was marked by intense media scrutiny of the
agency and of toy recalls in particular . . . the coverage reached
near-hysteria level, And then, of course, some politicians, sensing a
possible political issue, jumped on the bandwagon.''
While there has been a rise in product recalls, in a sense, the
recalls are themselves a positive sign, as dangers were identified by
manufacturers and products were removed from the market.
More importantly, these product recalls have not translated into dire
health consequences, as there has been little evidence of any
deterioration in overall product safety. There were few if any reports
of consumer injuries from the recalled products. Although the number of
injuries from toys increased somewhat in 2006, injury rates generally
have decreased since 2001. Also, lead poisoning cases are at historic
lows in many areas.
Regardless, many of the companies that fall under the CPSC umbrella
have raised the levels of their own self-policing. Wal-Mart has
announced that this month it will require independent lab testing for
all new toys as well as those it reorders. Mattei and others have ended
the use of certain kinds of batteries. And the Toy Industry Association
has worked with the Commission on a plan to test toy safety in the
design and manufacturing process as well as the final product.
The political reaction to the problem, like most Government
solutions, is to throw money at it.
While some statutory upgrades are needed, almost doubling the size of
the agency, as this bill does, will not eradicate or drastically
improve the issue.
As we have seen time after time, when Government throws money at a
problem, rarely does it improve a situation, and more often than not,
it further complicates and aggravates the problem.
In addition, there are also a lot of unintended consequences in this
bill, as it is a trial lawyer giveaway. While the dramatic increase in
authorization is troubling, the provisions that subject businesses to
the wrath of the trial lawyer and plaintiffs bar are far more
problematic as they will raise the cost of doing business, hurt or
destroy small businesses, and could further exasperate an already
unstable economy.
Authorizing State attorneys general to initiate lawsuits, creating a
consumer product safety database, and drastically increasing fines are
free giveaways to trial lawyers that will do little for consumer safety
and will unnecessarily damage small businesses.
Allowing State attorneys general to bring lawsuits on behalf of their
residents for violations of consumer safety rules would reverse 35
years of successful policy experience.
Overzealous State attorneys general will now have the authority and
discretion to interpret safety regulations and could unilaterally on a
whim rule a business is noncompliant and could then hand over expensive
lawsuits to their trial lawyer's cronies who are notoriously close with
State law enforcement officials.
State attorneys, then, would be hard-pressed to deny politically
active State trial lawyers to sue companies when the litigation will
not cost the State a dime and could, in many cases, bring the attorney
general positive publicity.
This provides false incentives for overzealous attorneys general and
would run precisely counter to the CPSC's policy of carefully balancing
cost and benefit in making safety regulations.
Lawsuits, which are expensive, adversarial, and often drawn out, can
be an impediment to a successful long-term relationship that maximizes
compliance and safety.
State attorneys general should not have the power to reduce the
effectiveness of the CPSC's efforts by undermining its balanced
approach to enforcement.
Another free giveaway to trial lawyers is the creation of a consumer
product safety database. The database is estimated to cost $10 million,
which

[[Page 17653]]

accounts for over 10 percent of the Commission's budget.
This section requires the CPSC to establish a Web site to post any
complaint, regardless of accuracy or merit, from consumer groups or
individuals.
While on the surface the database appears to aim to educate and warn
consumers about potential product defect or harm, the reality of it is
far from effective. It is highly doubtful that many consumers will know
about or even care to peruse a Government Web site to validate whether
a product is safe prior to purchase, especially considering the claims
are not verified prior to posting.
What the database does provide in much more practical terms however,
is a centralized, consolidated data source where law firms, unions, and
lobbyists are given access to cherry-pick consumer reports for
potential lawsuits.
There is already a consumer product database, called lawcash.com,
that consolidates consumer product complaints.
The Web site brags that its database provides consumers ``the
information you need and the access you deserve to find out if you are
eligible to claim your share of billions of dollars distributed yearly
through thousands of class action lawsuits.''
This reveals the true motives for such ``consumer product
batabases,'' and accordingly the Government has no role in serving as a
conduit of information that promotes hit job lawsuits.
This cumbersome endeavor will divert funds and resources from efforts
that actually go toward consumer safety and redirect it toward
maintaining a Web site that will only contain inflammatory information
that unions and lawyers can utilize to sue businesses.
The bill drastically increases maximum civil penalties more than
tenfold and the individual violation more than twentyfold, subjecting
each product that wrongfully enters the market to a $100,000 fine. The
threat of a $100,000 fine will cause many small manufacturers and
retailers who commit only minor violations to declare bankruptcy.
Additionally, faced with these hefty fines, this provision could
erode the healthy and productive relationship between businesses and
the Commission.
Faced with bankruptcy, many businesses would be much less inclined to
voluntarily report violations and as a consequence would not receive
the proper guidance to fix the problem, subjecting the business and its
employees to potential harm.
While allowing increases in frivolous lawsuits and drastically hiking
up the fines for businesses may allow Senators to tout to the public
that they are tough on consumer safety, these actions are unlikely to
improve the situation, and more importantly, the unintended
consequences would be to increase the cost of doing business, impairing
economic and job growth at a time when our economy desperately needs
economic and job growth.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask today to speak on the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
I commend the conferees for ironing out the differences between the
House and Senate passed versions of this bill that will deliver to the
American people strong and much needed reform to consumer product
oversight. I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version, and I
would like to thank and congratulate Chairman Inouye for his leadership
and Senator Pryor for his extraordinary work in crafting this
outstanding, bipartisan bill.
Over the last several years the Consumer Product Safety Commission
has become a shell of its former self, with a noticeable void in
leadership. Dangerous goods and toys have fallen into the hands of our
most vulnerable population while the CPSC has looked the other way.
This act, however will prevent the CPSC from shirking its
responsibility and ignoring its obligation to make America safe.
This act will provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with the
authority an resources it needs to be more effective in its critical
mission to protect consumers. Quite frankly, the current product safety
system is broken, and the CPSC is in desperate need of reform. Too many
unsafe goods are reaching the shores of the United States. Too many
dangerous products are finding their way into the hands of American
consumers, and all too often, young children.
We worry about our kids when they are in class, when they are walking
or driving home alone, even when they surf the Internet. We should not
have to worry that the toys they play with might be hazardous to their
health, or god forbid, even fatal.
The effectiveness of the CPSC has been severely undermined by years
of budget and personnel cuts and, as a result, has been unable to keep
up with globalization of the marketplace. This bill will reverse those
trends and give the CPSC the budget and the tools it desperately needs
to again become an effective force for consumer protection.
Protecting consumers, and especially children, is a priority, and the
bill takes a tough approach to products that might threaten their
health and safety. Imports of untested children's products will be
prohibited, and mandatory third-party testing of children's products
will be implemented. Tracking labels for children's products will help
parents tie safety recalls and alerts to prior purchases. Children's
products containing lead and certain plastic additives will be banned.
A new Chronic Health Advisory Panel will be created. Finally, the sale
of recalled products will be prohibited.
The CPSC must do a better job of getting hazardous products off the
shelves and out of consumers' reach and these provisions will give the
CPSC the tools to do just that. Manufacturers, importers, and retailers
will be required to do their part as well or face serious consequences.
The bill provides for increased criminal and civil penalties for those
who knowingly and willingly violate product safety laws. It also gives
State attorneys general the means to enforce Federal safety standards
and get dangerous products off the shelf. Protections for
whistleblowers are also included in the bill, so that employees who
identify dangerous products along the supply chain can come forward
with vital health and safety information without fear of reprisal.
These and other provisions of the CPSC Reform Act represent
commonsense solutions to keeping consumers informed and safe from
dangerous products. The bill will also ban industry-sponsored trips,
which have the perception of unduly influencing CPSC officials.
Passage of this bill is vital if we hope to rebuild, reform, and
revitalize the CPSC. The CPSC must be re-equipped to do its job of
enhancing product safety and protecting kids and consumers from unsafe
products.
The Federal Government must again become an effective force for
consumer protection. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is a
first step--and a vital one at that.
Ms. BOXER. Mr. President, in a Senate where recently it has been so
hard to get things done, Democrats and Republicans have come together
in a bipartisan manner to produce a strong conference report that is a
victory for children and families.
I have a message for American parents everywhere who are concerned
about the safety of their children's toys, ``We have heard your
concerns, and today, Congress has acted.''
The Senate is about to approve landmark consumer legislation to
protect our kids from dangerous children's products and hazardous
substances.
I want to thank Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Pryor
and their staffs for all of their hard work and dedication to this
important bill.
As both a parent and a grandparent, I have been incredibly distressed
by the seemingly endless stream of reports about defective and
dangerous children's toys and products.
Consumers Union dubbed 2007 ``The Year of the Recall'' after 45
million toys and other children's products were recalled. Recalls
jumped 22 percent for the 9-month period that ended June 30 of this
year.
Clearly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not been able to
keep pace with the growing market of

[[Page 17654]]

consumer products many of which are now manufactured abroad.
For too long we have asked this agency, which has a staff of
approximately 400 charged with overseeing the safety of 15,000 consumer
products, to do too much with grossly inadequate resources and
enforcement tools.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 addresses those
resource problems and finally brings the CPSC's enforcement powers in
line with those of other Federal agencies charged with protecting the
public.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 includes a strong
ban on lead and phthalates, requires testing of all children's products
that must meet mandatory toy standards, and for the first time,
includes a public, searchable national database on the CPSC website of
all consumer complaints filed with the CPSC so consumers can be better
informed about dangerous products.
The bill also strengthens the Consumer Product Safety Commission's
authority to recall products, increases enforcement authority for
Attorneys General, includes stronger civil and criminal penalties for
violators, bans industry sponsored travel, and provides whistleblower
protections for employees of manufacturers, private labelers,
retailers, and distributors.
I want to thank the conferees for including two provisions I authored
in committee.
The Labeling Requirement for Advertising Toys and Games requires
products sold over the Internet or in catalogues to list any cautionary
statements, such as choking warnings, in their advertisements.
These labels would normally be visible when the products are
purchased in the store but oftentimes are not visible to the consumer
when sold over the Internet or in catalogues.
My second provision requires manufacturers of durable infant or
toddler's products to provide consumers with postage-paid registration
forms with each product so consumers can be better informed if the
product they bought is eventually recalled.
This provision was based on a bill by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky
called the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.
Danny Keysar was a 16-month-old child who died when his Playskool
Travel-Lite portable crib collapsed--5 years after the CPSC had ordered
it off the shelves because it was dangerous. Danny was tragically the
fifth victim to die due to the faulty design of this crib and a sixth
child died 3 months later.
From 1990 to 1997 more than 1.5 million portable cribs with a similar
dangerous design were manufactured. A total of 17 children have been
killed by these types of cribs.
Neither Danny's parents nor a caregiver at the daycare where the
accident occurred were aware of the recall. State inspectors who had
visited the daycare a week before were not aware of the crib's recall.
Our provision will provide parents with a method for receiving these
vital recall updates that could save their child's life.
I was also pleased to work closely with Senator Klobuchar,
Representative Waxman, and other conferees to get a strong ban on lead
in toys and other children's products to protect our kids from
dangerous lead contamination.
I also want to thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Pryor for their
leadership and support on this issue.
We all know that lead poisons the brain and nervous system, can
decrease IQs, and cause behavioral problems, and that it is especially
dangerous to children.
Let me tell you about Colton Burkhart, a 4-year-old boy from Oregon
on a family camping trip who became violently ill from lead poisoning
after he swallowed a medallion from a necklace bought in a 25-cent toy
vending machine. The medallion turned out to be 39 percent lead, which
had elevated his blood lead level to a potentially fatal level of 123
micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, more than 12 times the CDC's
lead poisoning level of concern.
Jarnell Brown, another 4-year-old boy was brought to the hospital
emergency department in Minneapolis, Minnesota complaining of vomiting.
Believing that the child had a stomach virus, he was released. The next
day, Jarnell was rushed to the hospital after having suffered a seizure
and respiratory arrest. Jarnell later died. An autopsy revealed that he
died of acute lead poisoning from a heart-shaped charm from a bracelet
that his mother had gotten free with her Reebok sneakers. The charm was
found to contain 99.1 percent lead. Reebok recalled 300,000 bracelets
worldwide as a result.
The many recalls of lead toys and products over the past year have
highlighted the need for action.
This legislation puts into place a ban on lead in children's products
that gets increasingly stringent over 3 years, and that will help
ensure that we protect our kids today and in future generations from
the scourge of lead poisoning.
In addition, Senator Feinstein, Representative Waxman and I
successfully fought, shoulder-to-shoulder, for a ban on dangerous
phthalates in many children's products.
Studies show that phthalates are endocrine disruptors linked to
reproductive abnormalities in male babies and many experts believe that
the accumulation of exposures to multiple phthalates presents a risk to
developing fetuses and young children.
Phthalates have been banned from many children's products in the
European Union since 1999, and at least nine other countries have
followed suit in an effort to better protect children from harmful
health effects of these chemicals.
My home State of California was the first in the Nation to prohibit
phthalates in many toys and child care products, and Washington State
and Vermont have taken similar actions.
In addition, major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Toys ``R''
Us have already begun to take phthalate-containing children's products
off their shelves.
China, which manufactures 85 percent of the world's toys, reportedly
has created a separate manufacturing line for products intended for
export to nations that ban phthalates.
This legislation will permanently ban three of the most dangerous
phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP from all children's toys and child care
articles.
In addition, it imposes an interim ban on three other dangerous
phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, in children's toys that can be put in
the mouth, and in childcare articles. That ban can only be altered
after a detailed scientific review.
Of course, nothing in this bill undercuts the Commission's authority
to go beyond the specific products listed in this section's ban, or the
specific phthalates listed in the ban, in any additional action the
Commission takes under its regulatory authorities.
States such as California that have been leaders in protecting
children by restricting toxic phthalate alternatives, are protected.
I also want to thank the conferees for working with Congressman
Waxman and myself to protect State warning laws related to consumer
products, such as California's Proposition 65.
We are so pleased to see the final conference report clarifies that
State and local toy and children's product requirements in effect
before the date of enactment of this legislation are not preempted.
This bill is so important to the health and safety of our children
and families. I want to again thank my colleagues on both the House and
Senate side for all of their efforts on this legislation.
We can't risk one more child's injury or tragic death due to faulty
toys or children's products. I am glad to hear that the President has
agreed to sign this legislation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This legislation makes a number
of long overdue changes and improvements in the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and their ability to protect children and other consumers.
It will impose mandatory toy safety standards, in place of the current
voluntary standards; create an online

[[Page 17655]]

database, which parents and consumers can search for reports of safety
problems; provide whistleblower protections to employees of
manufacturers, retailers and distributors to promote prompt reporting
of any safety hazard; and authorize a much needed funding increase for
the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure that these reforms are
carried out.
Most importantly, this legislation bans the use of six phthalates in
many children's products and child care articles. It will ban the use
of more than .1 percent of three phthalates--DEHP, DBP, or BBP--in toys
for children ages 12 and under and childcare articles for children ages
3 and under; and place an interim ban on the use of more than .1
percent of three additional phthalates--DINP, DIDP, and DnOP--in any
toy that can be placed in a child's mouth or a child care article for
ages 3 or under.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission will convene a Chronic Hazard
Advisory Panel, CHAP, to fully examine the science on the effects of
phthalates and any phthalate alternative. After this study, they will
determine whether the interim ban should remain in place.
I believe they will find that the ban is essential to the protection
of children's health.
Let me say, it is about time. The United States is often behind the
rest of the world when it comes to chemical policy. The same has been
true for phthalates. These chemicals have been restricted in at least
31 nations, including European Union--27 countries--Argentina, Fiji,
Japan, Korea, and Mexico.
It took action from three States--California, Washington and
Vermont--before we have reached this point.
It took voluntary action from the country's largest toy retailers:
Wal-Mart, Toys ``R'' Us, and Target, all of which have announced that
they will stop selling products that contain phthalates.
With the passage of this legislation, parents throughout this country
will have the same assurances as parents in the E.U., in Argentina, in
Japan, and all of these other counties. They will be sure that the toys
they give their children do not contain a dangerous plasticizer.
And make no mistake, these chemicals are dangerous. When children
chew on toys filled with phthalates, these chemicals leach from the
toy, and into their bodies. Phthalates have been linked to a variety of
reproductive defects.
The science on phthalates is still evolving. But today, we are acting
out of precaution: removing potentially dangerous substances from
products until they are shown to be safe.
Our current system for dealing with chemicals requires that
regulators show that a chemical is dangerous before it can be removed
from the market. We have this backwards: the burden should be placed on
the manufacturers to prove to us that the chemicals they want to put in
everyday items are safe. Our children should not be guinea pigs for
untested chemicals.
The interim ban on three phthalates marks a departure from this
longstanding ``use chemicals first, ask questions later'' approach.
These chemicals will be permitted back into toys only if they are
proven to be safe, the very hallmark of the precautionary principle.
We need to move fully in this direction. It is my belief that
chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact
health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to see that we exercise the same
caution with all chemicals.
This is a sea change in our Nation's chemical policy, and
predictably, we faced strong opposition from industry. Many people
contributed to this victory here today, and I would like to mention a
few.
I would like to thank Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator
Pryor for their steadfast support throughout this process.
This would not have been possible without my home State colleagues,
Senator Boxer and Congressman Waxman. They supported this from the
beginning, and their work ensured that the best product possible
emerged from conference.
David Strickland, Alec Hoehn-Saric, and the Commerce Committee staff
have been invaluable. They worked long nights and weekends to reach an
agreement on this provision, and I appreciate it.
Kristin Wikelius and Chris Thompson of my staff, who quickly learned
about this issue and worked hard to move this through the legislative
process.
Dozens of grassroots groups from across the country supported my
amendment and rallied their members to do the same. I will ask to have
a list of these groups printed in the Record.
This Coalition was led by the Breast Cancer Fund, based in my home
city of San Francisco. Their work, expertise, and support made this
happen.
On another matter central to children's health, I am very pleased
that this bill includes a provision that I sponsored to require
secondhand cribs that are sold and used in the marketplace to have the
same product safety standards as new cribs.
This bill will close a loophole in consumer product safety standards,
and help reduce injuries and deaths that come from used cribs that have
missing or broken parts.
Currently, U.S. consumer product safety standards apply only to new
cribs and not to the sale or commercial use of secondhand cribs, which
cause most crib-related infant injuries and deaths.
The measure included in the conference report would prohibit
commercial users, such as thrift stores and resale furniture stores, to
sell, resell or lease unsafe used cribs that are structurally unsound,
and prohibits hotels, motels, and daycare centers from using unsafe
cribs, and adds secondhand cribs to the list of child and infant
products covered by the Consumer Product Safety Act, the law that
already applies to new cribs and other children's products.
The safety standards for secondhand cribs will now match the safety
standards for new cribs, including crib slats should be no more than
2\3/8\ inches apart to prevent infant from slipping through the slats
and corner posts should not be higher than 1/16 inches above the end
panels of the crib which prevents infant's clothing from becoming
tangled on the crib.
Every year, more than 11,300 children require hospital treatment from
crib-related injuries and over 30 children die from injuries sustained
in cribs.
Most of these injuries and deaths occur in secondhand cribs that have
dangerous features.
The language included in this conference report is similar to
proposals that Representative Ellen Tauscher and I have worked on for
many years.
I am very pleased that this legislation will help give parents the
peace of mind that secondhand cribs are just as safe as brandnew cribs.
The phthalate ban, the expansion of crib safety protections, and the
entire Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act are hard-fought
victories for children and all of those concerned with their safety.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference report,
and I urge the President to sign this into law the moment it lands on
his desk. We have waited years to take action against chemicals like
phthalates, and we should not wait any longer.
I ask unanimous consent that the list of groups supporting my
amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 17656]]

May 27, 2008.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington
DC.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Vice Chairman, Committee on Commerce Science and
Transportation, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington DC.
Hon. John Dingell,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Chairman
Dingell, and Ranking Member Barton: The undersigned
organizations wish to express strong support for including
Senator Feinstein's amendment in the final version of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act (CPSCA).
Senator Feinstein's amendment would prohibit the manufacture,
sale, or distribution in commerce of certain children's
products and child care articles that contain phthalates. By
eliminating unnecessary exposure to phthalates in children's
products, the United States would join the European Union and
14 separate countries in requiring the safest toys for its
children.
Over the last several decades, children have faced an
increasingly challenging time just making it through what
should be normal stages of growth and development. Of
particular concern are chemicals found to have negative
health impacts that are in products children use every day.
Of primary interest to the undersigned is the use of
phthalates, present in a variety of children's products
including soft plastic toys and teethers, which have been
linked to developmental problems, such as premature breast
development in girls, male genital defects, and reduced sperm
quality.
Alternatives to phthalates already exist and are on the
market. Some major manufacturers have already taken the
responsible path toward eliminating these hazards from their
products and major retail outlets such as Wal-Mart and Toys-
R-Us are requiring that the products on their shelves be
phthalate-free. Yet, there currently are no laws in the U.S.
prohibiting the use of these chemicals, and no way for
parents to know whether the products they buy will help--or
hinder--their child's development.
States have already started taking action on this issue.
California and Washington already prohibit the use of
phthalates in children's products and almost a dozen states
have introduced similar measures. It is time for the federal
government to ensure that children in all 50 states receive
protection from unsafe chemical exposures in the toys they
chew on and play with everyday. Several states have also
taken the lead on protecting the health of their citizens
from unsafe chemical exposures in other consumer products.
The undersigned organizations are especially appreciative of
Senator Feinstein's inclusion of a ``savings clause'' in her
amendment that would prevent the federal preemption of state
efforts to enact stricter toy protections and regulate
phthalates more strictly in other product categories.
The undersigned organizations strongly urge the CPSC
Conference Committee to include the Feinstein Amendment
prohibiting the use of phthalates in children's toys and
childcare articles in the reconciled version of the House/
Senate Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act.
Sincerely,
AAIDD (American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities).
Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
AWHONN (Association of Women's Health, Obstetric & Neonatal
Nurses).
Breast Cancer Action.
Breast Cancer Fund.
Center for Environmental Health.
Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Citizens for a Healthy Bay
Clean New York.
Clean Water Action Alliance of Massachusetts.
Coalition for Clean Air.
Commonweal.
Consumer Federation of America.
Consumers Union.
CREHM (Chicago Consortium for Reproductive Environmental
Health in Minority Communities).
EarthJustice.
Endometriosis Association.
Environment California.
Environmental Health Fund.
Environmental Working Group.
Greenpeace.
Health Education and Resources.
Healthy Building Network.
Healthy Child Healthy World.
Healthy Children Organizing Project.
Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition.
Illinois PIRG.
INCIID (InterNational Council on Infertility Information
Dissemination, Inc.).
INND (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological
Disorders).
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Institute for Children's Environmental Health.
Kids in Danger.
Learning Disabilities Association of America.
Maternal and Child Health Access.
Minnesota PIRG.
MOMS (Making Our Milk Safe).
MomsRising.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Olympic Environmental Council.
Oregon Center for Environmental Health.
Oregon Environmental Council.
Physicians for Social Responsibility- San Francisco Bay
Area Chapter.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate.
Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte.
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
PODER (People Organized in Defense of Earth & her
Resources).
Project IRENE.
Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association.
Safe Food and Fertilizer.
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective.
Sources for Sustainable Communities.
The American Fertility Association.
The Annie Appleseed Project.
US PIRG.
Washington Toxics Coalition.
WashPIRG.
WHEN (Women's Health & Environmental Network).

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the Senator from Arkansas. The whistleblower protection provision
is an enforcement cornerstone of this legislation because it creates a
legal right for private employees to help enforce consumer protection
laws. It is important to underscore the Senate's intent that this
provision builds upon ``best practices'' in whistleblower laws.
Mr. PRYOR. That is correct. The whistleblower provision should be
interpreted broadly and consistent with ``best practices'' to achieve
the law's purpose. For instance, ``employee'' is defined broadly to
include individuals in any dimension of the employment concept:
incumbent or former employees. It protects all individuals who have
received compensation to engage in activities for which the corporation
is responsible. The law's purpose may not be circumvented by hair-
splitting interpretations that plug safe channels for witnesses to
disclose relevant evidence of safety hazards.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Furthermore, it is not Congress's intent to
substitute these whistleblower protections for other preexisting rights
and remedies against unfair employment practices.
Mr. PRYOR. Yes. Consistent with long-established Supreme Court case
law see e.g., English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 270, 1990--these
rights do not cancel or replace preexisting remedies, whether under
other overlapping congressional statutes, State laws, State tort claims
or collective bargaining agreements.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Companies should also not look to override the
whistleblower protections through nondisclosure policies or agreements
such as company manuals, prerequisites for employment or exit
agreements.
Mr. PRYOR. There should be no confusion that the rights for protected
activity created by this statute are the law of the land. They
supersede and cannot be canceled or overridden by any conflicting
restrictions in company manuals, employment contracts, or exit or
nondisclosure agreements.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Thank you for engaging in this colloquy with me to
reaffirm the rights conveyed in the whistleblower provision. This
provision is one of many in this legislation that reflects on the skill
you have demonstrated in guiding this bill through the Congress.

preemption

Mrs. BOXER. I rise to discuss with Senator Pryor, the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and
Automotive Safety, and lead sponsor of the Senate legislation, the
preemptive effect of certain provisions in H.R. 4040.
I am pleased that the bill protects State warning laws related to
consumer products or substances, such as California's Proposition 65.
The conference report clarifies that any such warning laws in effect as
of August 31,

[[Page 17657]]

2003, are not preempted by this act or the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act. This important clarification effectively harmonizes the four
statutes that are enforced by the Commission. Other laws enforced by
CPSC, including the Consumer Product Safety Act, clearly do not preempt
or affect State warning requirements like Proposition 65. The Federal
Hazardous Substances Act, however, is arguably ambiguous as to its
effect on State warning requirements. I am pleased that we have
eliminated this ambiguity with this conference report and harmonized
all of the Commission's statutes on this point.
I yield to Senator Pryor, and ask: Is it also your understanding that
nothing in this legislation or any of the laws enforced by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission will preempt or affect Proposition 65 in any
way?
Mr. PRYOR. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mrs. BOXER. My second inquiry relates to the bill's provisions on
phthalates. I am pleased that the language preserves the ability of
States to regulate phthalates in product classes that are not regulated
under this legislation, as well as States' ability to regulate
alternatives to phthalates, such as other chemical plasticizers that
might be used as substitutes to the phthalates that will be removed
from toys under this law. I yield to Senator Pryor and ask, is it your
understanding this law does not preempt or affect States' authority to
regulate any alternatives to phthalates that are not specifically
regulated by the Commission in a consumer product safety standard?
Mr. PRYOR. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mrs. BOXER. I also ask the distinguished floor manager Senator Pryor
to confirm my understanding that the third-party testing provisions of
the conference report have no preemptive effect on State or local
testing related requirements. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. PRYOR. Yes, the bill leaves such authority to impose testing
requirements in place without preemption.
Mrs. BOXER. Finally, I wanted to confirm my understanding that the
conference report makes it clear in section 106(h)(2) that State or
local toy and children's product requirements in effect prior to
enactment of this bill are not preempted by this legislation or by the
Consumer Product Safety Act. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. PRYOR. My colleague is correct. The legislation does not preempt
or otherwise affect State or political subdivision requirements
applicable to a toy or other children's product that is designed to
deal with the same risk of injury as the consumer product safety
standard, if such State or political subdivision has filed such
requirement with the Commission within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield now to the author of the measure,
Senator Pryor of Arkansas, the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the first thing I want to say is this is a
great bill. It is something every Senator should be proud of, because
what we saw in 2007 was a record number of product recalls. In fact,
last year, there were 45 million toys that were recalled. Every single
toy was made in China that was recalled last year.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. In 2008, we are 29 percent
ahead of the schedule we set back in 2007. So this problem is not going
away. This is a great bill, and this is a classic example that
bipartisanship works.
We did this bill the way bills ought to be done. We worked it out in
committee. I see that Senator Stevens walked onto the floor. He played
a vital and important role in the committee process and afterward. We
worked together with Democrats and Republicans, and the House worked
with the Senate. It has been a great example of how things can and
should work around here.
We added third-party testing for toys. We added a new database for
people to search to look at complaints about products. We give the
Attorney General the ability to follow what the CPSC has done and get
dangerous products off the shelves. We add whistleblower protection, so
if people in the private sector know about a dangerous problem and
reveal that, they don't lose their jobs. We increase civil penalties to
make sure these companies--especially the ones who are repeat
offenders--will know the CPSC has the authority to enforce what they do
and make them feel the pain of that. We ban lead in children's
products.
We move the commission, which used to be a five-member commission and
is now down to three, back to a five-member commission.
We change the rulemaking process so that the authority rests with the
CPSC again and not with the industry.
I could go on and on about the great things in this legislation. I
know my time is short. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to make sure I thank the people who
deserve the lion's share of the credit. Senator Stevens was critical.
He came in at a very important time, early in the process, and helped
shape the bill and helped to get us from a Democratic bill to a
bipartisan bill that got us to where we are today. In fact, the House
voted last night 424 to 1 to pass this.
I also thank Senators Sununu and Hutchison. Senator Inouye, chairman
of the Commerce Committee, was fantastic. Senator Boxer was great; she
was very focused on several issues. Senator Klobuchar, although a new
Senator, had a positive impact on the process. It was an honor to work
with them. Also I thank several House Members, of course, including
Chairman Dingell and Congressman Barton, fantastic partners over there,
who worked hard to get this done. And also Speaker Pelosi weighed in at
the end to make sure we got it done.
Maybe more important than all of us is the staff. We have a lot of
staff sitting on the back benches. They have spent countless hours on
this bill. They have been here weekends, in the evenings, and they have
been haggling over every word, comma, and paragraph. I am so grateful
to all of them.
The people on my staff include Andy York and Price Feland. When you
look at the Commerce Committee, there is David Strickland, Alex Hoehn-
Saric, Jana Fong Swamidoss, Mia Petrini, and Jared Bomberg. They were
great. Of course, on the Republican side are Paul Nagle and his team,
including Megan Beechener, Becky Hooks, Bridget Petruczok, Erik Olson,
Kate Nilan, Tamara Fucile, Brian Hendricks, and Peter Phipps.
Also, I thank the CPSC commission. They helped as did their staff.
Commissioner Moore, and Michael Gougisha and Pam Weller of his staff,
as well as Jack Horner of the acting chairman's staff, all of these
people played a key role in getting us to this very good bipartisan
piece of legislation.
As I said, this is something of which the Senate and House can be
very proud. Today, the White House announced they will sign the
legislation. This is a major victory for the American people. Again, we
followed the rules, we followed the correct process here. We got this
done and we are going to make a big difference in the American
marketplace.
Mr. President, I will turn it over to my colleague from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas.
First, I have to say he was dogged in his determination to work out
this bill. It was a very long conference, with many issues. It was
complicated. The importance of it was paramount in both of our minds.
I also want to say that on something this hard, the leadership of our
committee was the driving force. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens,
the chairman and vice chairman of our committee, worked so hard, along
with their staffs, to make sure the process kept going, that we never
gave up. The conference lasted for months. I cannot say enough about
Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and the partnership on this
committee that produced this great bill.

[[Page 17658]]

Then Senator Pryor and Senator Sununu, chairman and ranking member of
the subcommittee, also worked diligently and hard to make sure we took
everyone's views into consideration. We tried to make compromises, even
on some of the very toughest issues. That was just in the Senate. And
then we also had the House. I feel very good about this result.
Again, the approval of this bill by very diverse groups shows this is
a very good bill. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Consumer
Federation of America, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association all
were at the table working with us to try to make sure we accommodated
the safety needs of consumers--especially the parents of small
children--and the needs of retailers and manufacturers to be able to
produce products that consumers can safely purchase.
In this bill, we have a considerable emphasis on children's toys.
That is what caused us to start looking at whether we had enough
manpower in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So I think
children's toys are a very big part of the emphasis in this bill.
Let me talk about another few points in the bill. We authorize
significant upgrading and modernization of the equipment and labs used
by the commission to provide for more personnel, including more
personnel at ports of entry and in foreign countries, to improve
inspection of manufacturing facilities abroad and the products brought
into our country from abroad.
We establish the most comprehensive lead safety standards that we
have seen to date for toys and the paint manufacturers use on toys.
These standards are implemented responsibly to give manufacturers time
to adapt, without compromising safety. The standards also allow for use
of alternative detection and measurement methods to improve the
accuracy and efficiency of testing paint on small surfaces.
We also strengthen enforcement by increasing civil and criminal
penalties and providing a limited role for State attorneys general to
work in concert with the commission to enforce commission actions in
the States. This is a huge improvement--one that Senator Pryor, a
former attorney general, was very aware that we could have better
information, because the attorneys general in all of the States know,
perhaps more urgently and more rapidly, when a product is deficient. So
when they can step in and take an action based on the Consumer Product
Safety Commission regulations, that is very helpful to expanding the
reach.
We can also point to other areas where we made compromises. The
bottom line is this is a very good bill. Maybe you don't like
everything in it. I agree. I didn't get everything I wanted in the
conference, nor did anyone else. But as I said, this was a months-long
conference committee. It was a bill that passed the Senate with many
amendments.
The Senate bill was vastly improved in the conference. We could not
have done that without many hours--and weekend hours--of staff support.
The Senator from Arkansas pointed out the number of staff who did such
a great job. I want to say that on our side, Christine Kurth, Paul
Nagle, Megan Beechener, Rebecca Hooks, and my own staffer, Bryan
Hendricks, did a great job of working with the Democratic staff to
forge the compromises.
On the Democratic side, I thank David Strickland, Andy York, Price
Feland, and Jana Fong Swamidoss. I think we did a great job with the
help of the experts on our staffs.
Mr. President, with that, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Senator Hutchison said something that is
very important. We did focus on toys. Toys capture the imagination of
the American public because no parent or grandparent wants to buy
something and give it to a young child which could harm or, in some
cases, kill them. That is the type of thing that grabs the headlines.
Let me tell you, a couple of levels deeper, one of the ways we make
toys safer for kids all over this country. What we did in this
legislation is we established a statutory toy standard. Once we have
that standard, and allow the CPSC to modify it over time, once that is
in the statutes, that means we can test for that standard.
This bill has mandatory toy testing. For the first time ever, we are
going to test these toys to make sure they meet the U.S. safety
standards before they are ever sold in the marketplace.
If you think about a recall, a recall is a very uneconomical--I will
use that term--and inefficient way to find a dangerous product. So the
manufacturer comes over here with a product--many cases from overseas--
and it is distributed, sold, and it injures someone, and the recall
happens, and these products are all over America. We are streamlining
it and making our marketplace more efficient and better for people all
over this country.
I will end where I started. I see Senator Sununu here, who played a
very key role. All of the Senators helped in some ways. Again, I will
end where I started, and that is that this is a great piece of
legislation. It really is. The American people will be so pleased with
the work we have done to get this passed and get the President to sign
it. It will make a big difference in everyone's lives all over this
country. Again, it shows what we can do if we work together to solve
our problems.
I am very honored and privileged to have Senator Inouye designate me
as the lead guy on our side to do this, and to watch Senators Stevens
and Inouye work together. They set the pace on this legislation.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4040. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

YEAS--89

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

[[Page 17659]]

NAYS--3

Coburn
DeMint
Kyl

NOT VOTING--8

Clinton
Coleman
Domenici
Hagel
Kennedy
Klobuchar
McCain
Obama
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
conference report was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________

HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are about to vote on the Higher
Education Act. It is an excellent bipartisan bill, led by the architect
of the bill, Senator Ted Kennedy, working with Senator Mike Enzi.
We bring to the Senate a bill that expands opportunity, expands the
Pell grants, simplifies the process, gets rid of cronyism in lending,
and at the same time deals with important shortages with teachers and
with nurses.
I think when you review the whole content, you will know that tonight
this Senate can pass a great bill. And we say to our friend, Senator
Kennedy, who is watching this vote, ``This one's for you, Ted.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I just ask my colleagues to vote for this
bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 8, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

YEAS--83

Akaka
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--8

Alexander
Coburn
Corker
DeMint
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Sessions

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Snowe

NOT VOTING--8

Clinton
Coleman
Domenici
Hagel
Kennedy
Klobuchar
McCain
Obama
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--MOTION TO
PROCEED

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have had a
number of conversations today. We know the caucuses on his side and my
side are tired. We have had a very difficult few weeks. We have a few
more things to do this work period. That work period can be a matter of
hours or it could be the next day.
Most would like to finish it tonight. If we could move up the cloture
vote on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill, we
could do that tonight. The issue, it turns out now, is how long that
debate would take. On our side we need 10 minutes. Senator Levin wanted
a half-hour. He cut that back to 10 minutes.
If we could have some agreement on the other side that we could take
10, 5 minutes, whatever is appropriate, we could finish that tonight
and basically finish the work of the Senate for this work period and
come back, renew our struggles in September.
I ask unanimous consent that we move to the Defense authorization
bill, that the motion to invoke cloture on that that was set for the
morning, that we would do that following 10 minutes of debate
controlled by the Senator from Michigan. The chairman of the committee
would control 10 minutes, and whomever the Republican leader designates
on his side would control whatever time they feel appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would say to my friend, the majority
leader, we are prepared to vote right now.
A number of Members are prepared to have a vote immediately. I think
we all understand what we are voting on. I am not sure many of our
Members think any further debate about the whole issue of whether to go
to the Defense bill at this particular time would be enlightened by any
additional debate.
We have a number of Members who have plans who know how to vote and
would be happy to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this bill is worth spending 10 minutes on
tonight. This is the Defense authorization bill. For heavens' sake, can
we not set aside the frustrations we all have on this other issue and
at least support our troops and come together and unify behind our
troops?
Can we not at least set a time to take up the Defense authorization
bill, which is critically important? We cannot do this on the
appropriations bill. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill.
This is a pay increase, special benefits, the BRAC implementation. This
has to do with whether families are going to get support, whether we
are going to hire nurses. This is the men and women in uniform who are
in harm's way.
The suggestion is, we cannot spend 10 minutes to debate on whether to
take up an authorization bill. We have never not passed an
authorization bill. By law, we must pass an authorization bill or else
all the authorities which are critically important to the men and women
in uniform are not going to be passed.
This cannot just be another vote, another vote which divides us
Republicans from Democrats. We have to unify behind this bill. Senator
Warner and I and the members of the Armed Services Committee have
worked month after month after month to get this bill up. This bill has
been on the calendar for 3 months.
If we do not decide to take up this bill or have a place fixed to
take up this bill when we get back, we are going to have 3 weeks of an
ongoing debate on a critically important subject, I agree, energy, but
then we will never get to the men and women in uniform.
This is not our bill. This is their bill. Let's vote to take it up
and set a place, a firm place, where we can protect the

[[Page 17660]]

men and women in uniform. They are overstretched. The equipment is
running out. It is worn out. We owe them this. Set aside these
differences for a few minutes, just a few minutes, and agree to take up
this bill.
If we cannot take it up now, fix a time when we can take it up. That
is my plea. I know Senator Warner will join in this plea. This cannot
be a partisan vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I do not know if the Senator took 10 minutes, but I think
we heard the speech.
Mr. LEVIN. May Senator Warner be recognized for a few minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think the majority leader made a good
point. I think we have heard the speech. Of course, we will not be
passing the bill before recess. This vote will be about whether we stay
on the No. 1 subject in America and whether we then do the Defense
bill.
It appears to me as if we have had the suggestion, and I say to my
good friend, the majority leader, why do we not now have the vote?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think that is appropriate, and I ask
consent from everyone here that Senator Warner have a few minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. I do
hope I can say one word. To my leadership, I have explained to you I
will soon conclude 30 years in this Chamber.
Having served with 264 Senators in that period of time, I say thanks
to each and every one of them. But in that period, I think half my time
has been devoted to issues relating to national security and the Armed
Services. I checked the records of the committee. We have had 42
consecutive bills authorizing funds for the armed services of the
United States. This will be the 30th of those bills that I have
participated in, in bringing to the floor and, hopefully, getting a
strong endorsement of this body.
I fully recognize the issues my colleagues have foremost in their
mind at this moment. Not a one of them is against our national defense,
not a one of them by their votes now could be challenged as to their
patriotism and devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces of
this country.
But I will vote to go forth now, in an effort to support the cloture
motion.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, our good friend, Senator
Warner, has, of course, been a leader on this issue throughout his
tenure in the Senate, and we respect his views. He has been a strong
supporter of a strong national defense.
But the issue before us tonight is whether we are going to continue
to try to solve the No. 1 issue in the country, and that is the price
of gas at the pump. It is not whether we will do a Defense
authorization bill.
The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee shares my view,
that the first thing we ought to do is stay on the subject of energy,
stay on the subject of getting the price of gas at the pump down, and
then do the Defense authorization bill.
I am authorized to speak on behalf of the ranking member of the Armed
Services Committee, our colleague, Senator McCain, who shares my view
that at this particular moment, the most important issue related to the
national security of our country is to stay on the subject of energy,
finish the job, and then, as Senator Warner and Senator Levin have
suggested, do the job of passing the Defense authorization bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to holding the cloture vote
at this time?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

cloture motion

Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009.
Carl Levin, Christopher J. Dodd, E. Benjamin Nelson, John
F. Kerry, Claire McCaskill, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Bill
Nelson, Blanche L. Lincoln, Richard Durbin, Daniel K.
Akaka, Robert Menendez, Kent Conrad, Sherrod Brown,
Jack Reed, Jim Webb, Charles E. Schumer, and Harry
Reid.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3001, an original bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military strengths
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman),
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--39

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Reid
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NOT VOTING--10

Bunning
Clinton
Coleman
Domenici
Hagel
Hutchison
Kennedy
Klobuchar
McCain
Obama
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
The majority leader.

____________________

CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
THE SENATE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to H. Con. Res. 398, a conditional adjournment resolution, and
that the Senate vote immediately on adoption of H. Con. Res. 398; that
if the adjournment resolution is agreed to, then it be in order for the
Senate to convene for pro forma sessions on the following days:
Tuesday, August 5; Friday, August 8; Tuesday, August 12; Friday, August
15; Tuesday, August 19;

[[Page 17661]]

Friday, August 22; Tuesday, August 26; Friday, August 29; Tuesday,
September 2; and Friday, September 5; that at the close of each pro
forma session, the Senate would stand in recess, except for the pro
forma session of Friday, September 5, at which time the Senate would
adjourn; and that no business be conducted during the pro forma
sessions.
Mr. President, I also note to all Members, we will likely have a late
vote on the day we get back at 5:30--a 5:30 vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 398) providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the concurrent
resolution.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from
Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--40

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Isakson
Kyl
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wicker

NOT VOTING--12

Bond
Bunning
Clinton
Coleman
Domenici
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kennedy
Klobuchar
McCain
Obama
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 398) was agreed to, as
follows:

H. Con. Res. 398

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, July 31, 2008, Friday, August 1, 2008, or
Saturday, August 2, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday,
September 8, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or
adjourns on any day from Friday, August 1, 2008, through
Friday, September 5, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on
Monday, September 8, 2008, or such other time on that day as
may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until
the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader
of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and 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 Iowa is recognized.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I have been asked to
propound a unanimous consent request on speaking orders: 4 minutes for
Senator Grassley, 4 minutes for Senator Coburn, and whatever time
Senator Harkin would consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MIDWESTERN FLOOD TAX RELIEF

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request for the Midwestern flood tax relief bill sponsored by
the Senators of several Midwestern States, including Senator Harkin of
my State, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama of Illinois, and other
midwestern Senators.
I rise to seek fairness and equity for people in the Midwest who have
been hurt by floods, and I would say fairness and equity as measured by
how Congress responded to the natural disaster of Katrina, New Orleans,
et cetera.
I remember back in September of 2005, after that terrible catastrophe
of August 29, what happened in New Orleans. Within the week after we
were in session, after Labor Day, we had appropriated $60 billion.
Within 3 weeks after that--I was chairman of the Finance Committee--we
voted out of committee a tax equity bill that changed provisions of the
Tax Code to encourage employers and businesses and people to stay there
and weather it out.
What we did, we did without asking any questions. And now we seek the
same tax relief for the States of the Midwest that have had the same
type of catastrophe happen to them. I would measure catastrophe by a
500-year flood in the city of Cedar Rapids, IA, which won't be the same
as it was prior to the flood.
So we have entered this legislation for consideration. We have worked
it out with a lot of people who were involved in it. We worked closely
with Senator Baucus's staff, with the staff of Ways and Means, trying
to satisfy everybody. We think we have a consensus.
Here it is, 6 weeks after the floods hit, and Congress has not acted.
Congress should act. In other words, shouldn't the people hurt by the
natural disaster of the Midwest have the same consideration as the
people of New Orleans and those with other catastrophes? We are not
getting it. It is very clear that when our disaster is not on
television for 2 months in a row, like the disaster of New Orleans was
on television for 2 months in a row, somehow Congress is absentminded
about what happened in the Midwest.
So we face things like arguments from staff of some of the people in
the other body that, well, this disaster wasn't anything like what
happened in Katrina or you hear things like, well, we need to offset
this bill. When I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the
people in New Orleans were hurting, we did not ask for offsets. We did
not play political games with the legislation we eventually passed,
like some efforts this Midwest Tax Flood Relief Act ought to be
connected with extenders or with AMT or something like that. We got the
job done. We didn't worry about it.
I come before this body tonight to ask for consideration of this
legislation.

[[Page 17662]]

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3322

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance
be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322 and the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that
the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as
amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table; and that the bill be held at the
desk pending House action on the companion measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am
speaking on behalf of Senator Baucus. I note that the Senator from Iowa
realizes the bill that was before us yesterday, S. 3335, would not only
have taken care of his State of Iowa, which truly deserves disaster
assistance, but also my State of Illinois and all of the States that
faced that disaster problem this year. Unfortunately, it did not pass;
otherwise, it would have been on its way to the House yesterday. Had we
received more than five Republican votes, it might have passed the
House and be on its way to the President. But the decision was made on
the Republican side of the aisle not to vote for that measure that
would have helped Iowa, Illinois, and all of the States.
The measure Senator Grassley brings before us leaves behind victims
of disasters in States of Nevada, Colorado, Kentucky, Missouri,
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas--to name a few--who would receive no
relief under Senator Grassley's bill but would have under the bill he
opposed. So it is sad. I wish this could have been resolved yesterday
with the vote if the Republicans would have joined us. Unfortunately,
they did not. We will have to take this matter up when we return. I
hope we can find a way to help all of the victims, not just in the
Midwest but all across the country, which is the tradition of the
Senate and the House. Regretfully, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I point out that what the Senator from
Illinois described is an amendment that would not have responded to the
Midwest in exactly the same way as we responded to Katrina. It would
not have been as beneficial. It also did not contain the same 25
provisions we did for New Orleans, which were in that tax bill to help
them.
I think we have a situation where we ought to respond the same way we
did for Katrina. We are not doing it because the disaster in the
Midwest is as bad. When we thought about Katrina, we didn't argue with
other people about going back and taking care of disasters that
previously happened. We took care of what was before us.
Right now, the flood of the Midwest is before us, and we ought to
have the same equity and fairness that, when we had a Republican
Congress, we gave to New Orleans. Whether we have a Democratic Congress
or a Republican Congress, that should not make any difference. We are
being treated differently when the Democrats control the Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
for about 7 minutes. I will try to do it in less time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the majority whip for being on the
floor tonight. I am one of the reasons why he is here, so I beg his
indulgence at this time.
The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act was first introduced
in the 109th Congress. The Republican sponsor at that time on our side
of the aisle agreed to the offsets in that bill. That wasn't agreed to
by the other side, so that bill wasn't passed. Although the offsets
were accepted, it was still opposed.
Over the past 5 months, two press conferences have highlighted my
``obstruction'' of this bill and questioned my motives for holding it.
I sent two letters to the prime sponsors of the bill and to the
majority leader offering to negotiate a compromise on the bill. None of
those were ever responded to. No sponsor ever contacted my office in
the 110th Congress to try to work on this. Instead, I chose to work,
because I couldn't get a response, with Alvin Sykes, a wonderfully
incredible man, who is behind this bill. He has my utmost respect and
admiration.
I will submit for the Record an article dealing with his incredible
life story and his commitment and arduous work for this legislation.
Mr. President, I reached a compromise with Mr. Sykes and the Emmett
Till Campaign for Justice, whose board of directors has endorsed our
compromise language.
I ask unanimous consent that an e-mail we got from Mr. Sykes be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

From: Alvin Sykes.
To: Bacak, Brooke.
Sent: Thu July 31, 2008.

Dear Senator Coburn:, First allow me to extend our
appreciation and admiration for you and your staff's
assistance and communication with us concerning S. 535 the
Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. While we still
believe that the hold that you placed on our bill was not the
good way to effect the institutional change in the manner
that the United States Senate does business we do appreciate
the open lines of communications and respect that your staff,
in particular Brooke Basak and Tim Tardibono, have shown us
in negotiating with us on proposed language and conditions
that would address your concern and minimize the loss we have
suffered from going this route. Therefore our Board of
Directors has voted to endorse a unanimous consent agreement
that would include the latest draft language that rectifies
the concerns with the controversy over the Attorney having
authority to reprogram funds from one congressionally
directed fund to another by elleviating all reference to
reprogramming and replaced with prioritizing spending request
if Congress does not fully fund the Till Bill. Furthermore we
support you having the right to submit this language as
amendment in the cloture vote process as long as the floor
debate time is limited and that you would not replace your
hold on our bill if your amendment fails. Nothing in this
request is meant to criticize the Senate Leadership on the
enormous work that they have done to craft and advocate for
the passage of this bill especially the good work of Patrick
Grant in Senator Dodd's office and Darrell Thompson in Senate
Majority leader Harry Reid who has kept hope alive on this
historic bill. However we firmly believe that truth and
justice can be best achieved by opening and maintaining
effective lines of communication and searching for a win-win
justice seeking solution. We further believe that since you
started this by placing your hold on our bill you should be
the one to finish it.
Therefore the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, Inc. request
that you make an overture to the Democratic Leadership and
the sponsors of the Till Bill by introducing the Emmett Till
Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, as proposed amended, under
the unanimous consent agreement outlined above tonight in the
interest of time, truth and justice.
Sincerely, in the pursuit of justice,
I am,

Alvin Sykes,

President,
Emmett Till Justice Campaign, Inc.

____________________

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUESTS

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to
call up and pass the modified Emmett Till Unresolved Civil Rights Crime
Act, where it is paid for by taking money that is not appropriated.
This is the problem everybody had, not offsetting. What this bill will
do is, if we don't appropriate--and we won't this year, because we are
going to have a continuing resolution--this will allow that money to be
divided out in three categories in the Justice Department, which the
Justice Department is accepting from both legal salaries, the FBI, and
the U.S. Marshals--all the people working on these unresolved civil
rights cases. I ask unanimous consent that it be called up and passed
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, earlier
this

[[Page 17663]]

week, on Tuesday or Wednesday, we considered a package of bills, some
35 bills that had been held for a lengthy period of time--for months--
which could have been considered, amended, changed, and brought
forward. They were held with no chance for any kind of movement. This
was one of them.
Sadly, this is a bill that has been considered and passed by the
House of Representatives and has been out there for more than a year. I
would like to see the bill passed--I would. But the fact that the
Senator from Oklahoma worked out his differences with some person, as
well intentioned as it may be, doesn't escape the reality that this
bill has been the subject of hard work by a lot of Senators and
Congressmen. Unfortunately, it was subjected to a hold by a Member on
the Republican side. I hope that, in good faith, when we return, we can
return to this bill. I would like to see this and all 35 bills in the
package passed and taken as seriously as the Senator from Oklahoma is
now taking this bill.
Unfortunately, at this moment, I must object.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is sad to note that this could not pass
tonight. We could accomplish what everybody claims to want. The fact
that nobody was willing to work on this bill, but held it without
compromise and without offsets, it is the same issue again. We are
going to grow the Government and not get rid of waste. There is $2
billion in waste a year in the Justice Department. Yet we are going to
grow this program and not pay for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I also note for the Record that I spoke with Senator Dodd
about the bill tonight. He had no objection whatsoever and he agreed
with the compromise. He is the chief sponsor on that side of the aisle.
Mr. President, I call up and ask unanimous consent to pass a
compromise bill on child exploitation. The bill, S. 3344, is the
Protecting Children from Pornography and Internet Exploitation Act of
2008.
I had a conversation with Senator Biden this evening. He is in full
agreement with this. He understands that others on his side of the
aisle might not be in agreement. He is the chief sponsor of that bill.
Our bill gives everything that was included, plus the SAFE Act, which
everybody agrees needs to be a part of any approach we make. The
authors on the other side of the aisle took a $1.3 billion
authorization and compromised and lowered that. We compromised by
accepting that spending on the basis that we would add the SAFE Act to
it. This bill has been changed in substance in no way other than that.
I ask unanimous consent that it be called up and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, This is another bill of
the 35 that have been held for an indefinite period of time by the
Republican side of the aisle. We offered a package which had included
measures for medical research, which has been held for an indefinite
period of time on the Republican side of the aisle.
This bill which, ironically, was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee, which Senator Coburn and I both serve on--I believe it was
reported unanimously--is a bill that deals with child exploitation. I
believe it is a bill that deals with Internet pornography, if I am not
mistaken. It is something which should have not only gone out of
committee unanimously, but it should not have been subject to the holds
on the Republican side of the aisle for reasons that are not explicit.
In desperation, an effort was made to bring these to the floor and ask
for a bipartisan response and to pass them in a timely way. The Senator
from Oklahoma voted against that, as did most of the Senators on his
side.
Many are now coming to the floor trying to revive the bills they
voted against a couple days ago. I wish the same level of interest and
effort would have been taken during the period when these bills
languished subject to their hold. At the last minute, virtually right
after the Senate has adjourned and left, it is not fair to bring these
up. I hope we can do this as soon as we return.
At this moment, I have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extension
of my time as I go through the rest of these. I will be as brief as
possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. I also note, again, there were hard efforts to work this
out. The fact is, the majority has decided that all the bills will be
in one package, regardless of the efforts we have worked on.
I also make the statement that this came out by a voice vote from the
Committee. I didn't vote ``yes'' on the bill in the committee. No. 2,
there is no requirement that a Senator, even if he votes for a bill in
committee and is assured he can work on the bill after the committee,
is obligated to support a bill that comes out of his committee.
The next unanimous consent request I have is on this same bill, S.
3344, titles I and IV, which include the PROTECT Act and the SAFE Act.
I ask unanimous consent that those two sections be called up and
passed. They are identical; nothing has changed and there is nothing
controversial. Again, I ask unanimous consent that they be passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I understand the
embarrassment and pain the Senator feels having voted on these bills--
--
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, shouldn't an objection to the bill be
stated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, there is no embarrassment or any pain on
my part to try to do this. I have worked on these bills to try to do
what I thought was right. I reject any statement that I am embarrassed.
I have no pain about this. I am proud of the work I have done in trying
to stop excessive spending and when we have appropriate programs to
favor that spending through offsets of other wasteful spending.
I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass subtitle D of S. 3297,
the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act. This was never held by
anybody on our side. It was never objected to by anybody on our side.
There was never a hold and never an objection.
I ask unanimous consent right now that we pass that one bill. Even if
you want to play politics, the point is, here is one we can do tonight.
Nobody has ever objected to it in the Senate. We can pass and still
have the 34 or 33 bills. Here is one we can make a difference with
tonight.
I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass this item.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, this was part of the 34,
35 bills in a package that was held. For reasons I cannot explain, some
Member on the Republican side did hold it. That is why it was put in
the package.
The Senator voted against the package, and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and
pass subtitle E of S. 3297, the Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of
Child Pornography Act. This is a bill that also was never held on our
side of the aisle.
Again, I make the same argument that, in fact, we can do something
tonight. There is no controversy surrounding this bill, no controversy
about what we should be doing. I ask unanimous consent that we pass
this item.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, same argument, same
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page 17664]]

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the majority whip for his patience
in dealing with this business tonight.
I will end my remarks with the following: What we have had in the
Senate this past week is an attempt to change the Senate to the House.
The Senate's tradition is debate and amend. Every one of the bills I
have had a hold on, I proudly hold those bills. I have notified
everyone involved in the legislation on why I was holding those bills.
The fact that we had no response to negotiate any sort of compromise
whatsoever on those bills tells us there was no good intent in the
first place to try to pass those bills.
Let the record show that the Emmett Till bill could have been passed
tonight, supported by the very people who started this bill in the
first place, who started the effort to get it passed, who endorsed our
efforts and, in fact, it was denied.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me just say I do respect the Senator
from Oklahoma. He and I have worked together. I do respect the fact
that when he puts a hold on a bill, he is public about it. There are
many people who sneak around here who hold legislation and hope they
will never be discovered. Senator Coburn from Oklahoma does not take
that position. I respect him for that. I may disagree with him on many
substantive issues, and we do disagree, but I do respect him for his
approach.
Let's be very honest about this situation. These 35 bills are bills
we wanted to pass. They are bills passed out of committee. They are
bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. They are bills we tried
to bring up by unanimous consent that were held by the Republican side
of the aisle. In our frustration over these holds, we packaged them
together and asked Republicans to join us and pass them in a bipartisan
way.
Each and every one of these bills had virtual unanimous affirmation
in the committees to which they were referred, and most of them had
passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan votes in the House.
But now we have a situation where individual Senators--and it is the
right of every one of us as Senators--are deciding: I will just take a
cluster of these bills and hang on to them. I will let my staffers look
them over. We will get back to you in a few weeks, maybe a few months,
maybe never. That abuses the process.
I believe if someone has a serious problem with a bill, has a
misgiving, they should announce their hold and the reason for the hold,
and, I guess, out of respect for the sponsor, to go forward and explain
what the problem is. If it can be resolved, fine, and if it cannot be,
so be it.
I also want to say this: What is wrong with calling up these bills
and those who don't like them voting against them? That is their right
to express their displeasure on the record. But to hold the bill--if I
can't have it my way, no one gets a chance to vote--I think pushes it
to the extreme. To do that occasionally in your senatorial career, I
can understand. But to make that the business of the Senate is to
guarantee total frustration.
Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I couldn't help but
interrupt the proceedings and ask what the point was of deliberating on
bills if some of the same Senators who were going to vote for those
bills out of committee were going to hold them once they came to the
floor and really make sure they never had a chance to be passed into
law. That is fact. That is what has happened.
Because of the pain that has been caused by these earlier votes where
Republicans have come to us privately and said: We are sorry we voted
this way; some of these bills are bills we really wanted to vote for,
now they have come to the floor and tried to pick them off one at a
time and reduce the pain and--I will use the word ``embarrassment,''
although Senator Coburn says neither applies to him. I think for some
of his colleagues there is embarrassment that they would vote against a
bill to establish a national registry for victims of Lou Gehrig's
disease, that they would put a hold on a bill that was designed to deal
with paralysis, the Christopher Reeve bill, in an attempt to honor this
man and all he did and try to help quadriplegics across the country; a
bill cosponsored by Senator Cochran and Senator Kennedy to deal with
stroke victims, that they would put a hold on that; a hold on a bill in
which I have a great interest dealing with postpartum depression.
The belief on that side of the aisle is, it is all right; we can hold
them until they are exactly the way we want. That has gone on too long,
for months and even longer.
When it comes to some of these bills relating to criminal sections,
some of these should be passed in a hurry. I don't know any one of us
who does not want to deal with Internet pornography that threatens our
children and grandchildren, kids in our communities. We had this bill
ready to go. This bill should have been passed quickly, and it was held
on the Republican side of the aisle until we had to bring it up in this
package and then voted against, voted not to bring it forward.
In their frustration, they have now tried to come out at the close of
the week and have something to point to: I tried to come back on the
floor, I tried to bring the bill up, but Democrats objected. The true
story is those bills have been held up for months. They have been held
up on the Republican side of the aisle.
I sure hope my colleagues will understand they cannot run the Senate
the way each one wants to run it. We cannot let every single Senator
decide the agenda of this Senate or it will be dysfunctional and
chaotic and many good pieces of legislation will never see the light of
day.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CONGRATULATING TERRY SAUVAIN

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, St. Ignatius High School is a private, Roman
Catholic, Jesuit high school for young men located in Cleveland, OH.
The school is renowned for its high standards of academic excellence,
with nearly 100 percent of its graduates attending colleges and
universities within one year of graduation.
Under the leadership of Rev. Tim Kesicki, S.J., and his predecessor,
Fr. Robert J. Welsh, S.J., this high school works hard to produce
students who are open to growth, intellectually competent, loving,
religious, and committed to doing justice. In summary, a St. Ignatius
student is a ``man for others.''
Each year, Saint Ignatius High School presents its annual John V.
Corrigan '38 Distinguished Alumnus Award to a graduate with notable
achievements who has used his talents and skills for those in need,
consistent with the paramount objective of Jesuit education the
formation of ``Men for Others.'' The award recognizes an accomplished
graduate who serves as a positive role model for the students of St.
Ignatius High School.
I am quite proud and most pleased to announce that the 2008 John V.
Corrigan '38 Distinguished Alumnus Award was presented to the one of
the Senate's very own, Mr. Terrence E. Sauvain, who currently serves in
my office of the President pro tempore as a senior advisor.
I have been very fortunate to have had Terry as a member of my staff
for

[[Page 17665]]

so many years. In every task I have asked him to undertake, including 2
years of service as the secretary to the minority leader, Terry has
performed his duties with courtesy, dedication, efficiency, and
diligence. In every position, he has gone above and beyond the call of
duty in performing the work of the Senate, assisting my representation
of the people of West Virginia, and serving the best interests of the
Nation, and for all this, I am truly grateful.
Terry Sauvain also served as the 14th staff director of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, since the committee was formed in 1867. In
this role, Terry directed a great team of professional analysts with a
goal of ``sharpening the issues'' so that Senators were able to make
bipartisan, responsible, and fiscally prudent decisions on Federal
Government spending amounting to $1 trillion per year. Terry's
outstanding service to the Senate has earned him a variety of honors,
including the Nyumbani Medallion of Hope for his work supporting me in
the humanitarian fight to bring relief to children with HIV/AIDS in
Africa.
I heartily congratulate Terry Sauvain and his family on his receipt
of this award.
I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in the most recent
issue of St. Ignatius Magazine concerning this award be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Terrence Sauvain Honored for Distinguished Public Service

(By Paris Wolfe)

This past February, Terrence Sauvain '58 received The
Honorable John V. Corrigan '38 Distinguished Alumnus Award
for notable achievements in his profession.
During the selection process, the award committee asked
former award recipient Fr. Thomas Acker, S.J., '47, about
Sauvain. ``He was glowing about Terry, and all he's done,''
says Steve Gerba '89, committee chair.
Sauvain spoke to students during his visit to Cleveland.
``He shared insight into government,'' Gerba recalls. ``He
couldn't say enough about good education as a career
foundation.''
In August 2002, Wheeling Jesuit University recognized
Sauvain's career achievements. The university conferred an
honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree on Sauvain in the
presence of U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan
and Fr. Acker, president emeritus of Wheeling Jesuit
University. The degree recognizes Sauvain's contributions to
the United States through a distinguished career in public
service under Byrd's leadership and mentoring.
Sauvain considers himself fortunate to have served Byrd,
master of the appropriations process, as the Senate
Appropriations committee staff director. He was only the 14th
person to serve in that capacity since the committee was
founded in 1867. As staff director, he was the senator's
right arm in reviewing budgetary expenditures of $1 trillion
annually. For his service to the senator in the humanitarian
fight to bring relief to children with HIV/AIDS in Africa, he
was awarded the Nyumbani Medallion of Hope.
Throughout his 43 years of public service, Sauvain has
tried to live the lessons he learned at Saint Ignatius and
the University of Notre Dame. He has always been impressed by
the Prayer for Generosity that Saint Ignatius students
recite, and he is convinced that those whom we most admire
have demonstrated personal sacrifice and dedication to duty,
which require a great measure of personal generosity.
Sauvain earned a master's in government from George
Washington University in 1971. Capt. Sauvain, USCGR ret.,
served 30 years in the Coast Guard Reserve, his ``second
job,'' where he specialized in joint Coast Guard and National
Guard counter-drug operations. He is the recipient of the
Coast Guard Meritorious Service Medal, the National Guard
Eagle Award and the National Guard Association Patrick Henry
Award.
In 2006, the University of Notre Dame honored him with The
Reverend John J. Cavanaugh, C.S.C. Award for distinguished
public service. In 2007, the U.S. Coast Guard's commandant
presented him with a Distinguished Public Service Award.
He and his wife, Veronica, have three children: Marie
Robertson (James), Catherine and Terrence Jr.--all lawyers.

____________________

REMEMBERING SENATOR JESSE HELMS

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow
Senator, a friend, and a true Southern gentleman, Senator Jesse Helms,
who passed away on July 4, 2008. He was a man resolute in his beliefs.
I have heard many say here in the Senate, as well as outside the
Capitol Grounds, that regardless of what you thought about his position
or opinion, you always respected Senator Helms for standing up for what
he believed.
As a master of the Senate parliamentary procedures, he did not
hesitate to use this knowledge as a tool when he thought it was
necessary to get his point across. While inevitably these tactics might
have frustrated some of his colleagues from time to time, Senators
couldn't help but marvel at his courageous defense of his beliefs, and
they never doubted that Senator Helms would treat them with respect. I
have heard from those close to Senator Helms, and experienced it
myself, that he was true to his belief that standing up and defending
one's opinion was never to be confused with, or providing a reason for,
animosity towards one's opponents.
His kindness and respect did not stop with his colleagues in the
Senate. Senator Helms was a true advocate that Senators were here to
represent and serve their constituents regardless of any party
affiliation, and his office was known for its impeccable constituent
services. His beliefs and service to his fellow citizens not only
endeared him to those he served or those he served with, but also to
those that had the privilege to serve on his staff. I don't think he
even referred to them as his staff but as his Senate family--the Helms
Senate family.
His dedication to his staff is exemplified by the number of his
staffers that went on to serve in important positions in federal and
state government and in the private sector, having been ``tutored and
trained'' in the discipline of Senator Helms. An excellent example is
Robert Wilkie, now serving in the Defense Department as Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
Respect for Senator Helms extends well beyond these Senate halls to
across the globe. Senator Helms' experience with foreign policy started
with his service in the U.S. Navy during World War II and continued
with his efforts to reform the United Nations. His effect was no less
prevalent when he was the first legislator to address the U.N. Security
Council. I was privileged to witness his stalwart performance.
It goes without saying that the Senate, this Nation, and the State of
North Carolina are better today because of Senator Helms. I extend my
most heartfelt condolences to the Helms family and his friends.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the
contributions and service of one of the true giants of the U.S. Senate.
Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina was one of the longest serving
and most distinguished Senators in the history of our Nation. During
his time in the Senate, he was known as a strong advocate for his
causes and was one of the most tenacious fighters this body has ever
seen. Senator Helms knew what he believed, why he believed it, and he
was always prepared to fight strenuously for his cause.
On those occasions when the Senate was prepared to promote ideas with
which he disagreed, Senator Helms proved to be one of the most adept at
slowing the body to a crawl. It was a trait that endeared him to many
of his supporters and was a source of much consternation for his
detractors.
However, if there is one accomplishment for which Senator Helms will
be long remembered and greatly admired, it is his steadfast warnings
and commitment to fighting the scourge of communism. Not a day went by
that Senator Helms was not concerned about the spread of communism
around the globe.
Like President Reagan and South Carolina's own longstanding Senator
Strom Thurmond, Senator Helms understood that communism was an evil
ideology and, at its most basic form, a means of enslaving millions of
people. As a nation of freedom-loving people, we had a responsibility
to stop its spread.
The struggle against communism continued for decades with Senator
Helms playing a leading role in encouraging our Nation to confront this
evil. Eventually, the hard line he took against communism, along with
Reagan, Thurmond, and others, was

[[Page 17666]]

vindicated. The Berlin Wall tumbled and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Today, communism has been discredited and millions of people have
been freed from its bonds. Senator Helms, and the other strong anti-
Communists, deserve our thanks for their steadfast fight and eventual
victory over communism. It would not have been possible without their
hard work.
In closing, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Senator Helms
and I want to take this opportunity to send my condolences to his
family and friends. I also want to express my sincere appreciation for
his long service in the U.S. Senate and to the Nation he loved.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to pay tribute
to my late colleague from North Carolina, Senator Jesse Helms. I look
back upon his career in the U.S. Senate and remember a true champion of
conservative values; a Senator who stood by his convictions with a
tenacity for which he will long be remembered.
Senator Helms was initially introduced to public service by his
father, who served their North Carolina community as both the fire
chief and the chief of police. After working in print, radio, and
television journalism and serving on the Raleigh City Council, Jesse
Helms decided to run for Senate in 1972 and proved his political mettle
by defeating three opponents to win the seat.
Senator Helms spent the next 30 years serving five terms in the
Senate, leaving behind a legacy of uncompromising and unapologetic
conservatism. He could boast of many accomplishments during his career,
including being dubbed ``Senator No,'' a moniker he earned for standing
strong against issues he felt threatened the conservative agenda.
Senator No chaired the Agriculture Committee from 1981-1987 and the
Foreign Relations Committee from 1995-2001, where he had a hand in
cultivating many important pieces of legislation. His firm stance
against tyranny led to successful negotiations and passage of a bill to
assist Cuban citizens, organized efforts to bring more countries into
the NATO alliance, and supported the development of a missile defense
system to defend our allies abroad.
Senator Helms also made his presence known on the national campaign
trail where played a pivotal role in fostering the conservative agenda
in Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in 1976. His efforts were so
effective he was asked to participate again in 1980. Clearly ``Senator
No,'' a moniker he earned for standing strong against issues he felt
threatened the conservative agenda, helped the future President shape
his conservative message.
Senator Helms and I may have differed on many issues, but I respected
his wide array of knowledge and the vigor with which he defended them.
I am glad to say I served in this chamber with Jesse Helms and will
always honor his passion for life and dedication to service in the
Senate.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, President William McKinley once said,
``That's all a man can hope for during his lifetime--to set an
example--and when he is dead, to be an inspiration for history.''
Of all his accomplishments during his lifetime, the example that
Senator Jesse Helms set for treating others rises above everything
else. During my first term in the Senate, I had the privilege of
traveling to Mexico as part of a congressional delegation with Jesse
Helms. I saw his kindness and sincerity in the way he treated everyone,
regardless of position. The foreign dignitaries received the same
respect and consideration as staff. Not enough Senators treat members
of their staff like members of their family, but Jesse Helms did. And
that gentleness extended to all who came into contact with him.
The kindness with which he touched so many lives stands in stark
contrast to the harsh and tough image which many had of Jesse Helms.
Seen as rough and hard-hitting, a more fitting description of Jesse
Helms is that he was a steadfast believer in the principles of America.
Jesse Helms was the voice, sometimes the lone voice, of a centuries'
old vision of a sovereign United States committed to freedom, a strong
national defense, and free enterprise. He was willing and able to stop
business in the Senate when the strength of our Nation was threatened.
But to those whose lives were personally touched by Jesse Helms,
progress was never paused. Instead, Jesse Helms was a conduit of
democracy and opportunity. Generations of Cubans, Taiwanese, Iraqis,
and Africans will always remember the support that a Senator from North
Carolina dedicated to their causes.
And countless North Carolinians will remember the meaningful impact
that Jesse Helms had on their lives as their advocate to a sometimes
unyielding government bureaucracy. One constituent from Raleigh noted
her Senator's efforts on behalf of her aging parents. She remembered
her mother saying if there was a problem that couldn't be resolved,
``Call Jesse Helms. He won't stop until he gets it solved.''
His commitment to his constituents speaks volumes about Jesse Helms's
passion for his job and the people who elected him. He always
remembered who he represented and why. And he always remembered that we
ensure the strength of our Nation by inspiring young people to continue
the work of generations of patriots. He never turned away young men and
women looking for advice and often engaged them in dialogue. Time and
again he told them to stand up for their principles. And then he showed
them by example.
Very few Americans in our Nation's history have risen to the level of
accomplishment and reverence as Jesse Helms. During three decades in
the Senate, he set an example for all Americans as he always stood by
his principles and extended kindness to friend and foe. Now he is an
inspiration for history.

____________________

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PROTECTION ACT OF 2008

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that, last night, the Senate
unanimously passed the Former Vice President Protection Act, H.R. 5938,
a bill to ensure that former Vice Presidents and their immediate family
receive Secret Service protection for 6 months after they leave office.
I am especially pleased that this important legislation includes key
provisions of the Leahy-Specter Identity Theft Enforcement and
Restitution Act, a critical cyber crime bill that unanimously passed
the Senate last November. I urge the House of Representatives to
promptly take up and enact this important criminal legislation.
Although the Secret Service has provided protection to former Vice
Presidents over the last 30 years, through a variety of temporary
grants of authority, this legislation will provide clear authority for
the Secret Service to provide such protection for the first time. The
men and women of the Secret Service perform the very difficult job of
protecting our current and former leaders exceptionally well. I am
pleased that this legislation will help the Secret Service to carry out
this important mission.
This bipartisan legislation also includes important cyber crime
provisions portions of the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution
Act to protect the privacy rights of all Americans. The anti-cyber
crime provisions in this bill are long overdue. A recent survey by the
Federal Trade Commission found that that more than 8 million Americans
fell victim to identity theft in 2005. In addition, a new report by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development encourages
democratic governments around the world to more aggressively fight
identity theft by enacting stronger cyber crime laws and stiffening the
penalties to deter potential cyber-criminals.
The key anti-cyber crime provisions that are included in this
legislation will close existing gaps in our criminal law to keep up
with the cunning and ingenuity of today's identity thieves. First, to
better protect American consumers, the legislation provides the victims
of identity theft with the ability to seek restitution in Federal court

[[Page 17667]]

for the loss of time and money spent restoring their credit and
remedying the harms of identity theft, so that identity theft victims
can be made whole.
Second, to address the increasing number of computer hacking crimes
that involve computers located within the same State, the cyber-crime
amendment eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a computer's
information must be stolen through an interstate or foreign
communication in order to federally prosecute this crime.
Third, this legislation also addresses the growing problem of the
malicious use of spyware to steal sensitive personal information, by
eliminating the requirement that the loss resulting from the damage to
a victim's computer must exceed $5,000 in order to federally prosecute
the offense. The bill carefully balances this necessary change with the
legitimate need to protect innocent actors from frivolous prosecutions
and clarifies that the elimination of the $5,000 threshold applies only
to criminal cases.
In addition, the amendment addresses the increasing number of cyber
attacks on multiple computers by making it a felony to employ spyware
or keyloggers to damage 10 or more computers, regardless of the
aggregate amount of damage caused. By making this crime a felony, the
amendment ensures that the most egregious identity thieves will not
escape with minimal punishment under Federal cyber-crime laws. The
legislation also strengthens the protections for American businesses,
which are more and more becoming the focus of identity thieves, by
adding two new causes of action under the cyber-extortion statute--
threatening to obtain or release information from a protected computer
and demanding money in relation to a protected computer--so that this
bad conduct can be federally prosecuted.
Lastly, the legislation adds the remedy of civil and criminal
forfeiture to the arsenal of tools to combat cyber crime, and our
amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its
guidelines for identity theft and cyber crime offenses.
Senator Specter and I have worked closely with the Department of
Justice and the Secret Service in crafting these updates to our cyber-
crime laws, and the legislation we add as an amendment to the Former
Vice President Protection Act has the strong support of these Federal
agencies and the support of a broad coalition of business, high-tech
and consumer groups. The bill as amended to include these critical
cyber-crime provisions is a good, bipartisan bill that will help to
better protect our Nation's leaders and to better protect all Americans
from the growing threat of identity theft and other cyber crimes.
Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Senators who have joined
Senator Specter and me in supporting this important bill. I urge the
House of Representatives to promptly enact this important criminal
legislation.

____________________

HABEAS CORPUS

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month's 5-4 Supreme Court decision in
Boumediene v. Bush reaffirmed our core American values, and served as a
stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's flawed power grabs over
the last 6 years. The Bush administration's repeated attempts to
eliminate meaningful review of its actions by the Federal judiciary
have again failed to withstand Supreme Court review. This decision is a
vindication for those of us who have maintained from the beginning that
the administration's detention policies were not only unwise, but were
also unconstitutional.
In the wake of the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, toward the
beginning of President Bush's first term in office, this country had an
opportunity to come together to show that we could bring the
perpetrators of heinous acts to justice, consistent with our history
and our most deeply valued principles. I and others reached out to the
White House to try to craft a thoughtful and effective bipartisan
solution.
Instead, this White House, supported by the Republican leadership in
Congress, pursued its goal of increasing executive power at the expense
of the other branches. In so doing, they chose a path that disregarded
basic rights, lessened our standing in the world, trampled some of our
most deeply held values, and brought us no closer to delivering justice
to those who have injured us.
At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which explored the
mistakes and missed opportunities of the past few years, we heard from
Will Gunn, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and the former chief
defense counsel of the Military Commissions. He believes that ``many of
our detention policies and actions in creating the Guantanamo military
commissions have seriously eroded fundamental American principles of
the rule of law in the eyes of Americans and in the eyes of the rest of
the world.'' Kate Martin, the Director of the Center for National
Security Studies, said that the administration's decision to ignore the
law of war and constitutional requirements had proved to be
``disastrous,'' and that ``[d]isrespect for the law has harmed, not
enhanced, our national security.''
I agree with these sobering assessments. I think that we are less
safe as a result of the Bush administration's policies.
Some of us have tried in vain for years to move this country away
from this destructive course, but, ironically, it has taken a
conservative Supreme Court to remind this administration that the
President's claim to unlimited power to override our laws is wrong.
Boumediene is only the latest example of the Supreme Court decisively
rejecting the administration's illegal and misguided policies.
In 2004, the Supreme Court decided two habeas-related cases Rasul and
Hamdi. In those cases, the Court rejected the Bush administration's
reckless and ill-advised attempts to deprive citizens and noncitizens
of their right to challenge their indefinite detention in Federal
court. I said at the time that these decisions ``reaffirm the
judiciary's role as a check and a balance, as the Constitution intends,
on power grabs by other branches.'' I also called on the Republican-led
Congress to ``stop acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of this
administration and to exercise its constitutional responsibility to
rein in White House unilateralism and overreaching.''
The following year the Republican-led Congress attempted to overrule
the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by passing the Detainee Treatment
Act, DTA. I spoke out against the habeas-stripping provisions contained
in the DTA. I warned that ``in order to uphold our commitment to the
rule of law, we must allow detainees the right to challenge their
detention in Federal court.''
This effort to prevent people from using habeas procedures to
challenge the basis for their detention in Federal court backfired. In
a later decision in the Hamdan case the Supreme Court rejected the view
that the DTA stripped the courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas
cases. I applauded the Hamdan decision at the time as a ``triumph for
our constitutional system of checks and balances.''
But once again, instead of following the Supreme Court's repeated
reminders that our Government must respect our Constitution and laws,
within weeks of the Hamdan decision, the last Congress, acting in
complicity with the Bush administration, hastily passed the Military
Commissions Act in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. That bill
sought, once again, to strip access to Federal courts for noncitizens
determined to be enemy combatants or who were merely ``awaiting
determination.'' It aimed to take away habeas rights not just for
detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, but also potentially for millions of
lawful permanent residents working and paying taxes in this country.
I voted no. These were my words then:

Over 200 years of jurisprudence in this country, and
following an hour of debate, we get rid of it. My God, have
the Members of this Senate gone back and read their oath of
office upholding the Constitution? [W]e are about to put the
darkest blot possible on this Nation's conscience.

Regrettably, the Federal appellate court in Washington, DC the same

[[Page 17668]]

court whose limited review was supposed to serve as a substitute for
the Great Writ fumbled its opportunity to set things right. It held
that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not violate the
Constitution.
Those of us who recognized that Congress had committed a historic
error when it recklessly eliminated the Great Writ of habeas corpus
tried to reverse what had been done. But even with the support of
several Republican Members of this body, Senator Specter and I fell 4
votes short of the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican
filibuster of our effort last year to restore habeas rights by adding
the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the Department of
Defense authorization bill.
In its Boumediene decision, the U.S. Supreme Court fulfilled its
constitutional responsibility--a responsibility in which so many others
had failed and upheld the Constitution and our core American values.
After Boumediene, the administration's record in the Supreme Court on
habeas is now 0 for 4. Four times it has sought to erode the time-
honored habeas right that protects the liberties our forebears fought
and died for. And four times the Supreme Court has repudiated these
ill-advised efforts.
One cannot help but wonder where we would be in the fight against
terrorism today had the Bush administration spent more time trying to
catch and try terrorists, and less time trying to erode our time-
honored constitutional traditions.
What did a majority of the conservative Supreme Court actually say in
Boumediene? First, it reiterated that the Constitution extends to
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. So the Bush administration's cynical gambit to
house detainees just miles from the Florida coast to avoid judicial
scrutiny and accountability for its conduct has failed as a matter of
constitutional law. As the opinion of the Supreme Court correctly
recognizes, the basic protections represented by the Great Writ ``must
not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to
restrain.''
Second, the Supreme Court held that the administration's detention
procedures put in place back in 2005 are a constitutionally inadequate
substitute for habeas corpus. The Court found that the so-called
combatant status review tribunals established to determine if detainees
held at Guantanamo Bay have correctly been identified as enemy
combatants are hopelessly flawed. I have maintained all along that it
is unfair and un-American to detain anyone without judicial recourse
based on proceedings that do not allow those held even the most basic
due process rights.
Third, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Military
Commissions Act that strip away all habeas rights for the Guantanamo
detainees and others are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's opinion written by Justice Kennedy is quite
eloquent and moving. While recognizing the executive authority and
responsibility to apprehend and detain those who pose a real danger to
our security, Justice Kennedy went on to note:

Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first
principles. Chief among those are freedom from arbitrary and
unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured
by adherence to the separation of powers.

He wisely counsels that the Constitution is fundamental, that ``[o]ur
basic charter cannot be contracted away,'' and that the Constitution is
not something the administration is able ``to switch on and off at
will.'' He rightly concludes:

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and
remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security
can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled
within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that
habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of
that framework, a part of that law.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed American values, our fundamental
adherence to our Constitution and the rule of law, and our great
strength in so doing.
What is surprising is not that the U.S. Supreme Court would follow
through on the earlier holdings of its opinions by Justice O'Connor and
Justice Stevens, himself a decorated combat veteran, but that the
decision was not unanimous.
Justice Scalia's dissent reads like a threatening partisan statement
from Vice President Cheney's office rather than an independent judicial
review of the case. He uses language about Islam that was rightly
condemned as wrong and counterproductive by this administration's own
intelligence community, and he repeats the administration's tragically
mistaken mantra by lumping the various factions of Islam, including
those in Iraq, as a monolithic ``enemy'' collectively responsible for
the attacks on the United States on September 11. Most disappointing is
that his hyperbolic rhetoric is hard to square with his own
acknowledgement in the 2004 Hamdi case that habeas corpus is ``the very
core of our liberty secured in our Anglo-Saxon system of separation of
powers'' and that ``indefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is
not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the
enemy, absent a suspension of the writ.''
What role should Congress play as the Federal judiciary begins to
implement the Boumediene decision? According to Attorney General
Mukasey in his recent remarks on the future of habeas, Congress should
jump in the fray again in an election year. Although he does not even
have legislation to propose, he asks Congress to act hastily to
minimize judicial oversight and maximize executive power. The Attorney
General seems to have adopted the Bush administration's mantra: ``Don't
trust the courts.''
The Attorney General has it exactly wrong. Congress made a mistake in
2005 when it bent to the will of the Bush administration by passing the
Detainee Treatment Act, which created the detainee review process that
the Supreme Court has now determined is hopelessly inadequate. Congress
made a mistake in 2006 when it bent to the will of the Bush
administration by passing the Military Commission Act, which, as we now
know, violated the U.S. Constitution in its efforts to stop the Federal
courts from reviewing executive detention decisions.
It would be foolish to bend to the will of the Bush administration
once again to try to weaken or circumvent the Boumediene decision.
Worse, by hastily legislating now, we would risk perpetuating the
terrible policy judgments of years past that have led us so far astray
in the fight against terrorism.
I trust our Federal courts to get it right. Had we relied on them to
dispense American justice, perhaps we would have accomplished more in
the fight against terrorism over the last several years. Our courts
have proven themselves up to the task of trying the likes of Zacarias
Moussaoui and Jose Padilla in difficult, complex and sensitive federal
proceedings where unlike the restricted rights available in habeas
proceedings these defendants enjoyed the full panoply of constitutional
protections. These men now stand convicted of terrorism-related
offenses and they will spend the rest of their lives in prison, as they
should. Just as I would not have questioned Attorney General Mukasey's
ability to deal with terrorism-related prosecutions when he was a judge
in Manhattan, I do not question the ability of the Federal judges in
Washington, DC, to handle the habeas petitions from the detainees in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba responsibly and diligently--particularly where our
courts have proved up to the task in so many actual criminal trials.

I was particularly disappointed to hear the Attorney General attempt
to play on Americans' fears by suggesting that, in the wake of a
Supreme Court decision affirming our core values, our national security
will be somehow jeopardized if Congress does not act. He knows that no
detainee has been set free as a result of the Boumediene decision, and
that the government will have ample opportunity to justify its
detention decisions on favorable standard of proof. He knows that
Federal courts have successfully conducted terrorism cases using
procedures derived from the Classified Information Procedures Act to
ensure that classified information is safeguarded, and there

[[Page 17669]]

have been no leaks of information where those procedures have been
employed. And he knows that the federal court in Washington, DC, is
taking steps to streamline and consolidate habeas proceedings to avoid
unnecessary litigation.
In fact, the Federal bench in Washington, DC, is working hard to
follow the rule of the Supreme Court by ensuring a prompt, safe and
orderly disposition of the 250 or so detainee habeas petitions. The
judges, the Department of Justice, and lawyers for the detainees are
now working to resolve key issues that will allow the cases to proceed
in the months ahead.
The court has also taken steps on its own to consolidate common
issues before one judge former Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan--to
streamline the review process as much as possible. In the meantime, for
those detainees who have been charged under the law of war, the
district court has ruled that the military commissions may proceed as
planned, and that the right to habeas corpus will crystallize only once
there is a final judgment.
The Bush administration can hardly complain if it takes the Federal
district judges presiding over these habeas cases some time to resolve
them. After all, it was the Bush administration that tried to avoid
court scrutiny at all costs for the last 7 years. The Supreme Court
having rejected this effort, the courts must now be permitted to do
their jobs.
Is there anything that Congress should do at this time? One thing
that Congress could and in my view should do is to pass the Habeas
Corpus Restoration Act that Senator Specter and I introduced in the
wake of the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, and with which we
sought to modify the Military Commissions Act. A bipartisan majority of
the Senate voted with us last year when we were seeking to add it to
the Department of Defense authorization bill, but we were forestalled
by a filibuster. I trust that those who said they were not ready to
join us last year because of the pendency of the Supreme Court case
will join us now and do the right thing. It was Congress's mistake to
pass the habeas stripping provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and
the Military Commissions Act, and we should correct it by passing our
bill to amend the law. The Supreme Court has already declared those
provisions unconstitutional and ineffective. In my view, it is a shame
that the Supreme Court had to step in before we corrected our mistake.
These unconstitutional habeas-stripping provisions are a blot on the
Senate, and on the Congress, and should not reside in our laws. We
should reverse the Senate's action and correct its error. I do not want
to see another Senate apologize years down the road for passing laws
designed to strip habeas rights, as we have seen belated apologies for
America's treatment of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese
Americans, and other grievous errors in our past. I do not want a
future Senate to look back with shame or have to issue an apology for
unconstitutional legislation coming from this great body. Congress
should pass the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.
Thereafter we will need to join together in the weeks and months
ahead to rethink the misconceived legal framework that has been devised
by this administration. We will need to work together--with each other,
with the House and with the new administration--to supplement our laws,
consistent with our Constitution and core values, and to restore our
leadership in the world and more effectively defend our Nation. We can
recapture the bipartisanship that we demonstrated in the days
immediately following 9/11 and move forward, not as Democrats or
Republicans, but as Americans.
The Supreme Court was explicit that its decision in Boumediene only
reached the unconstitutional attempt to strip habeas corpus review from
these detainees and that the Detainee Treatment Act and combatant
status review tribunal process remain intact.
Likewise, the Attorney General and Department of Justice have said
that the military commissions will continue, and a federal judge in
Washington, DC, recently ruled against a detainee's effort to secure
habeas review before his military commission was to commence.
I think we will need to review both processes. The military
commission system is so deeply flawed that after close to seven years
it has only just started its first trial. The world will never view
those proceedings as fair or consistent with the rule of law. We are
too strong and confident a nation to seek vengeance or be driven by
fear. America is great in part because it does not shirk from its legal
obligations but embraces them and lives by them. When America acts, as
it did, to circumvent the law by holding prisoners off shore, to
contract out torture to third parties, or to suspend the Great Writ, we
are not the America envisioned by our Founders and preserved by every
previous generation of Americans.
I look forward to working in the next session with Senator Feinstein
on her initiative to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, and begin to
erase the damage it has done to the United States' reputation around
the world. She has sponsored legislation to move us in that direction.
I want to commend Senator Whitehouse for his legislative proposal to
establish a congressional commission to make nonpartisan
recommendations to Congress on how best to proceed in the future. I
know that Senators Durbin and Specter introduced military commission
bills back in 2002, around the same time that I did. We will need to
work across committee lines and across the aisle, to involve not only
the reconstituted Department of Justice, but also the Departments of
Defense and State as we go forward. We will need to reconsider where
else we went wrong and how to set the entire system on better, stronger
foundations.

____________________

AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to recognize
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations on its 60th anniversary,
August 1, 2008.
The Office of Special Investigations was created in 1948 at the
suggestion of the 80th Congress. The secretary of the Air Force, Stuart
Symington, consolidated and centralized the investigative services of
the U.S. Air Force to create an organization that would conduct
independent and objective criminal investigations. Since 1948, the
Office of Special Investigations has evolved to meet the changing needs
of the Air Force. It has matured into a highly effective war-fighting
unit while maintaining the standards of a greatly respected Federal law
enforcement agency. The Office of Special Investigations has truly
adapted to fulfill the needs of the U.S. Air Force in the 21st century.
At present, 3,200 men and women serve in the Air Force Office of
Special Investigations. In more than 220 offices around the globe,
these men and women perform the investigative work of the U.S. Air
Force wherever and whenever they are needed. I am proud to be counted
among the alumni of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. I
served as a young lieutenant in the Office of Special Investigations
from 1951 through 1953 and was assigned to the Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Delaware District. My experience allowed me to serve my
country, hone my investigative skills, and prepare for a career in law
and in Government.
It gives me great pleasure, to recognize and salute the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations on the occasion of its 60th
anniversary. In a time of unprecedented change and challenges, the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations has answered the call of the Air
Force, the Department of Defense, and the Nation.

____________________

JOBS, ENERGY, FAMILIES AND DISASTER RELIEF ACT

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my
vote on July 28 against cloture--to end debate--on the motion to
proceed to S. 3297, the so-called Reid omnibus bill or

[[Page 17670]]

``Coburn package.'' As I stated on the Senate floor Monday, July 28, it
is my inclination that the majority leader called for a vote on cloture
on proceeding to this bill in order to dislodge the pending legislation
on oil speculation. By using his position of power, he seeks to force
the Senate to prematurely move away from the No. 1 issue facing the
people from my State and the Nation namely energy legislation.
I did not support cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill not
because I do not support many of its provisions, rather because I
believe we should complete work on energy legislation before moving on
to other matters. Further, I am seeking my right as a U.S. Senator to
offer amendments to a bill in a fair and balanced legislative process.
For instance, Senator Kohl and I had a bipartisan amendment prepared
to offer to the speculation bill that would have brought OPEC nations
under U.S. antitrust laws to prohibit them from meeting in a room,
lowering production and supply, and thus raising prices. Unfortunately,
this effort was denied by the majority leader's blocking of amendments
by filling the so-called amendment tree, disallowing mine and a number
of other amendments that ought to be considered.
This procedure is nothing new for this majority leader who has filled
the amendment tree on 15 occasions in the current 110th Congress,
surpassing all other majority leaders in modern history. As a result of
the majority leader's curtailing Senate procedure and amendments, I
have been faced with voting against cloture on measures I would have
ordinarily supported including this past Saturday's vote on LIHEAP. I
have also opposed cloture in instances such as the Lieberman-Warner
global warming bill which was considered the first week of June--2 to
6. In that case, the majority leader filled the amendment tree at the
first opportunity and filed cloture on the bill without ever allowing
consideration of amendments. The 5-day debate culminated in a fait
accompli cloture vote that failed on June 6.
Most recently, I voted against cloture to move to the Reid omnibus
bill that was a conglomeration of legislation that has been described
as non-controversial and may benefit a wide variety of interests. As I
stated on the Senate floor on Monday, July 28, I am supportive of most,
if not all of the substance in this bill. In fact, I am a cosponsor of
six of the items.
I support and have worked to pass a number of the Judiciary
Committee-related bills in the proposed omnibus. For example, I am an
original cosponsor of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act, S.
2982, which makes changes in the grant program for centers for runaway
youths. I am also a cosponsor of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment
and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008, S.
2304, which would provide grants for the improved mental health
treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness. In
addition, I am a cosponsor of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights
Crime Act, S. 535, which authorizes funding to solve pre-1970 civil
rights crimes. Moreover, in committee, I supported a Federal commission
to commemorate the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-Spangled
Banner and the War of 1812, S. 1079.
Additionally, I voted in favor of the following child protection
bills which were passed by the Judiciary Committee: The Combating Child
Exploitation Act of 2008, S. 1738, which authorizes grants to combat
child exploitation; and the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007, S.
1210, which extends a grant program directed at drug-endangered
children.
I directed my staff to work to clear the child exploitation bills
from the omnibus package in the same manner I worked to pass the Adam
Walsh Act without extraneous add-ons during the 109th Congress. To that
end, my staff worked with Senator Coburn's staff to draft a proposed
compromise child exploitation bill that includes the key provisions of
the child pornography and exploitation legislation in the proposed
omnibus, as well as important legislation to strengthen the powers of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the SAFE Act,
which was omitted from the omnibus bill.
My support is also invested in efforts to maintain the natural beauty
of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed while simultaneously preserving its
resources for the communities it serves. S. 2707, The Chesapeake Bay
Gateways and Water Trails Network Continuing Authorization Act, will
permanently authorize appropriations for these vital programs. I
cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is a critical
organization whose mission to protect the bay is vital for the
communities affected by this watershed.
Another environmental act I have fervently supported and of which I
am an original cosponsor, is S. 496, the Appalachian Regional
Development Act Amendments of 2008. The bill renews the Appalachian
Regional Commission for 5 years--2007-2011--and authorizes $510 million
to be appropriated over that timeframe for the Commission's economic
development activities in distressed rural counties.
Numerous health care provisions I have worked hard for can also be
found in this package, including S. 1382, which establishes a registry
of those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better
known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The registry will gather data about
those who are diagnosed with the disease to better understand and
research the illness. As Ranking Member of the Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education--LHHS--Appropriations Subcommittee, I support
research and an ALS registry. I worked to provide $39 million for NIH
research of ALS in 2008 and $2.8 million to plan the ALS registry.
I am also a cosponsor of S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve
Paralysis Act, to expand paralysis research at the National Institutes
of Health, NIH, and set up a network to allow patients and their
families to quickly learn the result of clinical trials on paralysis
rehabilitation drugs. The LHHS fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill
provided $64 million for NIH spinal cord research.
The package also included bills, H.R. 3112, S. 1810 intended to
create a new Federal grant program to pay for information and support
services regarding Down syndrome and other prenatally or postnatally
diagnosed conditions. While awaiting these authorization bills, I have
worked with Senator Harkin to get a jump start on these much-needed
activities by including $1 million to establish the congenital
disabilities program in the fiscal year 2009 Labor, HHS, and Education
Appropriations bill. In addition, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided
almost $1 million to the CDC in fiscal year 2009 for awareness
activities related to Down syndrome.
One of the bills, H.R. 477, would permit the issuing of grants to
states for stroke care systems. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to increase CDC funding for
heart disease and stroke activities in the States to over $50 million
and NIH funding for stroke research to over $340 million in fiscal year
2008.
Another bill, S 1375, would establish a grant program for services to
mothers suffering from postpartum depression. As ranking member of the
Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Chairman
Harkin to include $4.9 million for a first-time motherhood initiative
within the maternal and child health block grant.
I also support S. 675, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed
captioning for all new English broadcast programming by January 1,
2006. That deadline has come and gone. There are not enough real time
writers and captioners to meet this unfunded mandate out in the
workforce. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100
percent closed captioning for all new Spanish broadcast programming by
January 1, 2010. America is very far

[[Page 17671]]

from achieving this goal. S. 675 will assist with training the
workforce to provide closed captioning for the 30 million Americans who
are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
I support H.R. 3320, the Support for the Museum of the History of
Polish Jews Act of 2007, which requires assistance from the Department
of State to support the development of a permanent collection at the
Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland. It is in the
national interest of the United States to encourage the preservation
and protection of artifacts associated with the heritage of U.S.
citizens who trace their forbearers to other countries and to encourage
the collection and dissemination of knowledge about that heritage. Most
recently, I traveled to Poland on August 27, 2007, and observed fist
hand the importance of museums that examine Poland in WW II,
specifically the Polish uprising and the Home Army. The Museum of the
History of Polish Jews will complement the current museum facilities in
Warsaw by preserving and presenting the history of the Jewish people in
Poland, which had the largest Jewish population in Europe at the
beginning of World War II.
Having outlined a number of priorities and areas of support I have
with this omnibus bill, let the record show that I support the package
as a whole. However, as evidenced by my vote against cloture on the
motion to proceed to the bill, I believe the energy situation is too
important to set aside until we have completed or frankly even started
our work on it by allowing amendments to be considered. It has been
said on this floor that explaining opposition to this omnibus bill to
our constituents will be difficult. While this premonition may have
some merit, I trust that the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation will
support efforts to deal with high energy prices and encouraging the
kind of open and fair debate that leads to better policies across the
board.
I reinitiate my suggestion that the Senate stay in session during the
month of August, if the majority leader would hold a legitimate session
that provides the kind of deliberation that has led many to call the
U.S. Senate ``the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Members of
this body should be prepared to work as long and hard as necessary in
order to reach a solution to the energy crisis not based upon political
appeasement, but results. It is time we allow debate and compromise to
reverberate through this chamber as we find areas of agreement in the
best tradition of the Senate.

____________________

NOMINATION OF JAMES A. WILLIAMS

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa,
intend to object to proceeding to any unanimous consent agreement
pertaining to the nomination of Mr. James A. Williams to be the
Administrator of the General Services Administration.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted to
report the Williams nomination favorably to the full Senate on July 30,
2008.
I oppose this nomination because of Mr. Williams's actions in
connection with the renegotiation of a contract with Sun Microsystems
in August-September 2006. I have outlined my concerns about this matter
in detail in a speech on the floor on July 24, 2008. That statement
appears on pages S7272-S7274 of the Record.
Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues that I have
requested to be notified of any unanimous consent agreement that would
allow for the consideration of the nomination of Mr. James A. Williams
to be the Administrator of the General Services Administration, GSA.
I intend to reserve my right to object to any such request.
I expressed my opposition to this nomination in a floor statement on
July 24, 2008, and in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the same date. My letter
to Chairman Lieberman appears in the Record on page S7273 at the
conclusion of my speech.
My opposition to this nomination is based on the results of an in-
depth oversight investigation conducted by my staff in 2006-2007. This
investigation examined the actions of Mr. Williams, former
Administrator Doan, and several other senior agency officials in the
contract negotiations with Sun Microsystems, Inc. in May-September
2006. There were: No. 1. allegations of fraud on the Sun contract that
was being renegotiated; No. 2. Mr. Williams and Ms. Doan had knowledge
of the alleged fraud; and No. 3. allegations that Mr. Williams and Ms.
Doan had improperly interfered in the ongoing negotiations and put
pressure on the contracting officer to sign what was considered a bad
contract. I presented the findings of this investigation in a floor
statement on October 17, 2007, which appears on pages S12952-12954 of
the Record.
At Mr. Williams's hearing on July 25, the committee did ask him some
tough questions about his knowledge of the alleged fraud and his role
in the Sun contract negotiations. However, Mr. Williams's response was
less than complete, and there was little or no followup by the
committee. I am preparing followup questions for Mr. Williams, asking
him for more details.
All the evidence developed in my oversight investigation points to
the existence of serious unresolved issues involving Mr. Williams role
in this matter. Based on what I know today, I do not believe that Mr.
Williams should be promoted to high office. He placed the well-being of
the GSA before the interests of all the hard-working American
taxpayers, who he was sworn to protect. There needs to be some
accountability in the Federal contracting system for blunders and
missteps during the Sun contract negotiations.
I may have more to say on this subject at a later date.

____________________

PAYMENTS TO PHYSICIANS

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been examining several doctors at
universities across the country to see if they are complying with the
financial disclosure policies of the National Institutes of Health. I
ask unanimous consent to have my latest letters to Stanford University
and to the National Institutes of Health printed in the Record.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,

Committee on Finance,

Washington, DC, July 30, 2008.
Dr. John L. Hennessy,
President, Stanford University, Office of the President,
Stanford, CA.
Dear Dr. Hennessy: First, I would like to thank you for
your prompt attention to the matter involving payments made
by pharmaceutical companies to Dr. Alan Schatzberg, Chairman
of the Department of Psychiatry at Stanford University
(Stanford/University). Investigators with the Senate Finance
Committee (Committee) believe that the following chart
provides a better representation of Dr. Schatzberg's
disclosures to Stanford and company reports to the Committee.
Committee investigators understand that differences in
reporting requirements and accounting methods may result in
differences between Dr. Schatzberg's reports and reports from
companies that can only be explained in writing. The
Committee understands that Stanford will provide a
comprehensive response to the initial letter sometime soon,
which will include these details. Stanford has notified the
Committee that any discrepancies in the chart are most likely
due to differences in accounting between Stanford and the
various companies contacted by the Committee.
As Stanford pointed out in a public statement, there was an
error in the chart that the Committee sent to you regarding
payments from Eli Lilly to Dr. Schatzberg in 2007. That chart
stated that Dr. Schatzberg had ``not reported'' this money
when in fact he had. Therefore, this letter is being placed
in the congressional record to correct the official record.
Stanford also noted that Dr. Schatzberg's reports on
payments from Eli Lilly in 2004 include compensation of less
than $10,000 for advisory board activities and $10,000 to
$50,000 for honoraria for papers, lectures and consulting.
This also matches the footnote in the Committee's chart and
appears to capture all the monies reported by Eli Lilly
($52,134) for that year.
However, Committee investigators still have concerns
regarding Johnson & Johnson's report of paying Dr. Schatzberg
$22,000

[[Page 17672]]

in 2002. According to Stanford's statement, ``Dr. Schatzberg
did disclose this payment to the university and also reported
it to the Committee. He disclosed the $22,000 payment from
Jannsen, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson
that made the payment.'' The reason that we continue to be
concerned is because Dr. Schatzberg reported less than
$10,000 from Jannsen for academic year 2002 (September 2,
2001 through August 31, 2002) and less than $10,000 for
academic year 2003 (September 1, 2002 through August 31,
2003). Johnson & Johnson did not delineate payments from
subsidiaries such as Jannsen when it reported the information
to the Committee. Johnson & Johnson reported a payment of
``fee for services'' of $22,000 to Dr. Schatzberg on August
19, 2002. Even noting differences in accounting methods, Dr.
Schatzberg's reports on Jannsen do not appear to fully
explain the discrepancy.
Inconsistencies also appear among the payments reported to
us by Eli Lilly in 2002. Eli Lilly reported paying Dr.
Schatzberg $19,788 that calendar year. However, Dr.
Schatzberg reported that he received less than $10,000 from
Eli Lilly for academic year 2002 (September 2, 2001 through
August 31, 2002) and more than $10,000 for academic year 2003
(September 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003). Noting possible
differences in accounting methods, Dr. Schatzberg's reports
on Eli Lilly may explain the discrepancy, but only if one
combined the 2002 and 2003 academic years.
Further, based on documents in our possession, it appears
that Wyeth paid Dr. Schatzberg for testifying as an expert
witness in 2006. This work was in response to lawsuits
brought against Wyeth regarding its antidepressant, Effexor.
As Dr. Schatzberg wrote in an undated expert report on behalf
of Wyeth, ``My hourly rate for review of materials or for
testimony is $500.'' Dr. Schatzberg was apparently an expert
witness in at least two cases for Wyeth, but payments for
this work cannot be found in his reports of outside income to
Stanford. Therefore, I would appreciate your clarification of
Dr. Schatzberg's expert witness fees and how they are
recorded on Stanford's financial disclosure forms.
Thank you again for your continued cooperation and
assistance in this matter. I look forward to a complete
response to outstanding questions in the near future. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Paul
Thacker at (202) 224-4515.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
Attachment.

SELECTED DISCLOSURES BY DR. SCHATZBERG AND RELATED INFORMATION REPORTED
BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND DEVICE MANUFACTURERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Disclosure filed company
Year Company with institution reported
(academic year) (calendar
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Bristol Myers Squibb. No amount provided.. $1,000
Eli Lilly............ No amount provided.. $10,070
2001 Bristol Myers Squibb. No amount provided.. $4,147
Corcept Therapeutics. >$10,000<$50,000 \1\ n/a
Eli Lilly............ <$10,000 \2\........ $10,788
2002 Bristol-Myers Squibb. No amount provided.. $2,134
Corcept Therapeutics. >$100,000 \3\....... n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. <$10,000 \1\........ n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. <$10,000 \4\........ n/a
Eli Lilly............ <$10,000............ $19,788
Johnson & Johnson <$20,000 \5\........ $22,000
(Jannsen).
2003
Bristol-Myers Squibb. No amount provided.. $4,000
Corcept <$10,000 \4\......... n/a.................
Therapeutics
Corcept Therapeutics. >$10,000<$50,000 \1\ n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. >$100,000 \3\....... n/a
Eli Lilly............ >$10,000............ $18,157
2004 Bristol-Myers Squibb. <$10,000............ $0
Corcept Therapeutics. >$10,000<$50,000 \1\ n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. $100,000 \3\........ n/a
Eli Lilly............ <$110,000........... $52,134
Pfizer............... Not reported........ $2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting by Calendar Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Bristol-Myers Squibb. <$10,000............ $0
Corcept Therapeutics. >$10,000<$50,000 \1\ n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. >$100,000 \3\....... n/a
Eli Lilly............ >$10,000<$50,000.... $9,500
Pfizer............... No amount provided.. $2,000
2006 Bristol-Myers Squibb. Not reported........ \6\ $6,000
Corcept Therapeutics. <$10,000 \4\........ n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. >$10,000<$50,000 \1\ n/a
Corcept Therapeutics. >$100,000 \3\....... n/a
Eli Lilly............ >$10,000<$50,000.... $20,500
Pfizer............... Not reported........ $300
2007 Eli Lilly............ <$60,000............ $10,063
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Physician disclosed payment for a variety services including
Advisory Board Membership, Board of Directors, and consulting.
\2\ Physician disclosed <$10,000 for academic year 2001. No amount
provided for prior academic year.
\3\ Physician disclosed equity value.
\4\ Physician disclosed payment for royalties from Stanford's licensing
agreement with Corcept Therapeutics.
\5\ This sum combines two academic years.
\6\ Bristol-Myers Squibb stated that Stanford intended to pay Dr.
Schatzberg $6,000 for conducting an annual course for which the
company provides a grant.

Note 1: When a Physician named a company in a disclosure but did not
provide an amount, the text reads ``no amount reported.'' Stanford has
noted that amounts were not required in each specific case. When a
Physician did not list the company in the disclosure, the column reads
``not reported.'' The Committee contacted several companies for
payment information and the notation n/a (not available) reflects that
a company was not contacted.
Note 2: The Committee was not able to estimate the total amount of
payments disclosed by Dr. Schatzberg during the period January 2000
through June 2007 due to the fact that some amounts were not provided
and in other instances ranges were used. Information reported by the
pharmaceutical companies indicate that their reports do not match Dr.
Schatzberg's disclosures.

____
U.S. Senate,

Committee on Finance,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2008.
Dr. John L. Hennessy,
President, Stanford University, Office of the President,
Stanford, CA.
Dear Dr. Hennessy: The Senate Finance Committee (Committee)
recently sent you a letter attempting to clarify
discrepancies in a chart comparing reports of payments made
by several pharmaceutical companies against disclosures of
outside income filed by Dr. Alan Schatzberg, a psychiatrist
at Stanford (Stanford/University). As Committee investigators
explained to Stanford officials, we have further questions
regarding Dr. Schatzberg's grants from the National
Institutes of Health and his relationship with Corcept
Therapeutics (Corcept/Company). Corcept was founded in part
by Dr. Schatzberg, who has several million dollars of equity
in that company.
In addition, I am interested in understanding Stanford's
involvement with Dr. Schatzberg and Corcept. Dr. Schatzberg
received grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
to study mifepristone and major depression. At the same time,
Dr. Schatzberg received compensation from Corcept and had a
large equity interest in the Company. This equity could grow
dramatically if the results of Dr. Schatzberg's government
sponsored research find that mifepristone could be used to
treat psychotic major depression.
I have come to understand, based on documents provided to
me by Stanford, that your institution had and may still have
a financial relationship with Corcept. This agreement has
resulted in Stanford paying Dr. Schatzberg royalties. For
instance, Dr. Schatzberg reported in his Stanford disclosures
that he received payments of less than $10,000 for royalties
from Stanford's licensing agreement with Corcept
Therapeutics. These payments were made in 2002, 2003, and
2006.
As is well established, the NIH relies on universities to
manage the conflicts that exist between a grantee and any
outside financial interests. However, not only does Dr.
Schatzberg have a financial interest in Corcept, but Stanford
also had a relationship with Corcept and may still at this
time. These facts raise multiple questions and concerns. For
example, how can Stanford manage Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts
of interest with Corcept, when Stanford apparently has a
similar conflict of interest? Furthermore, when did Stanford
notify the NIH of this conflict?
Additionally, I have many questions and concerns about
Stanford's recent press statement regarding how it managed
Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts of interest with Corcept. In that
statement, Stanford claimed that steps to manage this
conflict ``included his not participating in any human
subjects research involving mifepristone. . . .'' However,
based upon a search of published literature, Dr. Schatzberg's
name appears as the author of several published studies
involving human subjects research and mifepristone. Most of
these studies were funded by NIH although one study was
funded by Corcept and another one was funded by both the NIH
and Corcept. These studies include:
2002--Dr. Schatzberg was the final author on a paper in
Biological Psychiatry that reported on a trial to study
mifepristone to treat psychotic major depression in 30
patients. The study listed support by Corcept along with two
grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH50604
and T-32MH19983), which is one of the NIH's institutes. Dr.
Schatzberg is the primary investigator for grant MH50604.
2006--Dr. Schatzberg published a study involving human
subjects treated with mifepristone for psychotic major
depression. This study was supported by several NIH grants.
Dr. Schatzberg is the primary investigator for three of these
grants (R01 MH50604, R01 MH47573, T32 MH019938). In the
acknowledgements section of the paper, Dr. Schatzberg
disclosed that he had a financial interest in Corcept which
has a licensing agreement for mifepristone. Dr. Schatzberg
also disclosed that he ``played no direct role in the
recruitment, assessment, or follow-up of subjects enrolled in
this study,'' and ``was not directly involved in the analysis
of data stemming from this research.'' (emphasis added)
I am not in a position to interpret the disclosures and
apparent recusals from research involvement made by Dr.
Schatzberg in the 2006 study, however, I am seeking guidance
from Stanford regarding its duties to ``manage'' conflicts in
light of a possible contradiction. According to the ``NIH
Grants Policy Statement,'' the primary investigator of an NIH
grant is ``responsible for the scientific or technical
aspects of the grant and for day-to-day management of the
project or program.'' So, the question arises: how could Dr.
Schatzberg monitor the research funded with his NIH grants if
he was not involved closely in the study?
I also would appreciate your guidance on how Dr. Schatzberg
could have been recused from involvement in research when he
is listed as the primary investigator for several trials. For
instance, Stanford's website has a clinical trials directory,
which lists Dr.

[[Page 17673]]

Schatzberg as a co-investigator for a trial seeking to enroll
20 patients in a study using mifepristone to treat patients
with psychotic major depression. The anticipated start of the
trial was January 1, 2003 and the listed collaborator for the
trial is the NIH.
Dr. Schatzberg is also listed as the primary investigator
on ClinicalTrials.gov for another study that began in 2005 to
treat depressed patients with mifepristone. This NIH funded
trial is listed as active, but not recruiting patients. The
estimated enrollment was 100 patients in this randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In addition, Dr.
Schatzberg is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as the ``study
director'' for a phase III clinical trial to ``evaluate the
effectiveness of mifepristone to treat adults with psychotic
major depression.'' This trial is also funded by the NIH and
is now actively recruiting patients.
Further, Stanford acknowledges in its press statement that
it ``received a small amount of equity in Corcept under a
technology license.'' However, Stanford did not explain when
this relationship began or ended. And according to Dr.
Schatzberg's 2006 study, Stanford's Institutional Review
Board (IRB), which is responsible for approving study
protocols, approved his research plan. This raises even more
questions regarding how Stanford's IRB could remain
independent, especially since Stanford had a financial stake
in ensuring that the study protocol was approved. I seek your
thoughts on this issue as well.
Finally, last February the Association of American Medical
Colleges (AAMC) released guidelines governing conflicts of
interest. The AAMC advised that institutions report conflicts
of interest ``in any substantive public communication of the
research results.'' However, when Stanford issued a press
release regarding the results of Dr. Schatzberg's research on
mifepristone, the statement did not note if Dr. Schatzberg
and/or Stanford had a financial interests in the research
findings. Stanford missed another opportunity to disclose
financial interests in a story that ran in the Stanford
Report which reported on Dr. Schatzberg's mifepristone
research.
I would also like to better understand Stanford's current
and past financial relationship with Corcept. Accordingly,
please respond to the following questions and requests for
information. The time span for this request covers 1995 to
the present. For each response, please repeat the enumerated
request and follow with the appropriate answer.
(1) Please explain Stanford's previous and current
financial relationship with Corcept Therapeutics. This
response should include the date when Stanford first
established a relationship with Corcept Therapeutics, the
nature of that relationship, and the date when Stanford
divested itself of any financial relationship(s) with
Corcept. Also, detail any financial transactions between
Stanford and Corcept Therapeutics (i.e. has Stanford invested
in Corcept or has Corcept paid a licensing fee to Stanford).
(2) Please provide a list of all patents and licenses held
by Dr. Schatzberg. For each patent and/or license, please
provide the following:
(a) Provide a summary of the patent/license.
(b) When was the patent/license first issued?
(c) For each patent/license, please list any companies that
have a financial interest in the success of that patent/
license.
(d) Please provide an accounting of any compensation paid
to Dr. Schatzberg for any patent/license, detailed by dollar
amount and year.
(3) Please provide a list of all studies published by Dr.
Schatzberg that involve mifepristone or major depression. For
each study, please provide the following:
(a) Please list the grant(s) which funded each study, in
whole or in part.
(b) If an author listed on the study was at Stanford,
please list their department, supervisor, and financial
support, at that time.
(4) For each study identified above, please provide the
name of each member of the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
that approved the study protocol. For each IRB, please
provide the following information:
(a) Please provide minutes of the IRB meeting when that
study was discussed.
(b) Please explain if the IRB considered financial
interests of study investigators and/or Stanford in approving
the study protocols.
(c) Please explain if the IRB required reporting of
conflicts of interests to human subjects participating in the
study.
(d) Please provide a point of contact for the IRB.
(5) According to federal regulations, ``prior to the
Institution's expenditure of any funds under the award, the
Institution will report to the [Public Health Service]
Awarding Component the existence of a conflicting interest
(but not the nature of the interest or other details) found
by the institution and assure that the interest has been
managed, reduced or eliminated.'' Please provide the date and
supporting documents that show when Stanford determined that
Dr. Schatzberg had a conflict of interest regarding his
federal funding of mifespristone research.
(6) Please provide the date and supporting documents that
show when Stanford reported this conflict to the NIH.
(7) Please provide the following information on Corcept:
(a) When did Dr. Schatzberg create Corcept?
(b) When did Corcept apply to the FDA for approval of
mifepristone to treat psychotic major depression?
(c) When did Dr. Schatzberg first become vested in the
company?
(8) Please explain how Stanford manages a conflict of
interest with NIH funded researchers if Stanford has a
financial interest in the outcome of the study.
(9) According to Stanford's press statement, ``In addition,
NIH reviews its data through its Data Safety and Monitoring
Board structures.'' Please provide documentation that a Data
Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) at the NIH has been apprised
of Dr. Schatzberg's and/or Stanford's financial interests in
Corcept.
(10) The AAMC advises institutions to report conflicts of
interest ``in any substantive public communication of the
research results.'' Please explain Stanford's policies for
reporting conflicts of interest in press releases and other
publications controlled by Stanford.
(11) Dr. Schatzberg has reported in a 2006 publication that
he ``played no direct role in the recruitment, assessment, or
follow-up of subjects enrolled in this study,'' and ``was not
directly involved in the analysis of data stemming from this
research.'' Please explain how, with such constraints, Dr.
Schatzberg was able to monitor the spending of his NIH
grants.
Thank you again for your continued cooperation and
assistance in this matter. As you know, in cooperating with
the Committee's review, no documents, records, data or
information related to these matters shall be destroyed,
modified, removed or otherwise made inaccessible to the
Committee.
I look forward to hearing from you by no later than August
14, 2008. All documents responsive to this request should be
sent electronically in PDF format to Brian_Downey@finance-
rep.senate.gov. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact Paul Thacker.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
____

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Finance,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2008.
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.,
Director, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD
Dear Director Zerhouni: As a senior member of the United
States Senate and the Ranking Member of the Committee on
Finance (Committee), I have a duty under the Constitution to
conduct oversight into the actions of executive branch
agencies, including the activities of the National Institutes
of Health (NIH/Agency). In this capacity, I must ensure that
NIH properly fulfills its mission to advance the public's
welfare and makes responsible use of the public funding
provided for medical studies. This research often forms the
basis for action taken by the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
I would like to follow up with you on my concerns about the
lack of oversight regarding conflicts of interest relating to
the almost $24 billion in annual extramural funds that are
distributed by the NIH. I appreciate the comments you made
recently during the NIH appropriations hearing where you
mentioned several times that we need more ``sunshine.'' I
could not agree more.
I recently sent several letters to Stanford University
(Stanford/University) regarding Dr. Alan Schatzberg, chair of
Stanford's department of psychiatry. I am attaching those
letters for your review and consideration.
According to information found on the NIH's CRISP database
of extramural grants, Dr. Schatzberg has/had NIH grants to
study mifepristone as well as major depression. At the same
time it appears that he has also had an ongoing financial
relationship with Corcept Therapeutics (Corcept/Company).
Corcept is seeking approval from the Food and Drug
Administration for mifepristone to treat psychotic major
depression. Corcept was founded (in part) by Dr. Schatzberg
and he has several million dollars of equity in the company.
Dr. Schatzberg has also received payments over several years
from Corcept and has received payments directly from Stanford
because of its licensing agreement with Corcept for
mifepristone.
The intertwined relationship between Stanford, Dr.
Schatzberg, and Corcept was first reported in 2006 in a two-
part series that ran in the San Jose Mercury News. In light
of this article, I am interested in understanding if the NIH
investigated potential conflicts of interest after this
series appeared. I would also like to know when Stanford
first notified the NIH that Dr. Schatzberg had a conflict of
interest regarding his large equity interest in Corcept.
Stanford's attempts to manage Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts of
interest and his NIH grants raise several questions.
According to Stanford's recent press statement, this
management ``included his not participating in any human
subjects research involving mifepristone. . . .'' However,
Dr.

[[Page 17674]]

Schatzberg's name appears as the author of several published
studies involving human subjects research and mifepristone.
One of these studies was funded by Corcept, some were funded
by the NIH, and one was funded by both Corcept and the NIH.
For instance, in 2006, Dr. Schatzberg published a study
involving human subjects treated with mifepristone for
psychotic major depression. This study was supported by
several NIH grants. In the acknowledgements section of the
paper, Dr. Schatzberg disclosed that he had a financial
interest in Corcept Therapeutics, which has a licensing
agreement for mifepristone. Dr. Schatzberg also disclosed
that he ``played no direct role in the recruitment,
assessment, or follow-up of subjects enrolled in this
study,'' and ``was not directly involved in the analysis of
data stemming from this research.'' This disclosure raises
some interesting questions regarding Dr. Schatzberg's
involvement in the study. Specifically, how could Dr.
Schatzberg monitor the research funded with his NIH grants if
he was not involved closely in the study?
Dr. Schatzberg was also a lead investigator in a study on
mifepristone for treating psychotic major depression back in
2002. This study was supported by a grant from Corcept along
with related support from the National Institute of Mental
Health (NIMH), one of the NIH's institutes. I am wondering
how such grants are provided and how the possible conflict of
interests are managed and by whom.
Furthermore, Dr. Schatzberg is listed as the primary
investigator on ClinicalTrials.gov for another study to treat
patients with depression with mifepristone, which began in
2005. This NIH funded trial is listed as active but is not
recruiting patients. The estimated enrollment was for 100
patients in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
study. Also, Dr. Schatzberg is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov
as the ``study director'' for a phase III clinical trial to
``evaluate the effectiveness of mifepristone to treat adults
with psychotic major depression.'' This trial is also funded
by the NIH and is now actively recruiting patients.
According to the ``NIH Grants Policy Statement'' the
primary investigator of an NIH grant is ``responsible for the
scientific or technical aspects of the grant and for day-to-
day management of the project or program.'' So the question
arises: how could Dr. Schatzberg monitor the research funded
with his NIH grants if he was not involved closely in the
study?
I also understand that Stanford had a licensing agreement
with Corcept and was paying royalties to Dr. Schatzberg for
several years. Again, I am wondering how Stanford could
manage Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts when it also has a
financial interest in the company and the research outcome.
I would appreciate a greater understanding of Stanford's
role in ``managing'' Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts of interest
regarding his NIH grants to study mifepristone. Accordingly,
please respond to the following questions and requests for
information. The time span of this request covers 1995 to the
present. For each response, please repeat the enumerated
request and follow with the appropriate answer.
1. Following the series by the San Jose Mercury News, did
the NIH examine Stanford's management of Dr. Schatzberg's
conflicts of interest? If yes, please provide me with copies
of all pertinent documents and communications. If not, why
not?
2. According to the ``NIH Grants Policy Statement,'' Dr.
Schatzberg's role as the primary investigator of his NIH
grants is to be ``responsible for the scientific or technical
aspects of the grant and for day-to-day management of the
project or program.'' How can Dr. Schatzberg live up to these
obligations when Stanford's press statement claims that he
``played no direct role in the recruitment, assessment, or
follow-up of subjects enrolled in this study,'' and ``was not
directly involved in the analysis of data stemming from this
research''?
3. Does the NIH allow researchers to recuse themselves from
involvement in the research funded by their own NIH grants?
If yes, did the NIH allow Dr. Schatzberg to recuse himself
from any of the grants made to him by the NIH?
4. Please provide a list of all NIH grants received by Dr.
Schatzberg. For each grant, please provide the following: a.
Name of grant; b. Topic of grant; and c. Amount of funding
for grant.
5. Please provide a list of any other interactions that Dr.
Schatzberg has had with the NIH to include membership on
advisory boards, peer review on grants, or the like. The span
of this request covers 1998 to the present.
6. Stanford has claimed that Dr. Schatzberg's research has
been monitored by an NIH Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).
Does the NIH DSMB provide oversight of conflicts of interest
for a study? If so, please explain. If not, why not?
I look forward to hearing from you by no later than August
14, 2008. If you have any questions, please contact my
Committee staff, Paul Thacker at (202) 224-4515. Any formal
correspondence should be sent electronically in PDF
searchable format to Brian_D[email protected].
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.

____________________

CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 70

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 222 of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009
budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in the
resolution for legislation improving education, including legislation
that makes higher education more accessible or more affordable. The
revisions are contingent on certain conditions being met, including
that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
I find that the conference report to accompany H.R. 4137, the Higher
Education Opportunity Act, satisfies the conditions of the reserve fund
for improving education. Therefore, pursuant to section 222, I am
adjusting the aggregates in the 2009 budget resolution, as well as the
allocation provided to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res.
70 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 2009--S. CON. RES.
70; REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 222
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVING EDUCATION
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2008................................................ 1,875.401
FY 2009................................................ 2,029.653
FY 2010................................................ 2,204.695
FY 2011................................................ 2,413.285
FY 2012................................................ 2,506.063
FY 2013................................................ 2,626.571
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2008................................................ -3.999
FY 2009................................................ -67.746
FY 2010................................................ 21.297
FY 2011................................................ -14.785
FY 2012................................................ -151.532
FY 2013................................................ -123.648
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2008................................................ 2,564.237
FY 2009................................................ 2,538.292
FY 2010................................................ 2,566.671
FY 2011................................................ 2,692.511
FY 2012................................................ 2,734.155
FY 2013................................................ 2,858.894
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2008................................................ 2,466.678
FY 2009................................................ 2,573.270
FY 2010................................................ 2,625.593
FY 2011................................................ 2,711.470
FY 2012................................................ 2,719.582
FY 2013................................................ 2,852.035
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--S. CON. RES.
70; REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 222
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVING EDUCATION
In millions of dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation to Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee:
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 9,874
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 9,745
FY 2009 Budget Authority............................... 9,349
FY 2009 Outlays........................................ 8,088
FY 2009-2013 Budget Authority.......................... 62,263
FY 2009-2013 Outlays................................... 60,084
Adjustments:
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... -10
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ *
FY 2009 Budget Authority............................... -9
FY 2009 Outlays........................................ -114
FY 2009-2013 Budget Authority.......................... 36
FY 2009-2013 Outlays................................... -60
Revised Allocation to Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee:
FY 2008 Budget Authority............................... 9,864
FY 2008 Outlays........................................ 9,745
FY 2009 Budget Authority............................... 9,340
FY 2009 Outlays........................................ 7,974
FY 2009-2013 Budget Authority.......................... 62,299
FY 2009-2013 Outlays................................... 60,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*less than $500,000.

____________________

CHILDREN'S DEATHS BY FIREARMS

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after more than a decade of decline, the
number of children and teens killed by firearms is again increasing. I
would like to take a moment to break down some of the statistics that
contribute to this alarming fact. An analysis of firearm violence data
by the Children's Defense Fund found that 3,006 children and teens were
killed by guns in 2005. This marked the first time that more than 3,000
kids were killed by firearms in many years and the first yearly
increase in the number of children's

[[Page 17675]]

deaths since 1994. Broken down, this amounts to 1 child or teen dying
every 3 hours in America, 8 children a day, or 58 children every week.
Firearms are the cause of death of more children between the ages of
10 and 19 than any other cause except car accidents. In 2005 alone, a
shocking 69 preschoolers were killed by firearms. Between 1979 and
2005, gun violence took the lives of over 104,000 children and teens.
A closer look at these 3,006 tragedies show 1,972 children and teens
were homicide victims, 822 children and teens committed suicide, and
212 children and teens died in accidental or undetermined
circumstances; 2,654 were boys and 352 were girls; 404 were under the
age of 15, 131 were under the age of 10, and 69 were under the age of
5.
More than five times as many children and teens suffered nonfatal gun
injuries during the same period.
Mr. President, these staggering statistics cannot and must not be
ignored. We must strengthen our gun laws to limit children's assess to
guns. As a father and a grandfather, I urge my colleagues to take up
and pass sensible gun safety legislation so that this frightening trend
will not continue.

____________________

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH ENERGY PRICES

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, In mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with
me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded
by the hundreds. The stories, numbering over 1,000, are heartbreaking
and touching. To respect their efforts, I am submitting every e-mail
sent to me through [email protected]
.gov to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be
easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious
attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only
detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have
suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to
tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask
unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

I have a 2001 Hyundai Elantra, well maintained, until
lately--I can no longer afford much [periodic maintenance].
In any case, it gets approximately 35 mpg. It now costs me
over $50 to fill the tank. My wife works 32-35 hours per week
at [Walmart] in Ontario, Oregon. She makes $10 per hour,
since it's in Oregon. [She drives more than] 18 miles each
way to work.
My doctor at [the Veterans Administration hospital] is 86
miles one way. My wife's orthopedic doctor is in Nampa--
roughly 50 miles. [She has another doctor] in Meridian--
roughly 68 miles each way. I am disabled on Social Security
disability. I receive army retirement and VA disability,
partially offset by my retired pay.
Thank God and Walmart, I get a slight discount on household
expenses at Walmart.
We're talking $200 per month, or more, for gasoline. Do
something besides talk! Drill Here--Drill Now--Pay Less!
Taro.
____

I doubt you will use this story because it will not help
support the corporate energy giants or their lobbyists and it
will not reaffirm the status quo as I believe Washington
wants to continue to do.
We are paying more for energy at our house, just like
everyone else. It costs us more to drive to work, to visit
family, to take a vacation and to keep our home because of
high gasoline, electricity, and natural gas costs. Food costs
us much more, too.
But we are taking action ourselves to reduce the costs and
contribute helping solve the larger question about global
warming and what we are doing to our own environment. We
bought a hybrid car to reduce gas consumption. We bicycle to
work. We turn off lights when we leave the room. We turn down
the temperature of our water heater. We contribute to our
utilities green energy program. We recycle, reuse, and
restore. We invest in only green energy and companies that
are forwarding a future that is not dependent on fossil fuels
and that gives back to the people and resources they depend
on. And we buy only food that is grown in as sustainable way
as possible to support the best farmers and the practices
they use. We support farmers who are stewards of the land.
And I know high fuel prices are making Americans use less
gas, drive less, and think more before they get in the car
and take a trip. The same is happening all across America,
even previously unresponsive corporations like Walmart and
Chevrolet and Ford and General Motors are taking actions to
curb fuel costs, use less fuel, make more efficient cars, and
save energy because the rising prices and changing energy
markets affect their bottom line. The only ones who are not
taking any action are those who are making a profit from high
energy prices.
The fact is, changes in the world of energy prices and
changes in our perspective on how humans are affecting the
environment we live in are changing too. And people are
taking action rather than wait for our unresponsive and
partisan public officials to do something.
If you do anything or want to take any action, promote
energy conservation in any and all ways and renewable energy
production in all its forms. Under no circumstances should we
further exploit the fossil fuel resources this country has.
We will need them in the long term so they are investment in
our future and best kept where they are and their
exploitation now would only speed the further decline of this
country and our global environment.
If you want to promote nuclear energy, then any proposal
and supporter of such a bill should also volunteer their land
and the land of their family for the storage of nuclear waste
(the Idaho National Lab does not count). . . Or such
proponents should volunteer to move next to the site that
will store such waste. If you or anyone else can pass that
red face test, then I would support moving ahead with such
legislation.
I think, first and foremost, you should pass a cap and
trade bill on carbon. It is the only way in which we can
develop a viable economy and take advantage of the new
opportunities offered by the challenges of energy in the
future and preserve the planet in which we live.
I also think that the profits being afforded to energy
companies as a result of increasing costs to citizens should
be taxed. No one wants to remove corporate profits but record
profits and changes in markets to provide for this are
opportunities for providing funding for new and important
initiatives without undue loss of corporate profitability or
returns on investments to shareholders.
The ``problem'' with America is that we do not want to
sacrifice our future for the short term economic gain of a
few short years and the short term political gains one party
or the other can make. We are not like China in that way and
if we stoop to competing with them at that level, we not only
destroy the environment but lose our values and what we stand
for. This has been the approach of the current administration
and its party and it is something we need to excrete out of
our system as soon as possible so that we can once again
embrace the democratic principles and public trusts this
country was founded on.
I wish you luck and I hope you can see your way to what
needs to be done. We all will be doing what we can out here,
in the land of the free and home of the brave.
Respectfully,
Gregg.
____

I work at the site and drive 100 miles roundtrip. Our union
per diem has not [increased] in years to stay current with
the outrageous gas prices. It has also affected my being able
to go to Island Park to the lot my parents bought in 1970 and
has since been willed to me. I used to make weekend trips
every week but cannot even afford to buy gas to pull the
trailer up to the lot, let alone pull the boat up and buy gas
for it. I am the Job Supervisor for Construction on the Tank
Farm Closure Project and have received several recognition
awards for my work and just won the Eagle Award for the Tank
Farm. Maybe I can sell them and get money for gas to continue
going to work. We need to build Generation IV reactors and
start getting our own oil and not depend on foreign countries
that can't stand us to begin with.
Larry, Blackfoot.
____

Like many Americans, my husband and I have tried to support
the American economy by buying U.S. branded products; but as
we are getting to within seven years of retirement we need to
make our retirement savings a top priority. We calculated the
cost of owning our Ford vehicles and compared them to the
overall cost of a Toyota Prius using $3.20 a gallon gas cost.
The Prius won by a nose, so we bought one last year. This
year we traded in our last Ford for another Prius. We have
been able to keep our retirement savings at the same level
because of these purchases. This, of course, means we can no
longer haul the larger loads or go into the back country on
the unimproved roads like we did before the cost of gas
became unreasonable. We have made accommodations; but the
changes have limited our recreation choices. These are minor
issues compared to the families who cannot make these changes
because they have mortgages that are now close to the value
of the property due to the falling real estate market and
their other costs have risen with the price of gas. These
people are being squeezed from all sides.
Kathleen.
____

[Thank you for not passing the climate change bill] that
was one of the stupidest

[[Page 17676]]

bills I have seen. It is no wonder the approval rating is so
low. Keep up the good work--and keep those [other Members] in
line--It will take some time, but they will be out [of office
soon].
Unsigned.
____

We have seen the prices of not only gas, but groceries,
going up and up. Because we need to continue to buy gas in
order to keep doctors' appointments, get our son to work, go
to church and the grocery store, etc., we have had to
purchase less food. The fruits and vegetables are now priced
so high, we are unable to include them in our diet. As you
know, these are essential for our health! We live on Social
Security--and that does not go up!! It is becoming more and
more of a struggle just to pay our utilities, prescriptions,
and insurances. We would love to be able to drive out of
state to visit our children, but cannot afford to drive that
far. On top of all of that, our property taxes are going up!
We pay our bills, then wonder just what we will eat for our
next meals! It is almost to the point that one of us (both in
our 70s) will have to find a job.
Thanks for listening to people like us.
Karol, Nampa.
____

We need to look for alternative fuel. Perhaps now since it
is hitting our pocket books we will be more willing. Please
stay out of the environmentally-sensitive areas; no need to
destroy our environment for short term gain.
Thank You,
Asa.
____

I was retired and had to go back to work due to the higher
energy prices and increases in the cost of food.
Albert.
____

While you sit high and mighty in your posh and air-
conditioned jobs, listen in on how two teachers in Idaho have
to get by so we can pay our taxes to pay your well-padded
salaries . . .
Both my wife and I are State Certified Teachers. Both of us
are highly-educated (myself with a Master's in Education from
University of Idaho and my wife with a Bachelor's in Special
Education from Boise State University). Neither of us can
find jobs teaching here in the Treasure Valley because school
districts are cutting FTE's in order to spread their already
overly-inflated budgets in multiple directions. We have a
baby on the way with no medical insurance and no way to
qualify for aid as we are considered too wealthy, because we
both were teaching last year.
Life is getting interesting for us as we have cut all of
our spending in our budgets to buy gas for our little VW bug.
We no longer can afford to drive to the movies, as that is
gas we need to look for work. We no longer spend money on
luxury items, as that is money set aside to buy gas to get to
work. We no longer eat out, as all restaurants are rising
their prices in order to keep up with their own costs. That
is also money we need for gas to get back and forth to work.
We work to feed the car now, not each other. We eat Top
Ramen, macaroni & cheese, and salads (fine, yes, but it gets
old after a while), because we can no longer afford to eat
the healthier foods because all of the stores have raised
those prices to just outside of our reach. For us, it is now
about survival . . . not living.
You politicians need to understand just whose money you are
spending when you schedule your flights and eat your meals
and then bill it to the people. You need to look at your own
waistlines and paychecks and consider taking a pay-cut like
we do. You are not there to get rich! You are not there to
build your career! You are there to represent us! That is it!
Consider cutting your own spending by brown bagging lunch
from your own home budgets and kitchens, instead of ordering
and charging it as a tax write-off. Consider video
conferencing more often instead of bouncing back and forth
across the nation in an airplane for your meetings.
Conference call like the rest of us! Ride a bike when you can
or a motorcycle or scooter and become the leading example you
originally set out to be!
Please understand, from where we are you are an unnecessary
expense on our taxes. If the government cannot afford to pay
its bills, it should stop spending! Not raise more revenue by
raising more taxes.
We the People are looking at a government out of control.
As stated in the Declaration of Independence:
`` . . . that to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from those
governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.''
This government is bent on overburdening its citizens.
According to the Declaration of Independence, such government
should be ``altered or abolished.''
Please do not get me wrong and think I'm anything but a
patriotic American. Indeed, I spilled my own blood for this
country of mine! I fought a war of bone cancer in the U.S.
Navy, causing me to lose my right tibia. I have been fighting
for twenty years for a right knee replacement, but I am told
I cannot have one because of Veterans Administration policy
and budgets. I received a Purple Heart at Balboa Naval
Hospital, but it does not show on my DD-214. Am I bitter,
yes! But, I still love my country!
There are countless millions of people out here (outside of
your 3-piece suits and luxury cars--outside your sphere of
influence) who feel just as I do, but there seems to be
nothing we can do about it. Vote yes, sure, but ultimately it
is you who make the decisions right, wrong, indifferent, fair
or not fair. How you make your decisions personally and
politically makes the determining factors of whether you
stand for us or against us . . . the People of these great
United States of America.
You must choose whether or not you get to keep your jobs
gentlemen. I now have a Master's Degree, a chip on my
shoulder for politicians, a loud voice, and a lot of free
time! Shall I work with you or against you?
Here are our requests:
Cut Foreign Oil Purchasing!
Cut All Big Oil Subsidies . . . on all fronts!
Cut your paychecks in half, even for three months to show
good faith!
Make 100 percent BioDiesel a priority!
Make diesel vehicles and electric vehicles a priority now!
End gasoline vehicle production now, not 20 years from now!
Make Alternative fuels vehicles a priority now not 20 years
from now!
Electrical power can be harnessed all day long in the
desert, why isn't it?
Wind energy can be harnessed in the desert, why isn't it?
Why burn coal to make electricity when you can burn Brown's
Gas (HHO) for half the cost and zero percent emissions
released into the air?
Jonathan-David, Meridian.
____

Your thinking is not unique . . . it is rhetoric we have
heard for the past 30 years. Jimmy Carter and his lies about
a shortage are still around. It is you and our Congress that
has caused this problem. You allowed the Environmental
Protection Agency and Department of Environmental Quality and
all the environmentalist to control your thinking and votes.
I do not think I am wrong in my facts, am I? Your fuel taxes
and so-called regulations are taking the U.S. economy down.
We will soon be controlled by foreign economies if we do not
take our own resources and begin using them. You know we are
the 3rd largest oil producer in the world yet we use so much
foreign oil that it has become a joke? We had over 500 years
of oil and natural gas reserves in the 70's. Can you tell me
what happened to them? Do not answer me unless you have the
facts about the info from the 70's. I hope you will stand up
and be counted when it comes to the controlling liberal
environmentalists' whining and crying. I truly believe you
can get this done and soon. Tell Congress we need to open up
our reserves. We have plenty for the next few centuries and
by then we will have a new energy source. Thanks for
listening.
Ron.
____

In your e-mail, you have said that you support wind energy.
I was disappointed to see that you voted against the
Production Tax Credit that would help the wind industry to
continue to grow.
Stephen.
____

I will be 67 this October; my wife is 58. I am still
working, at a [lower] salary than I once commanded. This
fiasco on gasoline and diesel prices has caused me to wonder
if I will ever be able to retire.
I own a motor-home; having traded in my one-ton diesel
pickup and a 5th wheel trailer due to the screaming increases
in diesel fuel. Now I cannot travel at all the way we had
planned and hoped. All of my immediate family is in the
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas areas--it may be that for
some of my family I may never see them again. Selling the
motor home is foolish at this juncture in that I can never
hope to even almost recoup my investment.
It is essential that Congress immediately find and drill
for oil anywhere in our own territories. At the same time,
there should be major tax breaks given to those that can
provide a) sensible alternative fuels or b) major
improvements in the internal combustion engine. Nuclear
energy has been stupidly legislated out of the future as
well.
My concern is that when we had the majority and the
President, we did not seem to have the leadership that could
provide the increase in oil search, production and
refinement. Now it seems that we may no longer have the
Presidency and for sure will not regain the majority in the
legislature. It is my firm belief that the opposition will
choke our economy to death with continued pressures on
ethanol or taxation on larger vehicles--all under the wing of
left-wing partisanship.
Substantial increases in the supply, while changing the
demand via alternative fuels, seem to be the only sensible
way to go.
Al, Hayden.

[[Page 17677]]

____________________

REMEMBERING GOVERNOR ANNE ARMSTRONG

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart for the
loss of one of Texas' strongest, most influential women, Anne
Armstrong. More importantly, I rise today to honor and commemorate her
incredible service to Texas and the Nation as a whole.
To understand what kind of a woman Anne Armstrong was, you first need
to understand where she came from. A valedictorian graduate of Vassar
in 1949, Anne's career started out, not in politics, but on a ranch in
southern Texas' Kenedy County with her husband Tobin.
Although she was born in Louisiana, Anne quickly took to Texas life,
and enjoyed working on one of Texas' historic ranches, settled in the
19th century. Owning a ranch taught Anne to be tough when necessary,
and always polite. She also learned how to talk politics with her
husband and his friends, and quickly proved to have a sharp insight
into the issues facing our country.
Although her family always came first, Anne's passion for politics
led her to become the Kenedy County Republican Party chair. From there
she took off, serving next as Texas Republican Party chair, and
eventually as the first woman ever to cochair the Republican National
Committee.
One year later Anne made history again when she became the first
woman ever to deliver a keynote address to a national party convention.
But Anne's service was never about the notoriety, it was about
improving the government of America. In a time when a woman in politics
was almost unheard of, Anne Armstrong forced herself into the game, and
proved that she belonged there. She became the first ever woman to hold
a Presidential Cabinet Position, serving as an adviser to Nixon and to
Ford.
When President Ford joked at her swearing-in that his wife was
``always needling'' him to appoint women to higher positions, Anne
quickly retorted ``I have the feeling Abigail Adams would have been
just as excited as Betty Ford and I.''
In her role Anne worked to further advance the roles of women in
America. She established the White House Office of Women's Programs, an
office dedicated to recruiting and assisting females in obtaining
political appointments and high level government employment. Her work,
as well as her example, helped lay the groundwork for countless women
who have followed her. I know that my colleague, Senator Hutchison,
attributes much of her success to Anne's example and mentorship.
After serving in the White House, Anne again made history as the
first female Ambassador to the United Kingdom. During that time, Anne
Armstrong nearly became the first woman on a Presidential ticket, as
she was considered by President Ford for the vice presidency.
In what would be her last national position, Anne served at the
request of President Reagan on the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board. She served as the first and only female chair to that
board, and served under both Presidents Reagan and Bush.
Utimately, Anne Armstrong was an adviser to four different
presidents, a mentor to many of today's prominent politicians, and a
beloved friend to all who had the pleasure of working with her. In
1987, recognizing her distinguished service, President Reagan awarded
Anne with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
But as passionately as Anne Armstrong worked in politics, nothing
could take priority over her family. After serving in national politics
for roughly 20 years, Anne returned home to her ranch and her family in
Kenedy County.
Even after such a remarkable career in politics, Anne Armstrong could
not resist the call to serve her community. When she passed away on
Wednesday, Anne Armstrong was still serving as the county commissioner.
At the age of 80, battling cancer, Anne Armstrong continued to serve
her beloved community, her home of Texas.
Whether as a mother, a wife, a rancher or a politician, Anne
Armstrong's commitment and dedication was unmatched. Without a doubt,
Texas, and the Nation as a whole, is richer for her service.
Anne's legacy is survived by her 5 children and 13 grandchildren--as
well as the countless others whose lives she touched. That is why I
have come today to introduce a resolution honoring the life and service
of a pioneer of women in politics, and a great Texan, Mrs. Anne
Armstrong.

____________________

RECOGNIZING DAY OF THE AMERICAN COWBOY

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the
American Cowboy. This distinguished body saw fit to designate July 26
as the Day of the American Cowboy. I cosponsored this resolution and
would like to take this opportunity to recognize this iconic figure.
Around the globe, the American Wild West is known. To many it means
cowboys, ranchers, cattle, horses, outlaws, and gunfights. But it was
also homesteading and pioneering. These folks helped establish the
American West, expanding our territories while creating a lasting
culture and way of life, passing down the traditions of honesty,
integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and
patriotism from generation to generation. The cowboy spirit is the
backbone of our great Nation, exemplifying strength of character, sound
family values, and good old-fashioned common sense.
The enduring lessons and virtues of the American cowboy are as
prevalent as ever in towns all across America. As a young boy growing
up in northern Colorado, agriculture and livestock were an integral
part of everyday life. Coming from a community where I saw the strong
moral character and drive to succeed that modern ranchers exhibit, I
can speak to how vibrant the cowboy spirit still is today in America's
heartland.
In many ways, it is the unexpected places where you find the
influence of cowboys that amaze us and show the true breadth of their
impact. Originally known for their tough and rugged way of life on the
Great Plains, the American cowboy has a magnetism that has drawn some
of this Nation's most talented writers, architects, artists, and poets
to devote their work to the tradition of the cowboy.
I am pleased to be a part of continuing this tradition with the
designation of July 26 as the Day of the American Cowboy and hope we
will honor the legend of these American heroes with our continued
steadfast, hard work and dedication to this great country.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO WAYSIDE RESTAURANT

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to one of
central Vermont's finest community gathering spaces, the Wayside
Restaurant. Over the past 90 years, the Wayside has built its
reputation around the State of Vermont as a quality establishment where
neighbors enjoy a country style breakfast, a quick business lunch, or a
well-rounded family dinner. The Wayside represents the needs of the
community with affordable and diversely pleasant fare.
In 1918, when Effie Ballou opened the small soup and sandwich
restaurant, she never expected it would become what it is today. The
Wayside serves around 1,000 customers a day, and with 160 seats, is
always filled with loyal customers. Vermonters from all walks of life
frequent the Wayside for authentic Vermont cooking. Politicians,
professionals, farmers, elderly people, and families all gather here to
eat, mingle and enjoy where they can choose a booth or saddle up to the
horse shoe diner top.
The Wayside's menu offers more than 200 items, plus an additional
list of specials, all new every day. These daily specials are memorized
by the true blue patrons who line up at the doors before 6:30 a.m.
Unique delights such as fresh native perch, only served in season, is
breaded and fried. Traditional Yankee entrees are always accompanied by
freshly baked pies, breads and donuts.

[[Page 17678]]

One of Vermont's landmark eateries, the Wayside Restaurant sparks
community admiration through its history of public service. A major
part of the Wayside's success is its history of family ownership. Karen
Galfetti and Brian Zecchinelli are second-generation owners and
operators. The couple's dedication and hands on approach are what sets
the tone of the establishment, aided by their home's location right
next to the restaurant. Working together as a family, the Zecchinellis
strive to create a comfortable atmosphere and affordable service for
the community; as such they represent the heart of working America.
Providing excellent benefits for employees, most of whom have been
there for decades, the philosophy behind the Wayside reflects the kind
of values that strengthen our country. The Zecchinellis' dedication was
recognized in 2005, when the U.S. Small Business Administration named
them best Family-Owned Small Business of the Year.
Without the Wayside, to invite folks into Vermont, we would be
missing not only the chance to connect with our next door neighbors,
but the opportunity to support a long-time establishment that has
always kept the interests of its customers at the heart of its
expansion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Times
Argus detailing their 90 years of success be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Times Argus]

Wayside Turning 90

(By Susan Allen)

Montpelier/Berlin (literally).--In 1918, the Armistice was
signed, ending World War I.
A legend--Ella Fitzgerald--was born.
A first class postage stamp cost 3 cents.
And, of course, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series.
That same year, Effie Ballou opened The Wayside Restaurant,
straddling the Montpelier/Berlin town line--not the 160-seat
local institution that has become something of a landmark in
Central Vermont, but a small, take-out joint that more
closely resembled a snack bar.
``In the early days, there were no seats inside the
restaurant,'' said Brian Zecchinelli, who married into the
restaurant business in 1994 when he tied the knot with Karen
Galfetti--whose family bought The Wayside in 1966 from the
Fishes (who bought it from Effie Ballou in 1945).
``Mrs. Ballou would make some soup at the house, donuts,
bring them down and reheat them,'' Zecchinelli said.
Today's Wayside serves around 1,000 customers a day--more
in the summer, fewer in the winter. Most are locals and many
are regulars who eat there so often they know the day of the
week by the restaurant's regular daily special.
But The Wayside has become more than a place local
Vermonters go for a good, affordable meal (Zecchinelli
recently mailed a letter to lawmakers reminding them they can
eat three meals a day there for about $20).
Many statewide and local politicians make sure there's at
least one Wayside stop on the campaign tour. Zecchinelli said
that's because so many Vermonters from all walks of life can
be found there--plenty of votes to woo.
``It's just such a cross section of the community eating
here,'' Zecchinelli said. ``Plumbers, lawyers, teachers, bank
presidents . . . the whole mix of customers. You've got rusty
old trucks and shining Mercedes in the parking lot.''
The Wayside was also a hot spot for state workers until
some years ago. That was due, in part, to the employee meal
reimbursement plan that allowed workers to expense meals
eaten outside Montpelier. So, Zecchinelli said, some would
eat at tables on the Berlin side of the restaurant so they
could expense their meal--until an auditor discovered that
while the town line passed through the property, the entire
restaurant was inside the Montpelier city limits. No more
expensing.
Asked what makes the restaurant so special, ``You always
say you have good employees and good customers,'' Zecchinelli
said.
But, he said, the reality is something different. It's the
house. Ballou lived in a house on the hill just behind The
Wayside. When she sold the restaurant to Joseph and Amy Fish
(their son George and his wife Vivian took it over in 1954),
the house went with the deal.
And when the Galfettis bought the restaurant in 1966, they,
in turn, got the house, as did Karen and Brian when they took
over.
``Since Day One, the house was always with the
restaurant,'' said Brian Zecchinelli. ``So the owners have
always been very hands-on. . . . The fact that the owner has
always been able to skip down to The Wayside to give folks a
hand, be there during hours when you're busiest.
``If other businesses want to put a house on the property,
go for it,'' he advised.
Brian, who previously worked at Milne Travel and Rock of
Ages, never expected to go into the restaurant business.
Although Karen had also worked elsewhere--E.F. Hutton and Co.
and Smith Barney in Burlington--she knew The Wayside was
probably in her future.
``It was something I tried and I liked. We've enjoyed it,''
Brian Zecchinelli said. ``We're been so active in this
business that we can tag team each other.''
The Galfettis and Zecchinellis have put seven additions on
the restaurant over the years, and although customers have
urged him to expand, Brian said the current size of 120
tables feels like the number to stay with, ``a comfortable
size.''
He said the best thing about owning The Wayside has been
the customers, who truly respond to good food. ``You're only
as good as your last meal,'' he quipped.
The toughest thing, he noted, has been meeting the bottom
line.
``The challenge is keeping costs in line so we can continue
to be an affordable place for people to gather,'' he said.
Almost everything is made on site. The kitchen is large and
the smells of freshly baking bread (almost all bread, except
English muffins and rye, are made at the restaurant). Daily
specials include full turkey meals, roast beef, maple-cured
McKenzie ham and more.
On virtually any day of the week, any time of the day, the
parking lot is packed, most of the cars, trucks and
motorcycles carrying Vermont license plates.
Zecchinelli said his favorite moment during his years as
Wayside owner was the Red Sox rally he hosted after the Sox
won the 2004 World Series, noting the last time his team had
won was the year The Wayside opened--1918.
``We argued whether The Wayside has been the curse or the
Bambino,'' he joked.
The restaurant rolled back prices that day, and more than
3,000 people came in to celebrate, ``mostly Red Sox fans, but
some employees were in Yankee jerseys. That's OK because
we're baseball fans.''
What will happen to The Wayside in the future, one wonders?
It's impossible to know for sure.
But, Zecchinelli pointed out, his son Jay has been working
the register since he was 4.

____________________

VOTE EXPLANATION

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today because I am proud
to see the Senate pass two strong, bipartisan bills that will provide
much needed relief to families across the country; the College
Opportunities and Affordability Act of 2008 and the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Congress first passed the Higher Education Act more than 40 years
ago, guided by the principle that no qualified student should be denied
the opportunity to attend college because of the cost. Today, the cost
of college has more than tripled. Tuition at 4-year public colleges in
Minnesota has increased 100 percent in just the past 10 years.
I believe that investing in higher education pays extraordinary
dividends, I am proud to provide real help for students and their
families to make college more affordable. By passing this legislation
we continue our fight to gain stronger Federal support for higher
education opportunities--because our future success as a State and a
nation depends on making sure that quality education is accessible and
affordable.
I am also so happy to see Congress pass comprehensive product safety
legislation. Inspired by the story of Jarnell Brown--a 4-year-old boy
in Minnesota who died after ingesting a charm that was 99 percent
lead--I have worked for the past year on authoring and promoting the
lead provision of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
In the past year and a half, over 13 million toys have been recalled
because they contained harmful lead, and I am proud to say that this
bill finally gets that substance out of children's toys.
As one of the conferees of this legislation, I signed the final
conference report that was sent to the floor today, and I have been a
strong supporter of this legislation since the beginning. This
legislation is the most sweeping consumer product safety reform in
decades, and I am glad that we have finally voted this evening to
protect our children and protect our public.
On August 1, 2007, the Minneapolis I-35W bridge spanning the
Mississippi

[[Page 17679]]

River collapsed. The 1-year anniversary of this tragedy will be
recognized across my State tomorrow. I am traveling home to honor the
victims and their families, and to recognize our heroic first
responders. By returning to Minnesota, I will not be in Washington, DC,
to vote on the adoption of either the College Opportunities and
Affordability Act of 2008 or the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 conference reports. Had I not returned to Minnesota, I
would have voted in favor of both of these important pieces of
legislation.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

HONORING HOOSIER OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the eight
outstanding Hoosier athletes representing the State of Indiana and all
of the United States in the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing,
China.
Lloy Ball, a volleyball player from Fort Wayne; David Boudia, a diver
from Noblesville; Tamika Catchings, a basketball player from
Indianapolis; Lauren Cheney, a soccer player from Indianapolis; Richard
Clayton, a baseball player from Lafayette; Mary Dunnichay, a diver from
Elwood; Thomas Finchum, a diver from Indianapolis; and Bridget Sloan, a
gymnast from Pittsboro, will all represent the Hoosier State as members
of Team USA.
These Hoosiers have shown superior abilities, extraordinary work
ethics, and unflappable determination in their quests to become Olympic
athletes. The road to the pinnacle of athletic success has required
thousands of hours of demanding training over years of preparation, yet
these athletes show us that commitment to excellence truly has its
rewards. For some, the spoils of their sacrifice may even come in the
form of an Olympic medal.
This Olympiad is the first for many of the Hoosier athletes; others
have donned the colors of Team USA before. This year, Lloy Ball, a
member of the U.S. men's volleyball team, will become the first male
athlete from the United States to compete in four Olympic Games. Lloy's
incredible feat will forever be part of Indiana and Olympic sports
history, and I know our entire state is immensely proud to count him
among our own.
As these eight athletes travel halfway around the globe to compete
against the world's finest, they will bring with them the unwavering
support of their fellow Hoosiers. The people of Indiana are fortunate
to have such an exceptional group representing us at the Olympic Games.
Team USA represents the best America has to offer, and these Hoosiers
will make our State and our country proud.

____________________

HONORING JACK W. AEBY

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this month marks the 63rd year
since scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory tested the world's
first nuclear weapon at the Trinity Test Site in southern New Mexico.
While much has been written about this test, which has changed the
course of the world as we know it today, little has been written about
the famous color photograph of this test the only color photograph that
survived the test.
Jack W. Aeby, then 23, was assigned to Emilio Segre in the Gamma
Radiation group as a technician and was permitted to bring his own 35
mm camera to take color pictures of the radiation measuring equipment.
When the detonation occurred, Mr. Aeby took 3 pictures of the
detonation before running out of film. Of those three pictures, one
turned out to be good. Today that picture is used around the world and
is found on the cover of such famous publications as Time magazine and
Richard Rhodes' ``The Making of the Atomic Bomb.'' In some cases he is
given credit for this photo but never consistently due to the
complications associated with our copyright law.
Mr. Aeby still lives in Espanola, NM. As he turns 85 next month, I
would like to honor him and the contribution he has made to society in
taking this photo to remind us of the way this test has changed the
course of modern history.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. MICHAEL C. MORGAN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Dr. Michael Morgan is a professor
of atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a
Congressional Science Fellow sponsored by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
As a native of Baltimore, Dr. Morgan earned his undergraduate degree
as well as his doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He has also completed post-doctoral studies at Texas A&M
University. Dr. Morgan has been an invaluable member of my staff since
October, 2007. His fellowship ends in late August and he will return to
his teaching duties then.
The AAAS Fellows Program has been the source of skilled science
advisers for many years here on Capitol Hill. Rarely, however, has the
program made such a timely placement. With his expertise in atmospheric
sciences, Dr. Morgan was especially well-equipped to advise me on
global climate change issues.
As the Environment and Public Works Committee held a number of
oversight hearings on climate change last year, Dr. Morgan provided
careful analysis of witness testimony as well as probing questions.
When Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Warner advanced their landmark legislation,
America's Climate Security Act, few offices could rely on the expertise
that Dr. Morgan lent this Senator. And when Ms. Boxer brought the
legislation to the floor, Dr. Morgan had convinced me that a broad-
based science program of monitoring and analysis was needed. Although
blocked from offering my scientific monitoring amendment on the floor,
Dr. Morgan has provided us with a solid framework that I intend to see
as part of climate change legislation considered next year.
In addition to his expertise on atmospheric science issues, Dr.
Morgan provided comprehensive support to me on the full range of issues
that came before the Environment and Public Works Committee. Of special
note has been his work on bills to control harmful mercury emission and
another bill to simplify and automate the tracking system for hazardous
wastes in this country.
Dr. Morgan has been an integral part of the Projects Team in my
office and a valued friend and colleague to my permanent staff.
As he prepares to return to his academic duties, Dr. Morgan goes with
my sincere thanks and best wishes.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF RAY JOHNSON

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Ray Johnson who
is retiring on September 1, 2008, from the Delaware State Pension
Office after an amazing 39 years and 10 months of service to the people
of Delaware. Ray literally has dedicated his life to helping tens of
thousands of State employees, educators, and others prepare for their
retirement. It is now my privilege to thank him for his dedication to
them, to commend him for a life well lived, and to wish him the very
best of luck throughout his own retirement.
I met Ray on my first day as State treasurer in November of 1976 at a
time when the State Pension Office was part of the State Treasurer's
Office. He was one of the original Pension Office employees, having
served for the office since its creation. Because of his long tenure
with the office, Ray has served as the go-to person for just about any
issue that ever arose within the office. His deep understanding and
knowledge of the workings of the office, whether it be in the
investment sector or the calculation of retirement benefits, made him a
valuable resource for not only the people he served but to his
coworkers, as well.
Ray began his career in public service on November 1, 1968, as the
first senior accountant for the State Budget Commission. There, he
developed the initial accounting system to track and

[[Page 17680]]

recoup previous advancements made from something called the Advanced
Land Acquisition and Advanced Planning Funds. His efforts recouped
millions of dollars, resulting in additional interest earnings that
were used to make advanced purchase deposits on many of the State's
public park lands that are enjoyed by our residents and visitors today.
In 1971, Ray was selected to be the fiscal administrative officer for
the newly created State Pension Office. In that role, he developed many
of the rules, regulations, and procedures that are still used there
some 35 years later.
In the late 1980s, Ray helped lead the effort to computerize the
State Pension Office, enabling its staff to become more productive and
to provide better service to 25,000 employees, as well as to 5,000
pensioners and their families. Many of the administrative policies
developed by Ray are still in place today and continue to make a
positive difference in the lives of one generation of retirees after
another.
It was not just Ray's depth of knowledge and his years of experience
that attracted people to him in the Pension Office. It was his giving
and caring personality, as well. He always brought a ready smile to the
workplace each day. Ray was hard pressed ever to refuse help to anyone
who requested it. He would answer calls and questions at all times of
day and mentored new workers in his free time. Ray served as a father-
figure to many employees, too, dispensing advice to those who asked for
it or, sometimes, just lending a sympathetic ear. His compassion for
and loyalty to his work, to his colleagues, and to those they served
made him an especially worthy recipient of the Pension Administration
Award--the highest award given in the Pension Office and an award
bestowed upon him by the vote of his peers.
Ray continually worked to better the retirement system for the people
he served as well as the people with whom he worked. For example, when
Ray moved to the State Pension Office in 1971, all calculations for
retirement benefits were done by hand--a long, tedious process for the
employees. Ray recognized the inefficiency of this system and took it
upon himself to automate the calculation of benefits, a step that would
reduce the workload for many of his coworkers, as well as provide the
people they served with a more accurate method of determining benefits.
One of the special things about Ray was that he was not only
interested in helping any person he could, but he strove to help every
person who had a concern or issue. If he did not have the answer--which
was rare--he would search tirelessly for one from any resource he could
and would never allow anyone in need to go without some form of
assistance. If a person had questions about retirement and his call was
answered by Ray, he or she was sure to complete that conversation with
a solution or, at the very least, a direction of where to go to find a
solution.
In addition to his extensive knowledge of State pension law and of
the workings of the State Pension Office, Ray's success in his career
can largely be attributed to his genuine love for his work. He was
always truly interested in the workings of the State Pension Office and
found it both challenging and satisfying. Ray embraced and took full
advantage of the opportunity to develop the State Pension Office from
the ground up. A very humble human being, he took pride in his tireless
efforts to make the office what it is today. He worked diligently to
make Delaware's retirement system a model for the Nation, not just
because it was his job, but because he genuinely cared about every
person who contacted that office with questions and concerns about
their retirement.
Of all of these accolades, Ray says:

Although I have been involved in recommending, developing,
or implementing many enhancements in policies and processes
during my tenure, I am most satisfied in knowing that I have
been able to serve the Office, fellow staff members, and the
taxpayers of the state to the best of my ability and have
helped make the retirement process more efficient, effective,
and easier for all involved.

Ray Johnson is one of the most dedicated and hard-working people with
whom I have ever had the honor of working. He has earned every day the
admiration and affection of his colleagues and the gratitude of the
people they have served for four decades. His loyalty and his sense of
service have been and remain a source of inspiration to me and to those
around him. It is with a genuine sense of honor and joy that I extend
my heartfelt congratulations to Ray. I wish him a long and happy
retirement to share and enjoy with his equally accomplished wife
Claudia and their children, Randy and Donna. On behalf of the people of
Delaware, let me thank the three of you for sharing with the people of
the First State your husband and your father.
Let me close by saying that I envy--just a little bit--all of the
free time he will now have for fishing and relaxing with long walks on
the beach with those he loves. It is my hope that he will enjoy his own
retirement as much as those whom he helped now enjoy their own.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO STEVE THOMPSON

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Steve Thompson,
his stellar career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
dedication to solving our most difficult natural resources problems
that he has demonstrated time and again throughout his career. Thompson
is retiring on August 4 after 32 years with the Service.
I know Steve as the regional director of Region 8, formerly the
California and Nevada Operations Office, CNO, a job he assumed in 2002.
From the regional headquarters in Sacramento, CA, he oversaw Service
programs in California, Nevada, and Klamath Basin that administer the
Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act and managed 51
national wildlife refuges and 3 national fish hatcheries.
His many honors include being chosen in 1994 as the first ``Refuge
Manager of the Year'' by the National Audubon Society and the National
Wildlife Refuge Association. Even more notably, in September 2007,
Thompson earned the Distinguished Executive Award, the highest
Presidential Rank Award given to career senior executive service
employees and the first time a Service employee has been so recognized.
I have worked now with Steve on many issues, including the Cargill
salt ponds purchase and ongoing restoration, efforts to restore the
Klamath River, habitat conservation planning, and CALFED. For his
dedication to help find a way to purchase the Cargill salt ponds, Steve
can feel pride at the migratory birds that now have a place to rest in
San Francisco Bay on their long journeys along the Pacific flyway.
For his utterly tireless work to find a way to restore the Klamath
River, we do not yet know what result will ensue. But thanks to Steve's
leadership, we perhaps have a once in a generation opportunity to
restore the River and its fisheries while providing certainty to
farmers.
What I always found with Steve is that he is completely dedicated to
finding that straight and narrow path through the bureaucracy to
actually solve our biggest natural resource problems.
Others might find reasons why a solution can't be found or why it
might be imperfect from some idealized perspective. Steve just
dedicates himself to finding that solution.
He is a straight shooter. He tells you what he is going to do to
solve a problem, and then he gets the job done.
All of us who care about California's natural resources will miss
him.
Steve, I want to congratulate you on your years of remarkable service
to our Nation's fish and wildlife and the people who value them. I hope
you can now enjoy a little fishing and a few quiet moments to
contemplate what you have so honorably protected.

____________________

RETIREMENT OF IOWA STATE SENATOR MICHAEL CONNOLLY

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay homage to Senator
Michael Connolly on his retirement from the Iowa Senate after 30 years
of distinguished public service. Mike admirably

[[Page 17681]]

represented the citizens of Dubuque, IA, for 10 years in the Iowa House
and 20 years in the Iowa Senate. He combined a passionate love for his
community with progressive politics and a strong work ethic.
When Dubuque fell on hard times after the farm crisis of the 1980s
and a loss of manufacturing jobs, Mike Connolly was there to ensure
that the State of Iowa was a partner in the economic and cultural
renaissance of the city. If you visit Dubuque today, you will find one
of the most beautiful and vibrant cities in the Midwest. That did not
happen by accident. Senator Connolly and other community leaders formed
the Greater Dubuque Development Corporation, emphasizing the attitude
that everyone would have to pull together to move the city forward. As
they say, the proof is in the pudding, and I encourage you, Mr.
President, and all of my Senate colleagues, to visit this jewel of a
city on the Upper Mississippi.
Senator Connolly is an educator by training, and although his
influence has been feld in most of the education legislation of the
past three decades, his interests and work have been broad and diverse.
As chairman of the Transportation Committee, Senator Connolly boosted
funding to make roads and bridges safer, and developed a new funding
formula that recognized the need to enhance the transportation network
linking the State's urban population centers. The construction of four-
lane roads between Dubuque and Waterloo, Cedar Rapids and the Quad
Cities, has led to economic growth throughout the northeast and east-
central portion of Iowa.
Senator Connolly also spurred an effort to beautify Iowa's roadways
through promotion of the Resource Enhancement and Protection--REAP--
program, which included ongoing funding for the Integrated Roadside
Vegetation Management Program, a partnership between the University of
Northern Iowa and Iowa counties to plant prairie grasses and flowers
along the State's thoroughfares. The program pays homage to Senator
Connolly's father, who was a road laborer with a sixth-grade education
who worked and saved so his children could receive a college education.
Senator Connolly also helped modernize Iowa's election laws as
chairman of the State Government Committee, including passing election
day voter registration legislation and requiring that paper trails be
included with electronic voting machines. He used his position on the
Ways and Means Committee to give working Iowans a tax break by removing
the sales tax from utility bills.
He was also a leader in the legislature helping to pass antibullying
and civil rights legislation that will help protect generations of
Iowans to come. It would be difficult, indeed, to catalog all of
Senator Mike Connolly's legislative achievements; suffice it to say he
has been one of the most dedicated, hard-working and productive members
in the history of the Iowa General Assembly.
Iowans, especially those in the greater Dubuque community, will miss
Mike's leadership. But I know he will continue to be involved in the
civic life of our State and nation. His wonderful wife Martha has been
a true partner with him these many years, and his accomplishments are
hers as well.
I wish Senator Connolly a long and happy retirement, with plenty of
time to spend with his accomplished children, Maureen and John. Thank
you, Mike, and Godspeed.

____________________

HONORING THE WINNER SCHOOL DISTRICT

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Winner
School District for its exceptional support to their National Guard and
Reserve Employees. The Winner School District is one of 15 employers
selected from across the Nation to receive top honors as a 2008
Secretary of Defense Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is the highest
recognition given by the Department of Defense under the auspices of
the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve to an employer for their
outstanding support to their National Guard and Reserve employees.
The school district was nominated by 2LT Derris Buus of the 155th
Engineer Company, South Dakota Army National Guard. Buus had glowing
remarks for his employer, ``The School District has always supported me
and my family during times of deployment or training. Mary Fischer and
Jim Drake have all made it a point to ensure that my family had
everything they needed during my absence. They always made it very easy
for me to pursue my career in the SDARNG as well as my career as an
educator.''
The Winner School District provides a pay supplement for the entire
length of deployment for its Guard and Reserve employees. Deployed
employees received numerous care packages from the school board and the
students. Daily e-mails were sent to deployed employees from students,
teachers, principals, and the superintendent. Returning servicemembers
teach the same grade and in the same classroom as they did prior to a
deployment.
School board members also aid the families of deployed employees.
School board members mowed lawns, took children to athletic events, and
in one instance, tended to an expectant mother throughout her
pregnancy.
The Winner School District is a shining example of patriotism, and it
sets a golden example for all employers to follow. I hope we all may
take to heart the excellence and dedication of the Winner School
District.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF BRIAN BEAMAN

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize and
congratulate Brian Beaman of Selby, SD. As part of the 2008 U.S.
Olympic team, Brian will be travelling to Beijing to compete in the
Men's 10M Air Pistol competition.
Brian represents Selby and the citizens of South Dakota in an
extraordinary fashion. Spending 2 years at South Dakota State
University and finishing at Jacksonville State University, Brian has
continued to exemplify the work ethic and integrity that originate in
his South Dakotan roots. Brian is currently ranked second in the United
States in the Men's 10M Air Pistol competition, and placed second at
Nationals in 2007.
This prestigious honor is a reflection of Brian's extraordinary
talent and commitment to shooting. It is wonderful that he is so
motivated to enjoy athletic competition at such a high level. Again,
congratulations to Brian Beaman on fighting his way to the 2008
Olympics in Beijing, and I eagerly look forward to following his story
of success throughout the games.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF DEREK MILES

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and
congratulate Derek Miles, assistant coach of track and field at the
University of South Dakota. As part of the 2008 U.S. Olympic team,
Derek will be traveling to Beijing to compete in the Men's Pole
Vaulting Competition.
Derek leads the students at the University of South Dakota in an
extraordinary fashion. After graduating from USD, Derek has continued
to exemplify and instill his work ethic and integrity in those he
coaches. Derek has an amazing record in the pole vaulting community,
finishing seventh at the 2004 Olympic games in Greece.
It is wonderful that Derek is so motivated to enjoy athletic
competition at such a high level. His positive attitude and strong
motivation serve as a model for talented young athletes throughout
South Dakota and the Nation to emulate. As a fellow University of South
Dakota alum, I want to wish Derek congratulations and the best of luck
in the upcoming 2008 Olympics.

____________________

OSTRWSS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I recognize a very important
and historical event in South Dakota: the Missouri River reaching the
Pine Ridge Reservation. On August 20, 2008, a celebration will be held
in Wanblee, SD, to

[[Page 17682]]

commemorate such a monumental milestone in the history of Pine Ridge.
It has been nearly 20 years since Congress adopted the Mni Wiconi Act
to bring clean water sources to the Pine Ridge Reservation. Bringing
the Missouri River to the people of Pine Ridge will have an enormous
impact in the overall quality of life of tribes and residents in the
area. I have been pleased to work on this project with tribal leaders
and residents during my tenure in Congress.
I commend the Oglala Sioux Tribe Rural Water Supply System, the
concerned tribal officials, and residents who have worked tirelessly,
some since the 1960s, to bring a clean drinking water source to the
people of the Pine Ridge Reservation. The event on August 20 is an
opportunity for everyone to celebrate the hard work and commitment
involved in making this dream a reality, while looking forward to the
great results that Missouri River water will bring to future
generations. The impacts will be positive, they will be far-reaching,
and they will be impressive.
Again, congratulations to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Oglala Sioux
Tribe Rural Water Supply System on this historic event. People have
waited a long time for this day to come, and I am glad it is finally a
reality.

____________________

90TH BIRTHDAY OF DR. MAURICE ALBERTSON

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish today to make a statement
celebrating the 90th birthday of Dr. Maurice Albertson, a Colorado
citizen whose compassion for his fellow human beings is evident in his
every accomplishment.
Dr. Albertson has dedicated his career to enhancing the quality of
life of people all over the world. The success he has had in reaching
this goal is not just a matter of personal pride, but of global
triumph. It is with great pleasure that I wish him a happy birthday.
Dr. Albertson began his career as a professor of civil engineering at
Colorado State University in 1947. He is responsible for the
development of CSU's large and prestigious water resources management
program and was named as director of the Colorado State University
Research Foundation.
Dr. Albertson's accomplishments outside of the university are even
more impressive. At the request of the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization, he established a graduate school of engineering in
Bangkok, Thailand. Known today as the Asian Institute of Technology,
Dr. Albertson's creation still thrives.
Dr. Albertson and two colleagues, Ed and Miriam Shinn, convened an
international conference at CSU on the subject of sustainable village-
based development in the developing world. The conference was attended
by over 350 persons from 34 nations. Following the conference, Dr.
Albertson and the Shinns founded Village Earth, an international
nongovernmental organization that provides training to communities and
organizations in the methods of sustainable participatory development.
To date, Village Earth has helped hundreds of people in 15 countries to
lift themselves out of poverty.
And perhaps most impressively, Dr. Albertson played a pivotal role in
the formation of the Peace Corps. In 1960, Dr. Albertson and his team
won a contract from the U.S. State Department to undertake a
congressional study of the feasibility of creating a Point Four
International Youth Corps. The following year, Dr. Albertson coauthored
New Frontiers for American Youth: Perspective on the Peace Corps with
Pauline Birky and Andrew Rice. This work was embraced by Sergeant
Shriver and the Kennedy administration as the concept paper for
creation of the Peace Corps. Dr. Albertson continued to work closely
with the Kennedy administration in launching the Peace Corps, which has
benefited countless volunteers and residents of developing countries
worldwide.
Dr. Albertson has served as a consultant to the World Bank, the
United Nations Development Program, the U.S. Agency for International
Development, and many other agencies dealing with development issues.
He has been awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American
Society of Civil Engineers, the Colorado Governor's Award of Merit for
Science and Technology, and an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from
Colorado State University in 2006 in recognition of his exceptional
contributions to industry and developing nations.
From such an extensive list of achievements, it is abundantly clear
that Dr. Albertson has had an industrious and meaningful 90 years.
Dr. Albertson, I am inspired by the life that you have led. Our State
and our Nation are blessed to have you as a citizen. I wish you a very
happy birthday.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his secretaries.

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 4:54 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and
for other purposes.
____

At 5:13 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, 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. 6432. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the animal drug user fee
program, to establish a program of fees relating to generic
new animal drugs, to make certain technical corrections to
the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, and
for other purposes.
____

At 6:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 1108. An act to protect the public health by
providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain
authority to regulate tobacco products.
H.R. 2339. An act to encourage research, development, and
demonstration of technologies to facilitate the utilization
of water produced in connection with the development of
domestic energy resources, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2851. An act to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that dependent
students who take a medically necessary leave of absence do
not lose health insurance coverage, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3815. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make
full and efficient use of open source information to develop
and disseminate open source homeland security information
products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3957. An act to increase research, development,
education, and technology transfer activities related to
water use efficiency and conservation technologies and
practices at the Environmental Protection Agency.
H.R. 4806. An act to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop a strategy to prevent the over-
classification of homeland security and other information and
to promote the sharing of unclassified homeland security and
other information, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5170. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to provide for a privacy official within each component
of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 5531. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to clarify criteria for certification relating to
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 5892. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to modernize the
disability

[[Page 17683]]

benefits claims processing system of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to ensure the accurate and timely delivery
of compensation to veterans and their families and survivors,
and for other purposes.
H.R. 5983. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to enhance the information security of the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6073. An act to provide that Federal employees
receiving their pay by electronic funds transfer shall be
given the option of receiving their pay stubs electronically.
H.R. 6193. An act to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop and administer policies, procedures, and
programs to promote the implementation of the Controlled
Unclassified Information Framework applicable to unclassified
information that is homeland security information, terrorism
information, weapons of mass destruction information and
other information within the scope of the information sharing
environment established under section 1016 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6
U.S.C. 485), and for other purposes.
H.R. 6445. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting
certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically
disabled, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6456. An act to provide for extensions of certain
authorities of the Department of State, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 6576. An act to require the Archivist of the United
States to promulgate regulations regarding the use of
information control designations, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H. Con. Res. 296. Concurrent resolution expressing support
for the designation of August 2008 as ``National Heat Stroke
Awareness Month'' to raise awareness and encourage prevention
of heat stroke.
H. Con. Res. 358. Concurrent resolution commending the
members of the Nevada Army and Air National Guard and the
Nevada Reserve members of the Armed Forces for their
dedicated, unselfish, and professional service, commitment,
and sacrifices to the State of Nevada and the United States
during more than five years of deployments to and in support
of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
H. Con. Res. 361. Concurrent resolution commemorating Irena
Sendler, a woman whose bravery saved the lives of thousands
during the Holocaust and remembering her legacy of courage,
selflessness, and hope.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 2339. An act to encourage research, development, and
demonstration of technologies to facilitate the utilization
of water produced in connection with the development of
domestic energy resources, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2851. An act to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that dependent
students who take a medically necessary leave of absence do
not lose health insurance coverage, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 3815. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make
full and efficient use of open source information to develope
and disseminate open source homeland security information
products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3957. An act to increase research, development,
education, and technology transfer activities related to
water use efficiency and conservation technologies and
practices at the Environmental Protection Agency; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
H.R. 4806. An act to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop a strategy to prevent the over-
classification of homeland security and other information and
to promote the sharing of unclassified homeland security and
other information, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 5170. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to provide for a privacy official within each component
of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 5531. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to clarify criteria for certification relating to
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 5892. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to modernize the
disability benefits claims processing system of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure the accurate and
timely delivery of compensation to veterans and their
families and survivors, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 5983. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to enhance the information security of the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 6073. An act to provide that Federal employees
receiving their pay by electronic funds transfer shall be
given the option of receiving their pay stubs electronically;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
H.R. 6193. An act to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop and administer policies, procedures, and
programs to promote the implementation of the Controlled
Unclassified Information Framework applicable to unclassified
information that is homeland security information, terrorism
information, weapons of mass destruction information and
other information within the scope of the information sharing
environment established under section 1016 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6
U.S.C. 485), and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 6445. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting
certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically
disabled, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 6576. An act to require the Archivist of the United
States to promulgate regulations regarding the use of
information control designations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:

H. Con. Res. 361. Concurrent resolution commemorating Irena
Sendler, a woman whose bravery saved the lives of thousands
during the Holocaust and remembering her legacy of courage,
selflessness, and hope; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

The following bill was read the first time:

S. 3406. A bill to restore the intent and protections of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

____________________

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-7322. A communication from the Assistant Inspector
General for Communications and Congressional Liaison, Office
of Inspector General, Department of Defense, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy and designation of
acting officer in the position of Inspector General,
Department of Defense received on July 30, 2008; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-7323. A communication from the Assistant to the
Secretary and White House Liaison, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of an action on a nomination in the position of President,
Government National Mortgage Association received on July 30,
2008; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-7324. A communication from the Assistant to the
Secretary and White House Liaison, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of an action on a nomination in the position of Assistant
Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-7325. A communication from the Assistant to the
Secretary and White House Liaison, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of the discontinuation of service in an acting role in the
position of President, Government National Mortgage
Association received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-7326. A communication from the Assistant to the
Secretary and White House Liaison, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of an action on a nomination in the position of Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and Development received on
July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-7327. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report entitled, ``The 2007 Annual
Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)''; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-7328. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of
State, transmitting,

[[Page 17684]]

pursuant to law, a report entitled, ``Periodic Report to
Congress on the National Emergency Regarding Proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction''; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-7329. A communication from the Secretary, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled, ``Periodic Report on the National Emergency with
respect to Cote d'Ivoire''; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-7330. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in
the West Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-
XJ17) received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-7331. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pelagic Shelf Rockfish in
the West Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-
XJ16) received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-7332. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in
the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-
XJ19) received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-7333. A communication from the Attorney, Office of
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 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 July 30,
2008; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-7334. A communication from the Program Manager,
Administration for Children and Families, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Medicare and State Health Care
Programs; Fraud and Abuse; Issuance of Advisory Opinions by
the Office of Inspector General'' (42 CFR part 1008) received
on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-7335. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled ``A New Transportation Approach for America''; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7336. A communication from the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled ``Fiscal Year 2007 Superfund Five-Year
Review Report to Congress''; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-7337. A communication from the Deputy Director for
Operations, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions''
(RIN1212-AB15) received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-7338. A communication from the Deputy Director for
Operations, 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 July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-7339. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Policy and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``New Animal
Drugs; Cephalosporin Drugs; Extralabel Animal Drug Use; Order
of Prohibition'' (Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0326) received on
July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
EC-7340. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management, Department of Labor,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination in
the position of Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-7341. A communication from the Director, Office of
Management, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled ``Federal Activities Inventory Reform
Act of 1998''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-7342. A communication from the Assistant Inspector
General, Communications and Congressional Liaison, Department
of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled
``Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-7343. A communication from the Chairman, U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report entitled, ``Federal Appointment Authorities, Cutting
through the Confusion''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-7344. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-441 , ``Priority Employment for Economically
Disadvantaged Youth in the Youth Employment Program Amendment
Act of 2008'' received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-7345. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-442 , ``Marriage Amendment Act of 2008''
received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-7346. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-443 , ``Access to Youth Employment Programs
Amendment Act of 2008'' received on July 30, 2008; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-7347. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-444, ``Metropolitan Police Department
Retirement Options Amendment Act of 2008'' received on July
30, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-7348. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-445 , ``Closing of a Public Alley in Square
127, S.O. 07-1209, Act of 2008'' received on July 30, 2008;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-7349. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-446 , ``Closing of Public Alleys in Squares
564, 566, and 568, S.O. 07-122, Act of 2008'' received on
July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-7350. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-447, ``Downtown BID Amendment Act of 2008''
received on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-7351. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-448 , ``New Convention Center Hotel Technical
Amendments Temporary Amendment Act of 2008'' received on July
30, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-7352. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-449 , ``Adams Morgan Taxicab Zone Enforcement
Temporary Amendment Act of 2008'' received on July 30, 2008;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-7353. A communication from the Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
on D.C. Act 17-450 , ``Spam Deterrence Act of 2008'' received
on July 30, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.

____________________

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and
was referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

POM-435. A message from the National Assembly of Kuwait to
the President pro tempore of the Senate expressing
congratulations on the occasion of the National Day of the
United States of America; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
without amendment:
S. 1193. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
take into trust 2 parcels of Federal land for the benefit of
certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico (Rept. No.
110-434).
By Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
H.J. Res. 62. A joint resolution to honor the achievements
and contributions of Native Americans to the United States,
and for other purposes (Rept. No. 110-435).
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without
amendment and with a preamble:

[[Page 17685]]

S. Res. 620. A resolution designating the week of September
14-20, 2008, as National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness
Week, to raise public awareness and understanding of
polycystic kidney disease, and to foster understanding of the
impact polycystic kidney disease has on patients and future
generations of their families.
S. Res. 622. A resolution designating the week beginning
September 7, 2008, as ``National Historically Black Colleges
and Universities Week''.
S. Res. 624. A resolution designating August 2008 as
``National Truancy Prevention Month''.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
*Air Force nomination of Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, to be
General.
*Air Force nomination of Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, to be
General.
Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. William L. Shelton, to be
Lieutenant General.
Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Larry D. James, to be
Lieutenant General.
Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General
William S. Busby III and ending with Colonel Delilah R.
Works, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 23, 2008.
Air Force nomination of Brig. Gen. Lawrence A. Stutzriem,
to be Major General.
Army nomination of Col. James R. Anderson, to be Brigadier
General.
Army nominations beginning with Brigadier General Lie-Ping
Chang and ending with Colonel Eugene R. Woolridge III, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on July 22, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Colonel Heidi V. Brown and
ending with Colonel Mark W. Yenter, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 15, 2008.
Marine Corps nomination of Lt. Gen. John M. Paxton, Jr., to
be Lieutenant General.
Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Christopher J. Paul
and ending with Capt. Michael J. Yurina, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 3, 2008. (minus 1 nominee: Capt. George W.
Ballance)
Navy nomination of Captain Terry B. Kraft, to be Rear
Admiral (Lower Half).
Navy nomination of Rear Adm. Bruce W. Clingan, to be Vice
Admiral.
Navy nomination of Vice Adm. James A. Winnefeld, Jr., to be
Vice Admiral.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Air Force nominations beginning with Christian L. Biscotti
and ending with Barry K. Wells, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on March 11, 2008.
Air Force nominations beginning with Timothy M. French and
ending with Rachelle M. Nowlin, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 23, 2008.
Air Force nomination of Jeffrey T. Butler, to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Robert S. Dempster and
ending with Fred A. Karnik, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 22, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Thomas G. Norbie and ending
with David K. Rhinehart, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
22, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Anne M. Andrews and ending
with Kim N. Thomsen, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 22,
2008.
Army nominations beginning with David E. Bentzel and ending
with Shannon M. Wallace, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
22, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Carlos C. Amaya and ending
with Selina G. Williams, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
22, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Kimberlee A. Aiello and
ending with D060789, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 22,
2008.
Army nomination of Deborah J. McDonald, to be Colonel.
Army nomination of Lemuel H. Clement, to be Colonel.
Army nomination of Marco E. Harris, to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Robert J. Howell, Jr. and
ending with Stanley R. Jones, Jr., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 24, 2008.
Army nomination of Francis B. Magurn II, to be Colonel.
Army nomination of Joseph W. Brown, to be Major.
Army nomination of Victor Ursua, to be Major.
Army nomination of Yvonne M. Beale, to be Major.
Army nomination of Gerald P. Johnson, to be Lieutenant
Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Mauel Laborde and ending
with Anthony Wojcik, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 24,
2008.
Army nominations beginning with George J. Jicha and ending
with William H. Smithson, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
24, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Christopher M. Hartley and
ending with Lajohnne A. White, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 24, 2008.
Army nominations beginning with Samuel M. Ruben and ending
with George D. Horn, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 24,
2008.
Navy nominations beginning with Timothy J. Mccullough and
ending with Jae Woo Chung, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
22, 2008.
Navy nominations beginning with Phillip J. Bachand and
ending with Gilbert L. Williams, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 22, 2008.
Navy nomination of Eric D. Seeland, to be Captain.
Navy nominations beginning with William L. Hendrickson and
ending with Orlando Gallardo, Jr., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 24, 2008.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Warner, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Voinovich):
S. 3370. A bill to resolve pending claims against Libya by
United States nationals, and for other purposes; considered
and passed.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 3371. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to simplify the deduction for use of a portion of a residence
as a home office by providing an optional standard home
office deduction; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 3372. A bill to promote savings by providing a match for
eligible taxpayers who contribute to savings products and to
facilitate taxpayers receiving this match and open a bank
account when they file their Federal income tax returns; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 3373. A bill to reauthorize and expand the Northwest
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act to promote the
protection of the resources of the Northwest Straits, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3374. A bill to establish a commission on veterans and
members of the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress
disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental health
disorders, to enhance the capacity of mental health providers
to assist such veterans and members, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3375. A bill to prohibit the introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of novelty
lighters, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 3376. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
assistance to the

[[Page 17686]]

Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic Committee,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. 3377. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to
waive the biometric transportation security card requirement
for certain small business merchant mariners, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 3378. A bill to require all public school employees and
those employed in connection with a public school to receive
FBI background checks prior to being hired, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 3379. A bill to provide grants to establish veteran's
treatment courts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton):
S. 3380. A bill to promote increased public transportation
use, to promote increased use of alternative fuels in
providing public transportation, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 3381. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop
water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve
the settlement of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of
Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3382. A bill for the relief of Guy Privat Tape and Lou
Nazie Raymonde Toto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski,
and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3383. A bill to establish the Harriet Tubman National
Historical Park in Auburn, New York, and the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Caroline,
Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Coleman, and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 3384. A bill to amend section 11317 of title 40, United
States Code, to require greater accountability for cost
overruns on Federal IT investment projects; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Burr, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Alexander):
S. 3385. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Warner, and Mr. Burr):
S. 3386. A bill to prohibit the use of certain
interrogation techniques and for other purposes; to the
Select Committee on Intelligence .
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3387. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with
respect to pain care; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BARRASSO:
S. 3388. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
authorize the assignment of pre-stabilization disability
ratings to certain veterans for purposes of the payment of
disability compensation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 3389. A bill to require, for the benefit of
shareholders, the disclosure of payments to foreign
governments for the extraction of natural resources, to allow
such shareholders more appropriately to determine associated
risks; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3390. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to provide for the treatment of institutions of
higher education as voter registration agencies; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 3391. A bill to make technical corrections to the laws
affecting certain administrative authorities of the United
States Capitol Police, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Leahy,
Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Voinovich):
S. 3392. A bill to amend Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
establish an appeal and redress process for passengers
wrongly delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight, or
denied a right, benefit, or privilege, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 3393. A bill to promote conservation and provide for
sensible development in Carson City, Nevada, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
S. 3394. A bill to prevent the undermining of the judgments
of courts of the United States by foreign courts, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 3395. A bill to provide for marginal well production
preservation and enhancement; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, and
Mr. Casey):
S. 3396. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide grants or contracts for prescription drug education
and outreach for healthcare providers and their parents; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 3397. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to provide adequate benefits for public
safety officers injured or killed in the line of duty, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Whitehouse)):
S. 3398. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act with respect to liability under State and local
requirements respecting devices; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Smith, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3399. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to make permanent the reduction in the rate of tax on
qualified timber gain of corporations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ALEXANDER:
S. 3400. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the educational assistance available under post-9/11
veterans educational assistance, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3401. A bill to provide for habeas corpus review for
terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 3402. A bill to provide information and education to
consumers concerning health care services and health
insurance coverage; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 3403. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
require determination of the maximum feasible fuel economy
level achievable for cars and light trucks for a year based
on a projected fuel gasoline price that is not less than the
applicable high gasoline price projection issued by the
Energy Information Administration; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. TESTER:
S. 3404. A bill to amend the Beef Research and Information
Act to allow the promotion of beef that is born and raised
exclusively in the United States, allow the establishment of
an importers qualified beef council to promote nondomestic
beef, and to establish new referendum requirements; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 3405. A bill to prohibit secret modifications and
revocations of the law, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Specter, Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dodd,
Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Feingold,
Ms. Snowe, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Burr, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Durbin, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Martinez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Landrieu, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Biden, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
Chambliss):
S. 3406. A bill to restore the intent and protections of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; read the first
time.
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Alexander,
and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 3407. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
authorize commanders of wounded warrior battalions to accept
charitable gifts on behalf of the wounded members

[[Page 17687]]

of the Armed Forces assigned to such battalions; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 3408. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security
Act to provide for the conduct of comparative effectiveness
research and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
establish a Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr.
Grassley)):
S. 3409. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to ensure the safety and quality of medical
products and enhance the authorities of the Food and Drug
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lieberman,
and Mr. Inouye):
S. 3410. A bill to authorize a grant program to provide for
expanded access to mainstream financial institutions; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Coleman):
S. 3411. A bill to authorize the sale of certain National
Forest System lands in the Superior National Forest in
Minnesota; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Brown, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Casey, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 3412. A bill to achieve access to comprehensive primary
health care services for all Americans and to improve primary
care delivery through an expansion of the community health
center and National Health Service Corps programs; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Brown, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Casey, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 3413. A bill to achieve access to comprehensive primary
health care services for all Americans and to improve primary
care delivery through an expansion of the community health
center and National Health Service Corps programs; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy,
and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 3414. A bill to recapture family-sponsored and
employment-based immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays
and to prevent losses of family-sponsored and employment-
based immigrant visas in the future, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Tester):
S. 3415. A bill to authorize the construction of the Dry-
Redwater Regional Water Authority System in the State of
Montana and a portion of McKenzie Country, North Dakota, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 3416. A bill to amend section 40122(a) of title 49,
United States Code, to improve the dispute resolution process
at the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 3417. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act to expand educational opportunities for
recipients of temporary assistance for needy families; to the
Committee on Finance.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Bond, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Allard, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Barrasso, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. Res. 636. A resolution recognizing the strategic success
of the troop surge in Iraq and expressing gratitude to the
members of the United States Armed Forces who made that
success possible; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. Res. 637. A resolution to honor the visionary and
extraordinary work of Los Alamos National Laboratory and IBM
on the Roadrunner supercomputer; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Obama, Ms. Klobuchar,
Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kennedy, and
Mrs. Feinstein):
S. Res. 638. A resolution supporting legislation promoting
improved health care and access to health care for women; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. Res. 639. A resolution recognizing the benefits of
transportation improvements along the United States Route 36
corridor to communities, individuals, and businesses in
Colorado; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. Res. 640. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that there should be an increased Federal commitment
to public health and the prevention of diseases and injuries
for all people in the United States; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Roberts, and Mr.
McConnell):
S. Res. 641. A resolution congratulating the Focus on the
Family radio program for its induction into the National
Radio Hall of Fame.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. Res. 642. A resolution to authorize the production of
records by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs;
considered and agreed to.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 24

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 24, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require a health
advisory and monitoring of drinking water for perchlorate.

S. 150

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 150, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the
health of pregnant women, fetuses, infants, and children by requiring a
health advisory and drinking water standard for perchlorate.

S. 154

At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 154, a bill to promote
coal-to-liquid fuel activities.

S. 155

At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 155, a bill to promote
coal-to-liquid fuel activities.

S. 211

At the request of Mr. Pryor, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
211, a bill to facilitate nationwide availability of 2-1-1 telephone
service for information and referral on human services, volunteer
services, and for other purposes.

S. 642

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 642, a bill to codify
Executive Order 12898, relating to environmental justice, to require
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to fully
implement the recommendations of the Inspector General of the Agency
and the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other
purposes.

S. 826

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey) were added as cosponsors of S. 826, a bill to posthumously award
a Congressional gold medal to Alice Paul, in recognition of her role in
the women's suffrage movement and in advancing equal rights for women.

S. 976

At the request of Mr. Menendez, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 976, a bill to secure the promise of personalized medicine for all
Americans by expanding and accelerating genomics research and
initiatives to improve the accuracy of disease diagnosis, increase the
safety of drugs, and identify novel treatments.

S. 1084

At the request of Ms. Stabenow, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1084, a bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income
veterans.

S. 1090

At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey

[[Page 17688]]

(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1090, a bill to amend
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 to assist the
neediest of senior citizens by modifying the eligibility criteria for
supplemental foods provided under the commodity supplemental food
program to take into account the extraordinarily high out-of-pocket
medical expenses that senior citizens pay, and for other purposes.

S. 1343

At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1343, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to prevention and
treatment of diabetes, and for other purposes.

S. 1376

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1376, a bill
to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and expand the drug
discount program under section 340B of such Act to improve the
provision of discounts on drug purchases for certain safety net
providers.

S. 1638

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1638, a bill to
adjust the salaries of Federal justices and judges, and for other
purposes.

S. 1911

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1911, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the
health of susceptible populations, including pregnant women, infants,
and children, by requiring a health advisory, drinking water standard,
and reference concentration for trichloroethylene vapor intrusion, and
for other purposes.

S. 1933

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1933, a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide grants
to small public drinking water systems.

S. 2042

At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) 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. 2092

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2092, a bill
to amend title 11, United States Code, to improve protections for
employees and retirees in business bankruptcies.

S. 2102

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2102, a bill to amend title II of the
Social Security Act to phase out the 24-month waiting period for
disabled individuals to become eligible for Medicare benefits, to
eliminate the waiting period for individuals with life-threatening
conditions, and for other purposes.

S. 2270

At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2270, a bill to
include health centers in the list of entities eligible for mortgage
insurance under the National Housing Act.

S. 2314

At the request of Mr. Salazar, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2314, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make geothermal heat pump systems
eligible for the energy credit and the residential energy efficient
property credit, and for other purposes.

S. 2347

At the request of Mr. Feingold, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2347, a bill to restore and protect access to discount drug prices
for university-based and safety-net clinics.

S. 2510

At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2510, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide revised standards for quality assurance in screening and
evaluation of gynecologic cytology preparations, and for other
purposes.

S. 2618

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2618, a bill to amend
the Public Health Service Act to provide for research with respect to
various forms of muscular dystrophy, including Becker, congenital,
distal, Duchenne, Emery-Dreifuss Facioscapulohumeral, limb-girdle,
myotonic, and oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophies.

S. 2641

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2641, a bill to amend title XVIII and XIX of
the Social Security Act to improve the transparency of information on
skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities and to clarify and
improve the targeting of the enforcement of requirements with respect
to such facilities.

S. 2668

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2668, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to remove cell phones from listed property under section 280F.

S. 2669

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2669, a bill to provide
for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development
Program, and for other purposes.

S. 2705

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2705, a bill to
authorize programs to increase the number of nurses within the Armed
Forces through assistance for service as nurse faculty or education as
nurses, and for other purposes.

S. 2794

At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2794, a bill to protect
older Americans from misleading and fraudulent marketing practices,
with the goal of increasing retirement security.

S. 2817

At the request of Mr. Salazar, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2817, a bill to establish
the National Park Centennial Fund, and for other purposes.

S. 2851

At the request of Mr. Bunning, the names of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Allard), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as cosponsors of S. 2851, a
bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the penalty
on the understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparers.

S. 2858

At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2858, a bill to
establish the Social Work Reinvestment Commission to provide
independent counsel to Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on policy issues associated with recruitment, retention,
research, and reinvestment in the profession of social work, and for
other purposes.

S. 2883

At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2883, a bill
to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration
of the centennial of the establishment of Mother's Day.

[[Page 17689]]

S. 2885

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2885, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the availability of industrial
development bonds to facilities manufacturing intangible property.

S. 2919

At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2919, a bill to promote
the accurate transmission of network traffic identification
information.

S. 2932

At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2932, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the poison center
national toll-free number, national media campaign, and grant program
to provide assistance for poison prevention, sustain the funding of
poison centers, and enhance the public health of people of the United
States.

S. 2950

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2950, a bill to increase housing, awareness,
and navigation demonstration services (HANDS) for individuals with
autism spectrum disorders.

S. 3067

At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3067, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Dental Health Improvement
Act.

S. 3073

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Corker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3073, a bill to amend the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to improve
procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots of
absent overseas uniformed services voters, and for other purposes.

S. 3080

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were
added as cosponsors of S. 3080, a bill to ensure parity between the
temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax credits provided on ethanol.

S. 3109

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 3109, a bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
hazardous waste electronic manifest system.

S. 3155

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3155, a bill to reauthorize and
improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
and for other purposes.

S. 3160

At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3160, a bill to
reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and
for other purposes.

S. 3164

At the request of Mr. Martinez, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3164, a bill
to amend tile XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce fraud under
the Medicare program.

S. 3166

At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3166, a bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to impose criminal penalties on
individuals who assist aliens who have engaged in genocide, torture, or
extrajudicial killings to enter the United States.

S. 3167

At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3167, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which veterans,
their surviving spouses, and their children may be treated as
adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.

S. 3200

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3200, a bill to develop capacity
and infrastructure for mentoring programs.

S. 3246

At the request of Mr. Cardin, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) were added
as cosponsors of S. 3246, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to set the standard mileage
rate for use of a passenger automobile for purposes of the charitable
contributions deduction.

S. 3303

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3303, a bill to require
automobile manufacturers to ensure that not less than 80 percent of the
automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States by each
manufacturer to operate on fuel mixtures containing 85 percent ethanol,
85 percent methanol, or biodiesel.

S. 3308

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) were
added as cosponsors of S. 3308, a bill to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to permit facilities of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to be designated as voter registration agencies, and for other
purposes.

S. 3323

At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3323, a bill to provide
weatherization and home heating assistance to low income households,
and to provide a heating oil tax credit for middle income households.

S. 3337

At the request of Mr. Roberts, the names of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Lugar) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3337, a bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to carry out conservation reserve program notice CRP-598, entitled the
``Voluntary Modification of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contract
for Critical Feed Use''.

S. 3338

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3338, a bill to
amend title 23, United States Code, to improve the safety of Federal-
aid highway bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and
processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of structurally
deficient bridges on the National Highway System, and for other
purposes.

S. 3353

At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3353, a bill to provide
temporary financial relief for rural school districts adversely
impacted by the current energy crisis, and for other purposes.

S. 3362

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu),
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3362, a bill to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and
STTR programs, and for other purposes.

S. CON. RES. 87

At the request of Mr. Casey, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Con. Res. 87, a concurrent resolution congratulating the Republic of
Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence.

S. RES. 551

At the request of Mr. Thune, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Res. 551, a resolution celebrating 75

[[Page 17690]]

years of successful State-based alcohol regulation.
At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 551, supra.

S. RES. 627

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) and
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) were added as cosponsors of S. Res.
627, a resolution welcoming home Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc
Gonsalves, three citizens of the United States who were held hostage
for over five years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC) after their plane crashed on February 13, 2003.

S. RES. 630

At the request of Mr. Sanders, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Res. 630, a resolution recognizing the importance of connecting
foster youth to the workforce through internship programs, and
encouraging employers to increase employment of former foster youth.

S. RES. 632

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 632, a resolution
calling on the Governments of the People's Republic of China and the
international community to use the upcoming Olympic Games as an
opportunity to push for the parties to the conflicts in Sudan, Chad,
and the Central African Republic to cease hostilities and revive
efforts toward a peaceful resolution of their national and regional
conflicts.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 3371. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
simplify the deduction for use of a portion of a residence as a home
office by providing an optional standard home office deduction; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to
offer a drastically simplified alternative for home-based businesses to
benefit from the home office tax deduction. The U.S. Small Business
Administration's, SBA's, Office of Advocacy designated reforming the
home office tax deduction as one of its top ten Regulatory Review and
Reform initiatives for 2008. By establishing an optional home office
deduction, the Home Office Tax Deduction Simplification and Improvement
Act of 2008 would take a strong step toward making our tax laws easier
to understand. I thank Senator Conrad for joining me to introduce this
critical bill.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I continually hear from small enterprises across
Maine and this nation about the necessity of tax relief and reform.
Despite the fact that small firms are our economy's real job creators,
the current tax system places an entirely unreasonable burden on them
as they struggle to satisfy their tax obligations.
Notably, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, the American public spends
approximately 9 billion hours each year to complete government-mandated
forms and paperwork. A staggering 80 percent of this time is consumed
by completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies
that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in
tax compliance costs, an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than
larger firms.
Turning to the legislation I am offering today, the Internal Revenue
Code presently offers qualified individuals a home office tax deduction
if they use a portion of their home as a principal place of business or
as a space to meet with their patients or clients. That said, although
recent research from the SBA indicates that roughly 53 percent of
America's small businesses are home-based, few of these firms take
advantage of the home office tax deduction. The reason is simple:
reporting the deduction is complicated.
A 2006 survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent
Business, NFIB, Research Foundation found that approximately 33 percent
of small-employer taxpayers try to comprehend the tax rules governing
the home office tax deduction, but only about half of those respondents
believe that they actually have a good understanding of the rules. As
Dewey Martin, a Certified Public Accountant from my home State of
Maine, so aptly said in recent testimony before the Senate Finance
Committee, ``Many small business owners avoid the deduction because of
the complications and the fear of a potential audit.''
With a morass of paperwork attributable to the home office deduction,
the time-consuming process of navigating the tangled web of rules and
regulations makes it unsurprising that so many small business owners
forego the home office deduction. So to encourage the use of the home
office tax deduction, the bill we are introducing today would establish
an optional, easy-to-use incentive.
Turning to specifics, our bill would direct the Secretary of the
Treasury to establish a method for determining a deduction that
consists of multiplying an applicable standard rate by the square
footage of the type of property being used as a home office. The
proposal would also require the IRS to separately state the amounts
allocated to several types of expenses in order to reduce the burden on
the taxpayer. It is vital that the IRS clearly identify the amounts of
the deduction devoted to real estate taxes, mortgage interest, and
depreciation so that taxpayers do not duplicate them on Schedule A.
Finally, the bill makes two changes designed to ease the administration
of the deduction: First, to reflect an economy in which many business
owners conduct business or consult with customers through the Internet
or over the phone versus face-to-face, our legislation takes these
entrepreneurs into account by allowing the home office deduction to be
taken if the taxpayer uses the home to meet or deal with clients
regardless of whether the clients are physically present. Second, our
bill would allow for de minimis use of business space for personal
activities so that taxpayers would not lose their ability to claim the
deduction if they make a personal call or pay a bill online.
I would be remiss not to note that the bill we are introducing today
is the result of the dedicated efforts of various groups and
organizations, which have worked with Senator Conrad and me on a
consensus approach to improve the current law home office tax
deduction. In particular, it is significant to note that the IRS
Taxpayer Advocate Service strongly backs this bill. In fact, the
National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina E. Olson, sent my office the following
statement regarding our legislation: ``In my 2007 Annual Report to
Congress, I made a similar proposal to simplify the home office
business deduction. I am pleased that Senator Snowe and Conrad's
proposed bill reflects the gist of my legislative recommendation.
Reducing the burdensome substantiation requirements for employees and
self-employed taxpayers who incur modest home office costs would make
the home office business deduction simpler and more accessible to
them.''
My office also received an endorsement of the bill from the National
Federation of Independent Business. Dan Danner, the organization's
Executive Director, said the following: ``Currently only a small
percentage of home-based businesses in the U.S. take advantage of the
home-office deduction because calculating the deduction is
unnecessarily complicated. NFIB small business owners have advocated
for a simpler, standard home-office deduction for years. The Snowe-
Conrad legislation gives home-based businesses the option to deduct a
legitimate business expense with minimum hassle. This commonsense
change to the tax code will reduce tax complexity and help many home-
based businesses take advantage of this deduction.'' Additionally, the
SBA's Office of Advocacy added: ``The SBA Office of Advocacy reviewed
the legislation and supports it.''
In closing, according to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, America's
home-

[[Page 17691]]

based sole proprietors generate $102 billion in revenue annually. With
this in mind, it is absolutely critical to endow these small firms with
as much relief from burdensome tax constraints as possible so that they
can focus their efforts on developing the products and services of the
future, as well as creating new jobs. The confusion over the home
office business tax deduction, in my estimation, can be easily solved
by passing this legislation. I urge all Senators to consider the
benefits this bill will provide to thousands of small business owners,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it in a
timely manner.
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. 3371

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 ``Home Office Tax Deduction
Simplification and Improvement Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. OPTIONAL STANDARD HOME OFFICE DEDUCTION.

(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 280A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for
certain business or rental use; limitation on deductions for
such use) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Election of standard home office deduction.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is
allowed a deduction for the use of a portion of a dwelling
unit as a business by reason of paragraph (1), (2), or (4),
notwithstanding the limitations of paragraph (5), if such
individual elects the application of this paragraph for the
taxable year with respect to such dwelling unit, such
individual shall be allowed a deduction equal to the standard
home office deduction for the taxable year in lieu of the
deductions otherwise allowable under this chapter for such
taxable year by reason of paragraph (1), (2), or (4).
``(B) Standard home office deduction.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
standard home office deduction is an amount equal to the
product of--

``(I) the applicable home office standard rate, and
``(II) the square footage of the portion of the dwelling
unit to which paragraph (1), (2), or (4) applies.

``(ii) Applicable home office standard rate.--For purposes
of this subparagraph, the term `applicable home office
standard rate' means the rate applicable to the taxpayer's
category of business, as determined and published by the
Secretary for the 3 categories of businesses described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) for the taxable year.
``(iii) Maximum square footage taken into account.--The
Secretary shall determine and publish annually the maximum
square footage that may be taken into account under clause
(i)(II) for each of the 3 categories of businesses described
in paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) for the taxable year.
``(C) Effect of election.--
``(i) General rule.--Except as provided in clause (ii), any
election under this paragraph, once made by the taxpayer with
respect to any dwelling unit, shall continue to apply with
respect to such dwelling unit for each succeeding taxable
year.
``(ii) One-time election per dwelling unit.--A taxpayer who
elects the application of this paragraph in a taxable year
with respect to any dwelling unit may revoke such application
in a subsequent taxable year. After so revoking, the taxpayer
may not elect the application of this paragraph with respect
to such dwelling unit in any subsequent taxable year.
``(D) Denial of double benefit.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), in
the case of a taxpayer who elects the application of this
paragraph for the taxable year, no other deduction or credit
shall be allowed under this subtitle for such taxable year
for any amount attributable to the portion of a dwelling unit
taken into account under this paragraph.
``(ii) Exception for disaster losses.--A taxpayer who
elects the application of this paragraph in any taxable year
may take into account any disaster loss described in section
165(i) as a loss under section 165 for the applicable taxable
year, in addition to the standard home office deduction under
this paragraph for such taxable year.
``(E) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this paragraph.''.
(b) Modification of Home Office Business Use Rules.--
(1) Place of meeting.--Subparagraph (B) of section
280A(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) as a place of business which is used by the taxpayer
in meeting or dealing with patients, clients, or customers in
the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or business, or''.
(2) De minimis personal use.--Paragraph (1) of section
280A(c) of such Code is amended by striking ``for the
convenience of his employer'' and inserting ``for the
convenience of such employee's employer. A portion of a
dwelling unit shall not fail to be deemed as exclusively used
for business for purposes of this paragraph solely because a
de minimis amount of non-business activity may be carried out
in such portion''.
(c) Reporting of Expenses Relating to Home Office
Deduction.--Within 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure that all
forms and schedules used to calculate or report itemized
deductions and profits or losses from business or farming
state separately amounts attributable to real estate taxes,
mortgage interest, and depreciation for purposes of the
deductions allowable under paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (7)
of section 280A(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 3373. A bill to reauthorize and expand the Northwest Straits
Marine Conservation Initiative Act to promote the protection of the
resources of the Northwest Straits, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northwest
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act. This bill will reauthorize
the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative, which promotes
the protection and restoration of the marine waters, habitats, and
species of the Northwest Straits region of Puget Sound in Washington
State in order to achieve ecosystem health and sustainable resource
use.
The Northwest Straits region makes up 60 percent of the Puget Sound's
shoreline and includes the marine waters, nearshore areas, and
shorelines of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and of Puget Sound from the
Canadian border to the southern end of Snohomish County. This region
represents a unique resource of enormous environmental and economic
value to the people of the United States and, in particular, of the
region surrounding the Northwest Straits. However, in the last several
decades, habitat health, water quality, and populations of commercially
and culturally valuable species found in the Northwest Straits have
sharply declined. During the 20th century, extensive development, a
legacy of lost or abandoned fishing gear, land conversion, loss of
native sea grass, and invasive species have destroyed once intact
native habitats in its ecosystem.
In 1997, I partnered with former Congressman Jack Metcalf and brought
opposing stakeholders together to create an advisory commission to
address regional and local issues in the marine environment. Many were
skeptical of our efforts, but our work created an innovate model for
restoring and protecting marine habitats. As a result, the Northwest
Straits Initiative was created to provide funding to help citizens
design and carry out marine conservation projects driven by local
priorities and informed by science and the Initiative's goals and
benchmarks.
The Northwest Straits Initiative is composed of volunteer-based
marine resources committees in 7 counties, as well as over 100 members
representing residents, tribes, businesses, fishermen, boaters, and
scientists. It has logged thousands of volunteer hours and completed
hundreds of projects, demonstrating that citizen involvement in marine
resource conservation and restoration is powerful, effective, and
necessary. And the program has accomplished a lot: thousands of
derelict crab pots and fishing nets have been removed, miles of forage
fish spawning habitat have been surveyed, hundreds of thousands of
native Olympia oysters have been planted, marine stewardship areas have
been designated, nearly 1,000 tons of creosote wood has been removed,
and dozens of stewardship and public outreach programs have been
completed.
The authorization of the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation
Initiative will ensure the continuation of this

[[Page 17692]]

successful and innovative regional approach to marine resource
restoration and protection.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3374. A bill to establish a commission on veterans and members of
the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, or other mental health disorders, to enhance the capacity of
mental health providers to assist such veterans and members, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Ron
Wyden to introduce a bill that will help improve the lives of our
veterans who are suffering from a mental illness. The Healing Our
Nation's Heroes Act of 2008 is an important bill and I look forward to
its passage. Senator Wyden has been an ally for me in the struggle to
ensure veterans, particularly those who are struggling with a mental
illness, get the care that they need. It is an honor for me to work him
to ensure our Nation's heroes are not forgotten.
Our work together on this bill began last summer when I called a
Special Committee on Aging field hearing at the Portland Veterans
Affairs Medical Center in our home state of Oregon. At that hearing,
Senator Wyden and I heard the testimony of officials from the
Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, as well as local leaders who
operate programs that support our veterans' mental and physical health
needs. I also held roundtables in my state on the issue and a follow-up
hearing in Washington, DC in October, 2007 to further examine the scope
of the issues and barriers facing our veterans in need of care. At this
hearing, we were fortunate to have former Senator and World War II
veteran Bob Dole testify. Senator Dole is a decorated war hero who has
fought for decades to ensure that our servicemembers and veterans have
the proper supports they need. His insight and knowledge of the issues
facing our veterans, both young and old, were instrumental in helping
us to draft this legislation. Without the input of countless people who
told us of the problems faced by their loved ones and their own
struggles with the current system, we could not have made this bill
possible.
In our Nation today, we have nearly 24 million veterans, about 40
percent of whom are age 65 and older. The Veterans Health
Administration serves about 5.5 million of them each year and employs
247,000 employees to attend to their care. I draw attention to these
numbers to emphasize not only the scale of the system--and therefore
the noted difficulties in meeting all needs at all times--but also to
reiterate that there are a large number of veterans to whom we owe an
enormous debt.
Unfortunately, we are not doing well enough by our veterans. We know
that nationally 23 percent of all homeless persons are veterans. In
Portland, Oregon, that number could be as high as 30 percent. They
suffer disproportionately from poor health, including mental health and
substance abuse challenges. We are fortunate to have wonderful
community-based groups, such as the Central City Concern in Portland,
working to help those who are homeless to get the help and support they
need; but we must do more.
As was reported at the hearing I held in October of 2007, Dr. Kaplan
from Portland State University found that veterans in our nation are at
twice the risk of suicide as non-veterans. With the number and needs of
veterans ever-increasing in our nation, we must ensure that our mental
health infrastructure is prepared to handle their unique needs.
What we now refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, once
was described as ``soldier's heart'' in the Civil War, ``shell shock''
in World War I, and ``combat fatigue'' in World War II. Whatever the
name, they are serious mental illnesses and deserve equal attention and
care as a physical wound. A system must be in place to help our
veterans as they adjust back to life with their families and within
their communities.
So many of our veterans from previous conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and
around the globe in World War II, needed similar programs once they
returned home. Yet, I fear that we did not do enough to help them. With
proper and early support systems in place, we can work to prevent the
more serious and chronic mental health issues that come from a lack of
intervention.
There is no greater obligation than caring for those who have served
this country with their military service. We would be remiss if we did
not ensure that the health care provided to our heroes in arms is the
finest medicine has to offer. A lack of culturally sensitive mental
health professionals, an inability to reach rural areas, stigma related
to mental illness within the military, bureaucratic run-arounds and
long waiting times are just a few of the problems that we hear about--
both in the news and directly from constituents. These are problems
that must be addressed and can only be addressed if we all work
together to find solutions.
As our country faces new waves of veterans with mental health
illnesses, many of whose issues arise from combat stress, we must
ensure that we learn from the lessons of the past. We must ensure that
they are cared for, and we must not leave behind those who fought for
our nation in previous generations.
This bill has three important parts that will improve mental health
services to our veterans. First, it will establish a commission charged
with oversight of outreach and services offered to veterans and members
of the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress disorder and other
disorders that affect mental health. This commission will be a long-
term body that will ensure that our veterans have the support that they
need. They will report to Congress, make recommendations to the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, and look for innovative
ways that the two bodies can work together to better ensure our
servicemembers have the proper supports while they are in the Armed
Forces, during their time of transition back to their communities, and
as they live their lives as veterans in their communities.
This bill also will establish the Heroes-to-Healers Program, which we
have created to build on the successes of the Troops-to-Teachers
Program. In addition to the wonderful work that the Troops-to-Teachers
program does in training former servicemembers to work in high-need
school districts, the Heroes-to-Healers Program will train former
servicemembers to become a part of the mental health workforce. We know
that major complaints from servicemembers and veterans working to gain
needed mental health services are the wait times for care that they
experience due to lack of available staff and their desire to work with
professionals who understand, first-hand, the difficult things that
they have seen and type of experiences they have had serving overseas
in combat zones. Through this program, participants will receive
financial support to gain the training and licensing they need to
become a mental health professional, while ensuring there is a minimum
amount of time that they will then serve their fellow veterans in their
new profession.
To further help recruitment and retention efforts for mental health
service providers, the third part of this bill will provide a new grant
program to state and local mental health agencies, as well as non-
profit organizations to establish, expand or enhance mental health
provider recruitment and retention efforts. These efforts will be
targeted at supporting mid-career professionals who are looking to work
in the mental health profession.
We know that we must do a better job of helping our veterans. We can
do better at ensuring they can remain stable in their communities, that
they can live healthy lives and that they can prosper as persons to
whom we owe a great deal of gratitude and compassion.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.

[[Page 17693]]

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3374

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 ``Healing Our Nation's Heroes
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Since October 2001, approximately 1,640,000 members of
the Armed Forces have been deployed as part of Operation
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(2) 300,000 members of the Armed Forces are suffering from
major depression or post traumatic stress because of service
in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(3) 320,000 of the members of the Armed Forces who served
in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, or
19 percent of such members, have received brain injuries from
such service.
(4) Only 43 percent of members of the Armed Forces with a
probable traumatic brain injury have reported receiving a
medical evaluation for their head injury.
(5) Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs show that
120,000 members of the Armed Forces who are no longer on
active duty have been diagnosed with mental health problems,
approximately half of whom suffer from post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
(6) In the last year, only 53 percent of those members of
the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress disorder or
depression have sought professional help from a mental health
care provider.
(7) Rates of post traumatic stress disorder and depression
are highest among members of the Armed Forces who are women
or members of the Reserves.
(8) Efforts to improve access to quality mental health care
are integral to supporting and treating both active duty
members of the Armed Forces and veterans.
(9) Without quality mental health care, members of the
Armed Forces and veterans may experience lower work
productivity, which negatively affects their physical health,
mental health, and family and social relationships.
(10) Cultural and personal stigmas are factors that
contribute to low rates of veterans of Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who seek mental health
care from qualified mental health care providers.
(11) The capacity of mental health care providers and
access to such providers must be improved to meet the needs
of members of the Armed Forces who are returning from
deployment in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
(12) Community-based providers of mental health care are
invaluable assets in addressing the needs of such members and
should not be overlooked.
(13) Coordination of care among government agencies as well
as nongovernmental agencies is integral to the successful
treatment of members of the Armed Forces returning from
deployment.

SEC. 3. COMMISSION ON VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES WITH POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER,
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, OR OTHER MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDERS CAUSED BY SERVICE IN THE ARMED
FORCES.

(a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a
commission on veterans and members of the Armed Forces with
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain
injury, or other mental health disorders caused by service in
the Armed Forces.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The commission shall be composed of a
chair and members appointed jointly by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense, including not
less than one of each of the following:
(A) Members of the Armed Forces on active duty.
(B) Veterans who are retired from the Armed Forces.
(C) Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(D) Employees of the Department of Defense.
(E) Recognized medical or scientific authorities in fields
relevant to the commission, including psychiatry and medical
care.
(F) Mental health professionals who are not physicians.
(G) Veterans who have undergone treatment for post
traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other
mental health disorders.
(2) Consideration of recommendations.--In appointing
members of the commission, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
and the Secretary of Defense shall consult with
nongovernmental organizations that represent veterans,
members of the Armed Forces, and families of such veterans
and members.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The commission shall--
(A) oversee the monitoring and treatment of veterans and
members of the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress
disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental health
disorders caused by service in the Armed Forces; and
(B) conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to the
long-term adverse consequences of such disorders for such
veterans and members, including an analysis of--
(i) the information gathered from rescreening data obtained
from post deployment interviews; and
(ii) treatments that have been shown to be effective in the
treatment of post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, or other mental health disorders caused by service in
the Armed Forces.
(2) Recommendations.--The commission shall develop
recommendations on the development of initiatives--
(A) to mitigate the adverse consequences studied under
paragraph (1)(B); and
(B) to reduce cultural stigmas associated with treatment of
post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or
other mental health disorders of veterans and members of the
Armed Forces.
(3) Annual reports.--Not later than September 30 each year,
the commission shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report containing the following:
(A) A detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the commission as a result of its activities under paragraph
(1).
(B) The recommendations of the commission developed under
paragraph (2).
(d) Powers of the Commission.--
(1) Site visits.--The commission may visit locations where
veterans and members of the Armed Forces with post traumatic
stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental
health disorders caused by service in the Armed Forces
receive treatment for such disorders to carry out the
oversight and monitoring required by subsection (c)(1)(A).
(2) Information from federal agencies.--The commission may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the commission considers necessary to carry
out the provisions of this Act. Upon request of the chair of
the commission, the head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the commission.
(e) Termination.--The commission shall be terminated at the
joint discretion of the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 4. HEROES-TO-HEALERS PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Part III of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 44--HEROES-TO-HEALERS PROGRAM

``Sec.
``4400. Purposes.
``4401. Definitions.
``4402. Authorization of Heroes-to-Healers Program.
``4403. Recruitment and selection of Program participants.
``4404. Participation agreement and financial assistance.
``4405. Participation by States.
``4406. Reporting requirements.
``4407. Authorization of appropriations.

``Sec. 4400. Purposes

``The purposes of this chapter are--
``(1) to encourage veterans and members of the Armed Forces
separating from the Armed Forces--
``(A) to obtain certification or licensing as mental health
care providers; and
``(B) to obtain employment with Federal, State, and local
agencies and nongovernmental organizations that provide
mental health care to members of the Armed Forces, veterans,
or the families of such members or veterans; and
``(2) to enhance the capacity of such agencies and
organizations to provide such care, by increasing the number
of individuals seeking employment for the provision of such
care.

``Sec. 4401. Definitions

``In this chapter:
``(1) The term `mental health care provider', with respect
to an individual, means a psychiatrist, psychologist, social
worker, psychiatric nurse, mental health counselor, or
marriage and family therapist.
``(2) The term `Program' means the Heroes-to-Healers
Program authorized by section 4402 of this title and
described in this chapter.

``Sec. 4402. Authorization of Heroes-to-Healers Program

``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to
authorize--
``(1) the Heroes-to-Healers Program; and
``(2) a mechanism for the funding and administration of
such program.

[[Page 17694]]

``(b) Program Authorized.--(1) The Secretary may carry out
a program--
``(A) to assist eligible individuals described in section
4403 of this title in obtaining certification or licensing
(as prescribed for under applicable State law) as mental
health care providers; and
``(B) to facilitate the employment of such individuals, by
Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental
organizations that provide mental health care to members of
the Armed Forces, veterans, or the families of such members
or veterans, to provide such care.
``(2) The program authorized by paragraph (1) and described
in this chapter shall be known as the `Heroes-to-Healers
Program'.
``(c) Administration of Program.--The Secretary shall
administer the Program in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense.
``(d) Information Regarding Program.--The Secretary shall
provide to the Secretary of Defense information regarding the
Program and applications for participation in the Program,
for distribution as part of preseparation counseling provided
under section 1142 of title 10 to members of the Armed Forces
described in section 4403 of this title.
``(e) Placement Assistance and Referral Services.--The
Secretary may, with the agreement of the Secretary of
Defense, provide placement assistance and referral services
to individuals who meet the criteria described in section
4403 of this title.

``Sec. 4403. Recruitment and selection of Program
participants

``(a) Eligible Individuals.--The following individuals are
eligible for selection to participate in the Program:
``(1) Any individual who--
``(A) was a member of the Armed Forces and becomes entitled
to retired or retainer pay in the manner provided in title 10
or title 14; or
``(B) has an approved date of retirement from service in
the Armed Forces.
``(2) Any individual who--
``(A)(i) is separated or released from active duty in the
Armed Forces after two or more years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces immediately before the separation or
release; or
``(ii) has completed a total of at least--
``(I) three years of active duty service in the Armed
Forces;
``(II) three years of service computed under section 12732
of title 10; or
``(III) three years of any combination of such service; and
``(B) executes a reserve commitment agreement for a period
of not less than 3 years under subsection (e)(2).
``(3) Any individual who is retired or separated for
physical disability under chapter 61 of title 10.
``(b) Submission of Applications.--(1) Selection of
eligible individuals to participate in the Program shall be
made on the basis of applications submitted to the Secretary
within the time periods specified in paragraph (2). An
application shall be in such form and contain such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(2) An application of an individual shall be considered
to be submitted on a timely basis under paragraph (1) if the
application is submitted not later than five years after the
date on which the individual is retired, separated, or
released from active duty in the Armed Forces, as the case
may be.
``(c) Selection Criteria.--(1) The Secretary shall
prescribe the criteria to be used to select eligible
individuals to participate in the Program.
``(2) An individual is eligible to participate in the
Program only if the individual's last period of service in
the Armed Forces was honorable, as characterized by the
Secretary concerned. An individual selected to participate in
the Program before the retirement of the individual or the
separation or release of the individual from active duty in
the Armed Forces may continue to participate in the Program
after the retirement, separation, or release only if the
individual's last period of service is characterized as
honorable by the Secretary concerned.
``(d) Selection Priorities.--In selecting eligible
individuals to receive assistance under the Program, the
Secretary shall give priority to individuals who engaged in
combat while serving in the Armed Forces.
``(e) Other Conditions on Selection.--(1) The Secretary may
not select an eligible individual to participate in the
Program under this section and receive financial assistance
under section 4404 of this title unless the Secretary has
sufficient appropriations for the Program available at the
time of the selection to satisfy the obligations to be
incurred by the United States under section 4404 of this
title with respect to the individual.
``(2) The Secretary may not select an eligible individual
described in subsection (a)(2)(A) to participate in the
Program under this section and receive financial assistance
under section 4404 of this title unless--
``(A) the Secretary notifies the Secretary concerned and
the individual that the Secretary has reserved a full stipend
or bonus under section 4404 of this title for the individual;
and
``(B) the individual executes a written agreement with the
Secretary concerned to serve as a member of the Selected
Reserve of a reserve component of the Armed Forces for a
period of not less than three years (in addition to any other
reserve commitment the individual may have).

``Sec. 4404. Participation agreement and financial assistance

``(a) Participation Agreement.--(1) An eligible individual
selected to participate in the Program under section 4403 of
this title and receive financial assistance under this
section shall be required to enter into an agreement with the
Secretary in which the individual agrees--
``(A) within such time as the Secretary may require, to
obtain certification or licensing as a mental health care
provider; and
``(B) to accept an offer of full-time employment as a
mental health care provider for not less than five years with
a Federal, State, or local agency or nongovernmental
organization that provides mental health care to members of
the Armed Forces, veterans, or the families of such members
or veterans.
``(2) The Secretary may waive the five-year commitment
described in paragraph (1)(B) for a participant if the
Secretary determines such waiver to be appropriate. If the
Secretary provides the waiver, the participant shall not be
considered to be in violation of the agreement and shall not
be required to provide reimbursement under subsection (f),
for failure to meet the five-year commitment.
``(3) The Secretary shall encourage eligible individuals to
seek employment with mental health care providers located
more than 75 miles from a Department medical center.
``(b) Violation of Participation Agreement; Exceptions.--A
participant in the Program shall not be considered to be in
violation of the participation agreement entered into under
subsection (a) during any period in which the participant--
``(1) is pursuing a full-time course of study related to
the field of mental health care at an institution of higher
education;
``(2) is serving on active duty as a member of the Armed
Forces;
``(3) is temporarily totally disabled for a period of time
not to exceed three years as established by sworn affidavit
of a qualified physician;
``(4) is unable to secure employment for a period not to
exceed 12 months by reason of the care required by a spouse
who is disabled;
``(5) is a mental health care provider who is seeking and
unable to find full-time employment as a mental health care
provider in a Federal, State, or local agency or
nongovernmental organization that provides mental health care
to members of the Armed Forces, veterans, or the families of
such members or veterans for a single period not to exceed 27
months; or
``(6) satisfies the provisions of additional reimbursement
exceptions that may be prescribed by the Secretary.
``(c) Stipend for Participants.--(1) Subject to paragraph
(2), the Secretary may pay to a participant in the Program
selected under section 4403 of this title a stipend in an
amount of not more than $5,000 per year of participation in
the Program.
``(2) The total number of stipends that may be paid under
paragraph (1) in any fiscal year may not exceed 2,500.
``(d) Bonus for Participants.--(1) Subject to paragraph
(2), the Secretary of Education may, in lieu of paying a
stipend under subsection (c), pay a bonus of up to $10,000 to
a participant in the Program selected under section 4403 of
this title who agrees in the participation agreement under
subsection (a) to become a mental health care provider and to
accept full-time employment as a mental health care provider
for not less than five years in a Federal, State, or local
agency or nongovernmental organization that provides mental
health care to members of the Armed Forces, veterans, or the
families of such members or veterans.
``(2) The total number of bonuses that may be paid under
paragraph (1) in any fiscal year may not exceed 2,000.
``(e) Treatment of Stipend and Bonus.--A stipend or bonus
paid under this section to a participant in the Program shall
not be taken into account in determining the eligibility of
the participant for Federal student financial assistance
provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).
``(f) Reimbursement Under Certain Circumstances.--(1) A
participant in the Program who is paid a stipend or bonus
under this section shall be required to repay the stipend or
bonus under the following circumstances:
``(A) The participant fails to obtain mental health care
provider certification or licensing, to become a mental
health care provider, or to obtain employment as a mental
health care as required by the participation agreement under
subsection (a).
``(B) The participant voluntarily leaves, or is terminated
for cause from, employment as a mental health care provider
during the five years of required service in violation of the
participation agreement.
``(C) The participant executed a written agreement with the
Secretary concerned under section 4403(e)(2) of this title to
serve as a member of a reserve component of the

[[Page 17695]]

Armed Forces for a period of three years and fails to
complete the required term of service.
``(2) A participant required to reimburse the Secretary for
a stipend or bonus paid to the participant under this section
shall pay an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount
of the stipend or bonus as the unserved portion of required
service bears to the five years of required service. Any
amount owed by the participant shall bear interest at the
rate equal to the highest rate being paid by the United
States on the day on which the reimbursement is determined to
be due for securities having maturities of 90 days or less
and such interest shall accrue from the day on which the
participant is first notified of the amount due.
``(3) The obligation to reimburse the Secretary under this
subsection is, for all purposes, a debt owing the United
States. A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 shall not
release a participant from the obligation to reimburse the
Secretary under this subsection.
``(4) A participant shall be excused from reimbursement
under this subsection if the participant becomes permanently
totally disabled as established by sworn affidavit of a
qualified physician. The Secretary may also waive the
reimbursement in cases of extreme hardship to the
participant, as determined by the Secretary.
``(g) Relationship to Educational Assistance Under Titles
10 and 38.--The receipt by a participant in the Program of a
stipend or bonus under this section shall not reduce or
otherwise affect the entitlement of the participant to any
benefits under chapters 30, 31, 33, or 35 of this title or
chapters 1606 or 1607 of title 10.

``Sec. 4405. Participation by States

``(a) Discharge of State Activities Through Consortia of
States.--The Secretary may permit States participating in the
Program to carry out activities authorized for such States
under the Program through one or more consortia of such
States.
``(b) Assistance to States.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
the Secretary may make grants to States participating in the
Program, or to consortia of such States, in order to permit
such States or consortia of States to operate offices for
purposes of recruiting eligible individuals for participation
in the Program and facilitating the employment of
participants in the Program as a mental health care provider.
``(2) The total amount of grants made under paragraph (1)
in any fiscal year may not exceed $5,000,000.

``Sec. 4406. Reporting requirements

``(a) Annual Report Required.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this chapter and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
the Comptroller General of the United States, submit to
Congress a report on the effectiveness of the Program in the
recruitment and retention of qualified personnel by Federal,
State, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations
that provide mental health care to members of the Armed
Forces, veterans, or the families of such members or
veterans.
``(b) Elements of Report.--The report submitted under
subsection (a) shall include information on the following:
``(1) The number of participants in the Program.
``(2) The types of positions in which the participants are
employed.
``(3) The populations served by the participants.
``(4) The agencies and organizations in which the
participants are employed as mental health care providers.
``(5) The types of agencies and organizations with which
the participants are employed.
``(6) The geographic distribution of the agencies and
organizations with which participants are employed.
``(7) The rates of retention of the participants by the
Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental
organizations employing the participants.
``(8) Such other matters as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.

``Sec. 4407. Authorization of appropriations

``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
to carry out the provisions of this chapter $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--The tables of chapters at the
beginning of title 38, United States Code, and at the
beginning of part III of such title, are each amended by
inserting after the item relating to chapter 43 the following
new item:

``44. Heroes-to-Healers Program............................4400.''.....

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE STATE AND LOCAL MENTAL
HEALTH AGENCIES TO ESTABLISH, EXPAND, OR
ENHANCE MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDER RECRUITMENT AND
RETENTION EFFORTS.

(a) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this section to
establish a program to recruit and retain highly qualified
mid-career professionals and recent graduates of an
institution of higher education, as psychiatrists,
psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, mental
health counselors, or marriage and family therapists.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means an
entity described in subsection (c)(2).
(2) Eligible participant.--The term ``eligible
participant'' means--
(A) an individual with substantial, demonstrable career
experience; or
(B) an individual who has graduated from an institution of
higher education not more than 3 years prior to applying to
an eligible entity to become to be a mental health provider
under this section.
(3) Mental health provider.--The term ``mental health
provider'' means a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker,
psychiatric nurse, mental health counselor, marriage or
family therapist, or any other provider determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(c) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may, in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, establish a
program to award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible
entities to encourage State and local mental health agencies
or other entities to establish, expand, or enhance mental
health provider recruitment and retention efforts. The
Secretary may establish tiered grant award amounts based on
criteria including specific need for highly qualified mental
health providers by profession within a high demand area,
geographic location, and existing compensation rates.
(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, an entity shall be--
(A) a State health agency;
(B) a high-need local health agency;
(C) a for-profit or nonprofit organization that has a
proven record of effectively recruiting and retaining highly
qualified mental health providers, that has entered into a
partnership with a high-need local health agency or with a
State health agency;
(D) an institution of higher education that has entered
into a partnership with a high-need local health agency or
with a State health agency;
(E) a regional consortium of State health agencies; or
(F) a consortium of high-need local health agencies.
(3) Priority.--In awarding a grant under this subsection,
the Secretary shall give priority to a partnership or
consortium that includes a high-need State agency or local
health agency.
(4) Application.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an eligible entity shall submit an application
to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
(B) Contents.--An application submitted under subparagraph
(A) shall include a description of--
(i) one or more target recruitment groups on which the
applicant will focus its recruitment efforts under the grant;
(ii) the characteristics of each such target group that--

(I) demonstrate the knowledge and experience of the group's
members; and
(II) demonstrate that the members are eligible to achieve
the purposes of this section;

(iii) the manner in which the applicant will use funds
received under the grant to develop a cadre of mental health
providers, or other programs to recruit and retain highly
qualified midcareer professionals, recent college graduates,
and recent graduate school graduates, as highly qualified
mental health providers, in high-need military or veterans
communities, or as part of entities providing care to
military or veterans in medical facilities;
(iv) the manner in which the program carried out under the
grant will comply with relevant State laws related to mental
health provider certification or licensing and facilitate the
certification or licensing of such mental health providers;
(v) the manner in which activities under the grant will
increase the number of highly qualified mental health
providers, in high-need Federal, State and local agencies (in
urban or rural areas), and in high-need mental health
professions, in the jurisdiction served by the applicant; and
(vi) the manner in which the applicant will collaborate, as
needed, with other institutions, agencies, or organizations
to recruit (particularly through activities that have proven
effective in retaining highly qualified mental health
providers), train, place, support, and provide mental health
induction programs to eligible participants under this
section, including providing evidence of the commitment of
the institutions, agencies, or organizations to the
applicant's programs.
(5) Duration of grant.--The Secretary may award grants
under this subsection for periods of 5 years. At the end of
the 5-year period for such a grant, the grant recipient may
apply for an additional grant under this section.
(6) Equitable distribution.--To the extent practicable, the
Secretary shall ensure an equitable geographic distribution
of grants

[[Page 17696]]

under this subsection among the regions of the United States.
(7) Use of funds.--
(A) In general.--An entity shall use amounts received under
a grant under this subsection to develop a cadre of mental
health providers in order to establish, expand, or enhance
mental health provider recruitment and retention programs for
highly qualified mid-career professionals, and recent
graduates of an institution of higher education, who are
eligible participants.
(B) Authorized activities.--A program carried out under
subparagraph (A) shall include 2 or more of the following
activities:
(i) To provide scholarships, stipends, bonuses, and other
financial incentives, that are linked to participation in
activities that have proven effective in retaining mental
health providers in high-need areas operated by Federal,
State and local health agencies, to all eligible
participants, in an amount that shall not be less than
$5,000, nor more than $20,000, per participant.
(ii) To carry out pre- and post-placement induction or
support activities that have proven effective in recruiting
and retaining mental health providers, such as--

(I) mentoring;
(II) providing internships;
(III) providing high-quality, preservice coursework; and
(IV) providing high-quality, sustained inservice
professional development.

(iii) To make payments to pay the costs associated with
accepting mental health providers under this section from
among eligible participants or to provide financial
incentives to prospective mental health providers who are
eligible participants.
(iv) To collaborate with institutions of higher education
in the development and implementation of programs to
facilitate mental health provider recruitment (including
credentialing and licensing) and mental health retention
programs.
(v) To carry out other programs, projects, and activities
that are designed and have proven to be effective in
recruiting and retaining mental health providers, and that
the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(vi) To develop long-term mental health provider
recruitment and retention strategies, including developing--

(I) a national, statewide or regionwide clearinghouse for
the recruitment and placement of mental health providers;
(II) reciprocity agreements between or among States for the
certification or licensing of mental health providers; or
(III) other long-term teacher recruitment and retention
strategies.

(C) Effective programs.--An entity shall use amounts
received under a grant under this subsection only for
programs that have proven to be effective in both recruiting
and retaining mental health providers (as determined by the
Secretary).
(8) Requirements.--
(A) Targeting.--An entity that receives a grant under this
subsection shall ensure that participants in the program
carried out under the grant who are recruited with funds made
available under the grant are placed in high-need areas
operated by high-need Federal, State, and local health
agencies. In placing such participants in mental health
facilities, such entity shall give priority to facilities
that are located in--
(i) rural under served areas; or
(ii) urban areas with high percentages of individuals who
are members of the Armed Forces or veterans.
(B) Supplement, not supplant.--Amounts made available under
this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant,
State and local public funds expended for mental health
provider recruitment and retention programs.
(C) Partnerships and consortia of local health agencies.--
In the case of a partnership established by a Federal, State,
or local health agency to carry out a program under this
section, or a consortium of such agencies established to
carry out such a program, the Federal, State, or local health
agency or consortium shall not be eligible to receive funds
through a State program under this section.
(9) Period of service.--A participant in a program under
this subsection who receives training through the program
shall serve at a high-need medical facility or an agency
operated by a high-need Federal, State, or local health
agency for a term of not less than 3 years.
(10) Repayment.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to
ensure that a participant in a program under this section who
receives a stipend or other financial incentive as provided
for in paragraph (7)(B)(i), but who fails to complete their
service obligation under paragraph (9), repays all or a
portion of such stipend or other incentive.
(11) Administrative funds.--An entity that receives a grant
under this subsection shall not use more than 5 percent of
the funds made available under the grant for the
administration of a program under this subsection.
(12) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary in each
fiscal year to carry out this subsection.
(d) Evaluation and Accountability for Recruiting and
Retaining Mental Health Providers.--
(1) Evaluation.--An entity that receives a grant under this
section shall--
(A) within 30 days of the end of the 3rd year of the grant
period, conduct an interim evaluation of the program funded
under the grant; and
(B) within 30 days of the end of the 5th year of the grant
period, conduct a final evaluation of the program funded
under the grant.
(2) Contents.--In conducting an evaluation under paragraph
(1), an entity shall describe the extent to which State and
local agencies that received funds through the grant have met
the goals relating to mental health provider recruitment and
retention described in the application submitted by the
entity under paragraph (4).
(3) Reports.--An entity that receives a grant under this
Act shall prepare and submit to the Secretary and the
appropriate committees of Congress, an interim and final
report that contains the results of the interim and final
evaluations carried out under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1), respectively.
(4) Revocation.--If the Secretary determines that the
recipient of a grant under this section has not made
substantial progress in meeting the goals and the objectives
of the grant by the end of the 3rd year of the grant period,
the Secretary shall--
(A) revoke any payments made for the 4th year of the grant
period; and
(B) not make any payment for the 5th year of the grant
period.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the past 7 years, hundreds of
thousands of members of our armed forces have gone to war and returned
home alive, but suffering. Advances in protective equipment and
improvements made in battlefield care mean that fewer troops than ever
before suffer from obvious physical wounds. But many more of these
service members have returned with less obvious injuries--invisible
injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury.
Our armed forces have seen a surge in diagnosed cases of post-
traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, commonly known as
PTSD and TBI. And soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves are much
more likely to suffer from PTSD and depression when they return from
battle, a fact that is very important in Oregon where almost all of our
servicemembers serve in the Guard and Reserves.
While no less real and no less serious than physical wounds of war,
PTSD and TBI require a specialized kind of diagnosis and treatment.
Unfortunately, only half of the soldiers and veterans who suffer from
PTSD or TBI are receiving care for their wounds, according to a RAND
Corporation study.
To help our service men and women suffering from PTSD, TBI and other
mental health conditions, we are introducing a bill today that's
designed to address some of the overwhelming difficulties faced by many
of our nation's warriors. This bill, the ``Healing Our Nation's Heroes
Act of 2008,'' has within it provisions to help improve mental health
care, and access to care, for service members who suffer from the
invisible wounds of war.
First, this legislation would create a standing commission to study
and oversee mental health treatment of our veterans. This commission
would make recommendations on methods to improve mental health care
and, just as importantly, overcome the cultural stigma attached to
seeking help for mental health disorders. As an ongoing body, this
commission will continue to help guide Congress and the agencies for
years, instead of just making recommendations and disappearing.
Secondly, the bill would create a ``Heroes-to-Healers Program'' which
would provide financial incentives for veterans and members of the
armed forces who are separating or retiring to obtain certification or
licensing as mental health providers. It also encourages them to seek
employment with organizations that provide mental health care to
members of the armed forces, veterans and their families.
One of the more heartbreaking truths surrounding PTSD is that service
members are often reluctant to seek help from mental health
professionals who don't share their experiences. This reluctance
creates the sort of self-isolation that leads to increased risk of
suicide.
By increasing the number of veterans working as mental health
providers, this bill will allow more

[[Page 17697]]

servicemembers and veterans to get treatment from those who truly
understand what combat is like.
Our bill would also create a grant program to help state and local
mental health agencies recruit and retain mental health professionals.
Some service members and veterans don't feel comfortable seeking mental
health care from the Department of Defense or VA. But mental health
agencies are already being stretched thin, especially in rural areas.
This legislation will provide help in recruiting and retaining the
mental health providers our wounded heroes so desperately need.
Surviving the trauma of combat shouldn't sentence our forces to a
lifetime of mental and emotional pain. They paid the price bravely for
serving our country in battle. This bill will help them move beyond the
invisible scars of the battlefield and rebuild their lives at home.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3375. A bill to prohibit the introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of novelty lighters, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I, along with my colleagues Senator
Collins from Maine and Senator Dodd from Connecticut, am introducing
the Protect Children From Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty
lighters. Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are
cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular
household items.
These lighters are dangerous and have terrible consequences. Because
they are so well disguised as toys, novelty lighters have children
literally playing with fire.
The results can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a
novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidentally started a
serious fire. One boy died and the other now has permanent brain
damage. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her
foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a
small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire.
Tragic accidents like these happen all over the country. In North
Carolina, a boy sustained second degree burns after playing with a
novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. One of the most
tragic incidents occurred in Arkansas, where a 2-year-old and a 15-
month-old child died in a fire they accidentally started playing with a
novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle.
These injuries and deaths demand we take action and remove these
dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere.
If we don't protect children from novelty lighters, we are condemning
them to play life-threatening Russian roulette every time they pick up
what they think is a toy.
A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance.
That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold,
or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. Passing
this bill is the only way we can guarantee that novelty lighters will
be kept out of the hands of children. It's our best tool to prevent
injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many
families.
A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to take
action to ban these deadly lighters. Maine and Tennessee passed novelty
lighter ban legislation and similar bans are being introduced in many
other states, including Oregon. We should expand and support these
efforts to protect children in all states.
A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread nationwide support.
Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire
Marshals supports a Federal ban on these lighters and has been active
in promoting public awareness on this issue. Even the cigarette lighter
industry, represented by the Lighter Association, supports a ban on
novelty lighters. We also have support from the Congressional Fire
Institute, Safe Kids USA, Consumer Federation of America and the
Consumer's Union.
The more people learn about novelty lighters, the more support there
is to ban them.
I urge my colleagues to act now and help kids across America avoid
the senseless deaths and serious injuries they suffer when they mistake
novelty lighters for toys.
Hazardous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in
packages that are particularly attractive to children. Kids need our
help to protect them from the treacherous ``wolf in sheep's clothing''
of novelty lighters.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Protect Children from
Dangerous Lighters Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objetion, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3375

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 ``Protect Children from
Dangerous Lighters Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Lighters are inherently dangerous products containing
flammable fuel.
(2) If lighters are used incorrectly or used by children,
dangerous and damaging consequences may result.
(3) Novelty lighters are easily mistaken by children and
adults as children's toys or as common household items.
(4) Novelty lighters have been the cause of many personal
injuries to children and adults and property damage
throughout the United States.

SEC. 3. NOVELTY LIGHTER DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``novelty lighter'' means a device
typically used for the igniting or lighting of cigarettes,
cigars, or pipes that has a toy-like appearance, has
entertaining audio or visual effects, or resembles in any way
in form or function an item that is commonly recognized as
appealing, attractive, or intended for use by children of 10
years of age or younger, including such a device that takes
toy-like physical forms, including toy animals, cartoon
characters, cars, boats, airplanes, common household items,
weapons, cell phones, batteries, food, beverages, musical
instruments, and watches.

SEC. 4. BAN ON NOVELTY LIGHTERS.

(a) Banned Hazardous Substance.--A novelty lighter shall be
treated as a banned hazardous substance as defined in section
2 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261)
and the prohibitions set out in section 4 of such Act (15
U.S.C. 1263) shall apply to novelty lighters.
(b) Application.--Subsection (a) applies to a novelty
lighter--
(1) manufactured on or after January 1, 1980; and
(2) that is not considered by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to be an antique or an item with significant
artistic value.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend Senator Wyden in
introducing a bill that will ban the sale of certain novelty lighters
that children can mistake for toys, often with tragic consequences for
themselves and their families.
In Arkansas last year, two boys, ages 15 months and 2 years, died
when the toddler accidentally started a fire with a lighter shaped like
a motorcycle. In Oregon, a fire started with a dolphin-shaped lighter
left one child dead and another brain-damaged. A North Carolina 6-year-
old boy was badly burned by a lighter shaped like a cell phone.
Sadly, the U.S. Fire Administration has other stories of the hazards
presented by novelty lighters. When you learn that one looks like a
rubber duck toy--and quacks--you can imagine the potential for harm.
As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud
to note that this spring, my home State of Maine became the first State
to outlaw the sale of novelty lighters.
My State's pioneering law stems from a tragic 2007 incident in a
Livermore, Maine, grocery store. While his mother was buying
sandwiches, six-year-old Shane St. Pierre picked up what appeared to be
a toy flashlight in the form of a baseball bat. When he flicked the
switch, a flame shot out and burned his face. Shane's dad, Norm St.
Pierre, a fire chief in nearby West

[[Page 17698]]

Paris, began advocating for the novelty-lighter ban that became Maine
law in March 2008.
The Maine State Fire Marshal's office supported that legislation, and
a national ban has the support of the Congressional Fire Services
Institute's National Advisory Committee, the National State Fire
Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council.
The bill is straightforward. It treats novelty lighters manufactured
after January 1, 1980, as banned hazardous substances unless the
Consumer Product Safety Commission determines a particular lighter has
antique or significant artistic value. Otherwise, sale of lighters with
toy-like appearance, special audio or visual features, or other
attributes that would appeal to children under 10 would be banned.
The novelty lighters targeted in this legislation serve no functional
need. But they are liable to attract the notice and curiosity of
children, whose play can too easily turn into a scene of horror and
death. The sale of lighters that look like animals, cartoon characters,
food, toys, or other objects is simply irresponsible and an invitation
to tragedy.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple
measure that can save children from disfigurement and death.
______

By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3377. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to waive the
biometric transportation security card requirement for certain small
business merchant mariners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Minnesota is the land of over 10,000
lakes and nearly as many fishing guides. We even have a Fishing Hall of
Fame in Baxter where many of our legendary guides are enshrined--names
like Al and Ron Lindner, Babe Winkleman, Gary Roach and many others. In
fact tonight there is a banquet honoring the Hall. The craft of the
fishing guide is to understand fish and to share their knowledge and
the sport with many of us who don't possess their skills.
When I travel my state I meet with folks from all walks of life who
have dealings with the federal government and last summer I was in the
city of Baudette, a small community on the Rainy River on the northern
border of Minnesota. I had the chance to speak with a fishing guide who
told me about a new federal regulation with which he had to comply. As
you can imagine, I was amazed when he told me that he was being
required to get a Transportation Worker Identification Credential--or
TWIC--in order to stay in business as a fishing guide. Now I understand
that folks who do business on the water should be able to exhibit
seamanship and operate a safe watercraft. But, my guides and I are
having a hard time understanding why a guy whose briefcase is a bucket
of minnows and his workday starts when he backs his boat into the lake
should be required to submit to the same security screening as
operators and workers in our major ports.
To address this issue, I am introducing the Small Marine Business and
Fishing Guide Relief Act. I want to thank Senator Collins and Senator
Lieberman for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation.
Our bill is very straightforward--it will exempt mariners from needing
a TWIC if they are not required to submit a vessel security plan for
their boat to the Coast Guard. This group of mariners includes fishing
guides, charter captains and other small recreational boaters.
I want to be clear these mariners will still be required to have a
Coast Guard license. Security should not be jeopardized by eliminating
the TWIC requirement because the Coast Guard conducts significant
background checks when mariners apply for a Coast Guard license. These
background checks review crimes against people, property, public
safety, the environment and examine whether the applicant has prior
drug offenses or committed a crime against national security.
These folks already pay a minimum of $140 for their Coast Guard
licenses which are good for five years. Given these factors, asking
these operators to pay over $100 more for another credential--
especially with the recent downturn in the economy and the cost of
gas--is an unnecessary burden that doesn't make sense.
Additionally, our legislation calls for a report to examine the
feasibility of identifying which small boat operators already purchased
a TWIC but will not need it once this legislation is signed into law.
Once this is done, refunds or credits could be issued towards license
renewals for these folks.
The TWIC program is an important tool to ensure the safety of our
nation's ports, but common sense tells us that a fishing dock on Lake
of the Woods or Rainy River is vastly different from the major ports
around the country that receive thousands of cargo containers per day.
Simply put, we need to make sure our local fishing guides and other
small marine operators are not being subjected to excessive government
regulation and this legislation will provide that relief.
A similar TWIC exemption passed the House on April 24 as part of the
Coast Guard Reauthorization Act and I encourage my Senate colleagues to
pass this legislation as well before we adjourn for the year.
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. 3377

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Small Marine Business and
Fishing Guide Relief Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF BIOMETRIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARD
REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS MERCHANT
MARINERS.

(a) In General.--Section 70105 (b)(2) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and serving under
the authority of such license, certificate of registry, or
merchant mariners document on a vessel for which the owner or
operator of such vessel is required to submit a vessel
security plan under section 70103(c) of this title'' before
the semicolon;
(2) by striking subparagraph (D); and
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to Congress a report that contains the
following:
(1) A list of the locations that provide service to
individuals seeking to obtain or renew a license, certificate
of registry, or merchant mariners document under part E of
subtitle II of title 46, United States Code.
(2) An assessment of the feasibility of accepting
applications for licenses, certificates of registry, and
merchant mariner documents described in paragraph (1) and any
applicant biometrics required therefor at the Transportation
Worker Identification Credential enrollment facilities or
mobile enrollment centers of the Department of Homeland
Security.
(3) An assessment of the administrative feasibility of
verifying that an individual has obtained a biometric
transportation security card issued under section 70105 of
title 46, United States Code, and is serving under the
authority of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant
mariners document described in paragraph (1) on a vessel for
which the owner or operator of such vessel is not required to
submit a vessel security plan under section 70103(e) of such
title to provide such individual a refund of any fees paid by
such individual to obtain such biometric transportation
security card.
(4) An assessment of the administrative feasibility of
verifying that an individual has obtained a biometric
transportation security card described in paragraph (3) and
is serving under the authority of a license, certificate of
registry, or merchant mariners document described in
paragraph (1) on a vessel described in paragraph (3) to
provide such individual a credit towards the renewal of such
license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariners
document that is equal to the amount of fees paid by such
individual for such biometric transportation security card.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act that Senator
Coleman is introducing today. This legislation will provide much-needed
relief to charter boat captains and other operators of small marine
businesses in

[[Page 17699]]

Maine by exempting them from having to obtain a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential, or TWIC, which costs $132.50 for each
employee.
Under current law, any individual who holds a Coast Guard license, as
most charter boat captains do, must also obtain a TWIC. The purpose of
the requirement was to ensure that port operators and the Coast Guard
could inspect a tamper-resistant identification document to verify the
identity of those who have access to secure areas of ports and large
vessels.
Charter boat captains, however, do not have secure areas on their
boats and usually do not need unescorted access to port facilities.
Therefore, they have no need for a TWIC. For these small businesses,
requiring them to obtain a TWIC essentially amounts to an unnecessary
and costly government regulation.
Many small businesses are struggling in these lean economic times,
particularly with high marine fuel prices and tourists who have less to
spend their discretionary income on charter tours in the Gulf of Maine.
With these businesses' declining profit margins, they cannot afford an
additional $132 identification card for their employees.
Even with this exemption, charter captains with a Coast Guard license
will have undergone an extensive background check for the same crimes
that are reviewed when an individual applies for a TWIC. So waiving the
TWIC requirement for them would not reduce the background information
available for review before these individuals are licensed as charter
captains.
To be sure, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential will
play a critical role in our Nation's maritime security by limiting
access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. It must ``be
implemented, however, in a manner that does not unnecessarily and
unproductively impede legitimate business operations.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 3381. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water
infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement
of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San
Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, during the previous session I introduced
legislation to address the funding of Indian water rights claims that
are of utmost importance in the west, and in particular, within the
State of New Mexico. Since that time many parties have met for
countless hours in New Mexico and here in Washington to address how
these claims could be resolved and finally settled. Rather than spend
countless hours in litigation, these groups have sat down and worked
through these issues in a very productive manner.
As a result, today I am pleased to come before you to introduce, on
behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman, the Aamodt and Taos Pueblo
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2008. This legislation will
resolve these long-standing Indian water rights claims within New
Mexico and authorize a source of Federal funding to resolve them.
The Aamodt litigation in New Mexico was filed in 1966 and is the
longest-standing litigation in the Federal judiciary system. The hard
work that each party put into the settlement process demonstrates that
negotiated settlements, with multiple parties working together, can
best determine how to allocate scarce water supplies among diverse
parties in a way that does not curtail existing uses. This bill will
result in additional economic development and improved health benefits
within these communities.
The resolution of these claims will not only improve the lives of
many within these communities by providing a safe and reliable water
supply, but will also improve the ability of New Mexico to effectively
undertake water rights planning in the near and long-term future.
As I have stated before, the costs of not settling these claims in
New Mexico are dire. The legislation before us will ensure that our
obligations to these communities are met and that they will have safe
and reliable water systems.
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. 3381

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Table of contents.

TITLE I--AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.

Subtitle A--Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System

Sec. 111. Authorization of Regional Water System.
Sec. 112. Operating Agreement.
Sec. 113. Acquisition of Pueblo water supply for the Regional Water
System.
Sec. 114. Delivery and allocation of Regional Water System capacity and
water.
Sec. 115. Aamodt Settlement Pueblos' Fund.
Sec. 116. Environmental compliance.
Sec. 117. Authorization of appropriations.

Subtitle B--Pojoaque Basin Indian Water Rights Settlement

Sec. 121. Settlement Agreement and contract approval.
Sec. 122. Environmental compliance.
Sec. 123. Conditions precedent and enforcement date.
Sec. 124. Waivers and releases.
Sec. 125. Effect.

TITLE II--TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Pueblo rights.
Sec. 205. Pueblo water infrastructure and watershed enhancement.
Sec. 206. Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund.
Sec. 207. Marketing.
Sec. 208. Mutual-benefit projects.
Sec. 209. San Juan-Chama Project contracts.
Sec. 210. Authorizations, ratifications, confirmations, and conditions
precedent.
Sec. 211. Waivers and releases.
Sec. 212. Interpretation and enforcement.
Sec. 213. Disclaimer.

TITLE I--AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Aamodt Litigation
Settlement Act''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Acre-feet.--The term ``acre-feet'' means acre-feet of
water per year.
(2) Aamodt case.--The term ``Aamodt Case'' means the civil
action entitled State of New Mexico, ex rel. State Engineer
and United States of America, Pueblo de Nambe, Pueblo de
Pojoaque, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, and Pueblo de Tesuque v.
R. Lee Aamodt, et al., No. 66 CV 6639 MV/LCS (D.N.M.).
(3) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Pojoaque
Basin Regional Water Authority described in section 9.5 of
the Settlement Agreement or an alternate entity acceptable to
the Pueblos and the County to operate and maintain the
diversion and treatment facilities, certain transmission
pipelines, and other facilities of the Regional Water System.
(4) Bishop's lodge extension.--The term ``Bishop's Lodge
Extension'' has the meaning given the term in the Engineering
Report.
(5) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Santa Fe,
New Mexico.
(6) Cost-sharing and system integration agreement.--The
term ``Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement'' means
the agreement executed by the United States, the State, the
Pueblos, the County, and the City that--
(A) describes the location, capacity, and management
(including the distribution of water to customers) of the
Regional Water System; and
(B) allocates the costs of the Regional Water System with
respect to--
(i) the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of
the Regional Water System;
(ii) rights-of-way for the Regional Water System; and
(iii) the acquisition of water rights.
(7) County.--The term ``County'' means Santa Fe County, New
Mexico.
(8) County distribution system.--The term ``County
Distribution System'' means the portion of the Regional Water
System that serves water customers on non-Pueblo land in the
Pojoaque Basin.
(9) County water utility.--The term ``County Water
Utility'' means the water utility organized by the County
to--
(A) receive water distributed by the Authority; and

[[Page 17700]]

(B) provide the water received under subparagraph (A) to
customers on non-Pueblo land in the Pojoaque Basin.
(10) Engineering report.--The term ``Engineering Report''
means the report entitled ``Pojoaque Regional Water System
Engineering Report'' and dated April 2007 and any amendments
thereto.
(11) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Aamodt Settlement
Pueblos' Fund established by section 115(a).
(12) Operating agreement.--The term ``Operating Agreement''
means the agreement between the Pueblos and the County
executed under section 112(a).
(13) Operations, maintenance, and replacement costs.--
(A) In general.--The term ``operations, maintenance, and
replacement costs'' means all costs for the operation of the
Regional Water System that are necessary for the safe,
efficient, and continued functioning of the Regional Water
System to produce the benefits described in the Settlement
Agreement.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``operations, maintenance, and
replacement costs'' does not include construction costs or
costs related to construction design and planning.
(14) Pojoaque basin.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Pojoaque Basin'' means the
geographic area limited by a surface water divide (which can
be drawn on a topographic map), within which area rainfall
and runoff flow into arroyos, drainages, and named
tributaries that eventually drain to--
(i) the Rio Pojoaque; or
(ii) the 2 unnamed arroyos immediately south; and
(iii) 2 arroyos (including the Arroyo Alamo) that are north
of the confluence of the Rio Pojoaque and the Rio Grande.
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``Pojoaque Basin'' includes the
San Ildefonso Eastern Reservation recognized by section 8 of
Public Law 87-231 (75 Stat. 505).
(15) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means each of the pueblos
of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, or Tesuque.
(16) Pueblos.--The term ``Pueblos'' means collectively the
Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque.
(17) Pueblo land.--The term ``Pueblo land'' means any real
property that is--
(A) held by the United States in trust for a Pueblo within
the Pojoaque Basin;
(B)(i) owned by a Pueblo within the Pojoaque Basin before
the date on which a court approves the Settlement Agreement;
or
(ii) acquired by a Pueblo on or after the date on which a
court approves the Settlement Agreement, if the real property
is located--
(I) within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo, as
recognized and conformed by a patent issued under the Act of
December 22, 1858 (11 Stat. 374, chapter V); or
(II) within the exterior boundaries of any territory set
aside for the Pueblo by law, executive order, or court
decree;
(C) owned by a Pueblo or held by the United States in trust
for the benefit of a Pueblo outside the Pojoaque Basin that
is located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo as
recognized and confirmed by a patent issued under the Act of
December 22, 1858 (11 Stat. 374, chapter V); or
(D) within the exterior boundaries of any real property
located outside the Pojoaque Basin set aside for a Pueblo by
law, executive order, or court decree, if the land is within
or contiguous to land held by the United States in trust for
the Pueblo as of January 1, 2005.
(18) Pueblo water facility.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Pueblo Water Facility'' means--
(i) a portion of the Regional Water System that serves only
water customers on Pueblo land; and
(ii) portions of a Pueblo water system in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act that serve water customers on
non-Pueblo land, also in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act, or their successors, that are--

(I) depicted in the final project design, as modified by
the drawings reflecting the completed Regional Water System;
and
(II) described in the Operating Agreement.

(B) Inclusions.--The term ``Pueblo Water Facility''
includes--
(i) the barrier dam and infiltration project on the Rio
Pojoaque described in the Engineering Report; and
(ii) the Tesuque Pueblo infiltration pond described in the
Engineering Report.
(19) Regional water system.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Regional Water System'' means
the Regional Water System described in section 111(a).
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``Regional Water System'' does
not include the County or Pueblo water supply delivered
through the Regional Water System.
(20) San juan-chama project.--The term ``San Juan-Chama
Project'' means the Project authorized by section 8 of the
Act of June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96, 97) and the Act of April
11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105).
(21) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(22) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the stipulated and binding agreement among
the State, the Pueblos, the United States, the County, and
the City dated January 19, 2006, and signed by all of the
government parties to the Settlement Agreement (other than
the United States) on May 3, 2006 and as amended in
conformity with this Act.
(23) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Mexico.

Subtitle A--Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System

SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, shall plan, design, and
construct a regional water system in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement, to be known as the ``Regional Water
System''--
(1) to divert and distribute water to the Pueblos and to
the County Water Utility, in accordance with the Engineering
Report; and
(2) that consists of--
(A) surface water diversion facilities at San Ildefonso
Pueblo on the Rio Grande; and
(B) any treatment, transmission, storage and distribution
facilities and wellfields for the County Distribution System
and Pueblo Water Facilities that are necessary to supply a
minimum of 4,000 acre-feet of water within the Pojoaque
Basin, in accordance with the Engineering Report.
(b) Final Project Design.--The Secretary shall issue a
final project design within 90 days of completion of the
environmental compliance described in section 116 for the
Regional Water System that--
(1) is consistent with the Engineering Report; and
(2) includes a description of any Pueblo Water Facilities.
(c) Acquisition of Land; Water Rights.--
(1) Acquisition of land.--Upon request, and in exchange for
the funding which shall be provided in section 117(c), the
Pueblos shall consent to the grant of such easements and
rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of the
Regional Water System at no cost to the Secretary. To the
extent that the State or County own easements or rights-of-
way that may be used for construction of the Regional Water
System, the State or County shall provide that land or
interest in land as necessary for construction at no cost to
the Secretary. The Secretary shall acquire any other land or
interest in land that is necessary for the construction of
the Regional Water System with the exception of the Bishop's
Lodge Extension.
(2) Water rights.--The Secretary shall not condemn water
rights for purposes of the Regional Water System.
(d) Conditions for Construction.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not begin construction
of the Regional Water System facilities until the date on
which--
(A) the Secretary executes--
(i) the Settlement Agreement; and
(ii) the Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement; and
(B) the State and the County have entered into an agreement
with the Secretary to contribute the non-Federal share of the
costs of the construction in accordance with the Cost-Sharing
and System Integration Agreement.
(e) Applicable Law.--The Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) shall not
apply to the design and construction of the Regional Water
System.
(f) Construction Costs.--
(1) Pueblo water facilities.--The costs of constructing the
Pueblo Water Facilities, as determined by the final project
design and the Engineering Report--
(A) shall be at full Federal expense subject to the amount
authorized in section 117(a)(1); and
(B) shall be nonreimbursable to the United States.
(2) County distribution system.--The costs of constructing
the County Distribution System shall be at State and local
expense.
(g) State and Local Capital Obligations.--The State and
local capital obligations for the Regional Water System
described in the Cost-Sharing and System Integration
Agreement shall be satisfied on the payment of the State and
local capital obligations described in the Cost-Sharing and
System Integration Agreement.
(h) Conveyance of Regional Water System Facilities.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on completion of
the construction of the Regional Water System (other than the
Bishop's Lodge Extension if construction of the Bishop's
Lodge Extension is deferred pursuant to the Cost-Sharing and
System Integration Agreement), the Secretary, in accordance
with the Operating Agreement, shall convey to--
(A) each Pueblo the portion of any Pueblo Water Facility
that is located within the boundaries of the Pueblo,
including any land or interest in land located within the
boundaries of the Pueblo that is acquired by the United
States for the construction of the Pueblo Water Facility;
(B) the County the County Distribution System, including
any land or interest in land acquired by the United States
for the construction of the County Distribution System; and

[[Page 17701]]

(C) the Authority any portions of the Regional Water System
that remain after making the conveyances under subparagraphs
(A) and (B), including any land or interest in land acquired
by the United States for the construction of the portions of
the Regional Water System.
(2) Conditions for conveyance.--The Secretary shall not
convey any portion of the Regional Water System facilities
under paragraph (1) until the date on which--
(A) construction of the Regional Water System (other than
the Bishop's Lodge Extension if construction of the Bishop's
Lodge Extension is deferred pursuant to the Cost-Sharing and
System Integration Agreement) is complete; and
(B) the Operating Agreement is executed in accordance with
section 112.
(3) Subsequent conveyance.--On conveyance by the Secretary
under paragraph (1), the Pueblos, the County, and the
Authority shall not reconvey any portion of the Regional
Water System conveyed to the Pueblos, the County, and the
Authority, respectively, unless the reconveyance is
authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(4) Interest of the united states.--On conveyance of a
portion of the Regional Water System under paragraph (1), the
United States shall have no further right, title, or interest
in and to the portion of the Regional Water System conveyed.
(5) Additional construction.--On conveyance of a portion of
the Regional Water System under paragraph (1), the Pueblos,
County, or the Authority, as applicable, may, at the expense
of the Pueblos, County, or the Authority, construct any
additional infrastructure that is necessary to fully use the
water delivered by the Regional Water System.
(6) Liability.--
(A) In general.--Effective on the date of conveyance of any
land or facility under this section, the United States shall
not be held liable by any court for damages of any kind
arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to
the land and facilities conveyed, other than damages caused
by acts of negligence by the United States, or by employees
or agents of the United States, prior to the date of
conveyance.
(B) Tort claims.--Nothing in this section increases the
liability of the United States beyond the liability provided
in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Federal Tort Claims Act'').
(7) Effect.--Nothing in any transfer of ownership provided
or any conveyance thereto as provided in this section shall
extinguish the right of any Pueblo, the County, or the
Regional Water Authority to the continuous use and benefit of
each easement or right of way for the use, operation,
maintenance, repair, and replacement of Pueblo Water
Facilities, the County Distribution System or the Regional
Water System or for wastewater purposes as provided in the
Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement.

SEC. 112. OPERATING AGREEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Pueblos and the County shall submit to
the Secretary an executed Operating Agreement for the
Regional Water System that is consistent with this Act, the
Settlement Agreement, and the Cost-Sharing and System
Integration Agreement not later than 180 days after the later
of--
(1) the date of completion of environmental compliance and
permitting; or
(2) the date of issuance of a final project design for the
Regional Water System under section 111(b).
(b) Approval.--Not later than 180 days after receipt of the
operating agreement described in subsection (a), the
Secretary shall approve the Operating Agreement upon
determination that the Operating Agreement is consistent with
this Act, the Settlement Agreement, and the Cost-Sharing and
System Integration Agreement.
(c) Contents.--The Operating Agreement shall include--
(1) provisions consistent with the Settlement Agreement and
the Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement and
necessary to implement the intended benefits of the Regional
Water System described in those documents;
(2) provisions for--
(A) the distribution of water conveyed through the Regional
Water System, including a delineation of--
(i) distribution lines for the County Distribution System;
(ii) distribution lines for the Pueblo Water Facilities;
and
(iii) distribution lines that serve both--

(I) the County Distribution System; and
(II) the Pueblo Water Facilities;

(B) the allocation of the Regional Water System capacity;
(C) the terms of use of unused water capacity in the
Regional Water System;
(D) the construction of additional infrastructure and the
acquisition of associated rights-of-way or easements
necessary to enable any of the Pueblos or the County to fully
use water allocated to the Pueblos or the County from the
Regional Water System, including provisions addressing when
the construction of such additional infrastructure requires
approval by the Authority;
(E) the allocation and payment of annual operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs for the Regional Water
System, including the portions of the Regional Water System
that are used to treat, transmit, and distribute water to
both the Pueblo Water Facilities and the County Water
Utility;
(F) the operation of wellfields located on Pueblo land;
(G) the transfer of any water rights necessary to provide
the Pueblo water supply described in section 113(a);
(H) the operation of the Regional Water System with respect
to the water supply, including the allocation of the water
supply in accordance with section 3.1.8.4.2 of the Settlement
Agreement so that, in the event of a shortage of supply to
the Regional Water System, the supply to each of the Pueblos'
and to the County's distribution system shall be reduced on a
prorata basis, in proportion to each distribution system's
most current annual use; and
(I) dispute resolution; and
(3) provisions for operating and maintaining the Regional
Water System facilities before and after conveyance under
section 111(h), including provisions to--
(A) ensure that--
(i) the operation of, and the diversion and conveyance of
water by, the Regional Water System is in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement;
(ii) the wells in the Regional Water System are used in
conjunction with the surface water supply of the Regional
Water System to ensure a reliable firm supply of water to all
users of the Regional Water System, consistent with the
intent of the Settlement Agreement that surface supplies will
be used to the maximum extent feasible;
(iii) the respective obligations regarding delivery,
payment, operation, and management are enforceable; and
(iv) the County has the right to serve any new water users
located on non-Pueblo land in the Pojoaque Basin; and
(B) allow for any aquifer storage and recovery projects
that are approved by the Office of the New Mexico State
Engineer.
(d) Effect.--Nothing in this title precludes the Operating
Agreement from authorizing phased or interim operations if
the Regional Water System is constructed in phases.

SEC. 113. ACQUISITION OF PUEBLO WATER SUPPLY FOR THE REGIONAL
WATER SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--For the purpose of providing a reliable
firm supply of water from the Regional Water System for the
Pueblos in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the
Secretary, on behalf of the Pueblos, shall--
(1) acquire water rights to--
(A) 302 acre-feet of Nambe reserved water described in
section 2.6.2 of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to section
117(c)(1)(C); and
(B) 1141 acre-feet from water acquired by the County for
water rights commonly referred to as ``Top of the World''
rights in the Aamodt case;
(2) make available 1079 acre-feet to the Pueblos pursuant
to a contract entered into among the Pueblos and the
Secretary in accordance with section 11 of the Act of June
13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96, 97) (San Juan-Chama Project Act) under
water rights held by the Secretary; and
(3) by application to the State Engineer, obtain approval
to divert the water acquired and made available under
paragraphs (1) and (2) at the points of diversion for the
Regional Water System, consistent with the Settlement
Agreement and the Cost-Sharing and System Integration
Agreement.
(b) Forfeiture.--The nonuse of the water supply secured by
the Secretary for the Pueblos under subsection (a) shall in
no event result in forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment,
or other loss thereof.
(c) Trust.--The Pueblo water supply secured under
subsection (a) shall be held by the United States in trust
for the Pueblos.
(d) Contract for San Juan-Chama Project Water Supply.--With
respect to the contract for the water supply required by
subsection (a)(2), such San Juan-Chama Project contract shall
be pursuant to the following terms:
(1) Waivers.--Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of
June 13, 1962 (76 Stat, 96, 97) or any other provision of
law--
(A) the Secretary shall waive the entirety of the Pueblos'
share of the construction costs for the San Juan-Chama
Project, and pursuant to that waiver, the Pueblos' share of
all construction costs for the San Juan-Chama Project,
inclusive of both principal and interest, due from 1972 to
the execution of the contract required by subsection (a)(2),
shall be nonreimbursable;
(B) the Secretary's waiver of each Pueblo's share of the
construction costs for the San Juan-Chama Project will not
result in an increase in the pro rata shares of other San
Juan-Chama Project water contractors, but such costs shall be
absorbed by the United States Treasury or otherwise
appropriated to the Department of the Interior; and
(C) the costs associated with any water made available from
the San Juan-Chama Project which were determined
nonreimbursable and nonreturnable pursuant to Pub. L. No. 88-
293, 78 Stat. 171 (March 26, 1964) shall remain
nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.
(2) Termination.--The contract shall provide that it shall
terminate only upon the following conditions--

[[Page 17702]]

(A) failure of the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico to enter a final decree for the Aamodt
case by December 15, 2012 or within the time period of any
extension of that deadline granted by the court; or
(B) entry of an order by the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico voiding the final decree and
Settlement Agreement for the Aamodt case pursuant to section
10.3 of the Settlement Agreement.
(e) Limitation.--The Secretary shall use the water supply
secured under subsection (a) only for the purposes described
in the Settlement Agreement.
(f) Fulfillment of Water Supply Acquisition Obligations.--
Compliance with subsections (a) through (e) shall satisfy any
and all obligations of the Secretary to acquire or secure a
water supply for the Pueblos pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.
(g) Rights of Pueblos in Settlement Agreement Unaffected.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) through
(f), the Pueblos, the County or the Regional Water Authority
may acquire any additional water rights to ensure all parties
to the Settlement Agreement receive the full allocation of
water provided by the Settlement Agreement and nothing in
this Act amends or modifies the quantities of water allocated
to the Pueblos thereunder.

SEC. 114. DELIVERY AND ALLOCATION OF REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
CAPACITY AND WATER.

(a) Allocation of Regional Water System Capacity.--
(1) In general.--The Regional Water System shall have the
capacity to divert from the Rio Grande a quantity of water
sufficient to provide--
(A) 4,000 acre-feet of consumptive use of water; and
(B) the requisite peaking capacity described in--
(i) the Engineering Report; and
(ii) the final project design.
(2) Allocation to the pueblos and county water utility.--Of
the capacity described in paragraph (1)--
(A) there shall be allocated to the Pueblos--
(i) sufficient capacity for the conveyance of 2,500 acre-
feet consumptive use; and
(ii) the requisite peaking capacity for the quantity of
water described in clause (i); and
(B) there shall be allocated to the County Water Utility--
(i) sufficient capacity for the conveyance of 1,500 acre-
feet consumptive use; and
(ii) the requisite peaking capacity for the quantity of
water described in clause (i).
(3) Applicable law.--Water shall be allocated to the
Pueblos and the County Water Utility under this subsection in
accordance with--
(A) this title;
(B) the Settlement Agreement; and
(C) the Operating Agreement.
(b) Delivery of Regional Water System Water.--The Authority
shall deliver water from the Regional Water System--
(1) to the Pueblos water in a quantity sufficient to allow
full consumptive use of up to 2,500 acre-feet rights by the
Pueblos in accordance with--
(A) the Settlement Agreement;
(B) the Operating Agreement; and
(C) this Title; and
(2) to the County water in a quantity sufficient to allow
full consumptive use of up to 1,500 acre-feet per year of
water rights by the County Water Utility in accordance with--
(A) the Settlement Agreement;
(B) the Operating Agreement; and
(C) this title.
(c) Additional Use of Allocation Quantity and Unused
Capacity.--The Regional Water System may be used to--
(1) provide for use of return flow credits to allow for
full consumptive use of the water allocated in the Settlement
Agreement to each of the Pueblos and to the County; and
(2) convey water allocated to one of the Pueblos or the
County Water Utility for the benefit of another Pueblo or the
County Water Utility or allow use of unused capacity by each
other through the Regional Water System in accordance with an
intergovernmental agreement between the Pueblos, or between a
Pueblo and County Water Utility, as applicable, if--
(A) such intergovernmental agreements are consistent with
the Operating Agreement, the Settlement Agreement and this
Act;
(B) capacity is available without reducing water delivery
to any Pueblo or the County Water Utility in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement, unless the County Water Utility or
Pueblo contracts for a reduction in water delivery or
Regional Water System capacity;
(C) the Pueblo or County Water Utility contracting for use
of the unused capacity or water has the right to use the
water under applicable law; and
(D) any agreement for the use of unused capacity or water
provides for payment of the operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs associated with the use of capacity or
water.

SEC. 115. AAMODT SETTLEMENT PUEBLOS' FUND.

(a) Establishment of the Aamodt Settlement Pueblos' Fund.--
There is established in the Treasury of the United States a
fund, to be known as the ``Aamodt Settlement Pueblos' Fund,''
consisting of--
(1) such amounts as are made available to the Fund under
section 117(c); and
(2) any interest earned from investment of amounts in the
Fund under subsection (b).
(b) Management of the Fund.--The Secretary shall manage the
Fund, invest amounts in the Fund, and make amounts available
from the Fund for distribution to the Pueblos in accordance
with--
(1) the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.); and
(2) this title.
(c) Investment of the Fund.--The Secretary shall invest
amounts in the Fund in accordance with--
(1) the Act of April 1, 1880 (25 U.S.C. 161);
(2) the first section of the Act of June 24, 1938 (25
U.S.C. 162a); and
(3) the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
(d) Tribal Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--A Pueblo may withdraw all or part of the
Pueblo's portion of the Fund on approval by the Secretary of
a tribal management plan as described in the American Indian
Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.).
(2) Requirements.--In addition to the requirements under
the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the tribal management plan shall
require that a Pueblo spend any amounts withdrawn from the
Fund in accordance with the purposes described in section
117(c).
(3) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take judicial or
administrative action to enforce the provisions of any tribal
management plan to ensure that any amounts withdrawn from the
Fund under an approved tribal management plan are used in
accordance with this title.
(4) Liability.--If a Pueblo or the Pueblos exercise the
right to withdraw amounts from the Fund, neither the
Secretary nor the Secretary of the Treasury shall retain any
liability for the expenditure or investment of the amounts
withdrawn.
(5) Expenditure plan.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblos shall submit to the Secretary
for approval an expenditure plan for any portion of the
amounts in the Fund that the Pueblos do not withdraw under
this subsection.
(B) Description.--The expenditure plan shall describe the
manner in which, and the purposes for which, amounts
remaining in the Fund will be used.
(C) Approval.--On receipt of an expenditure plan under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall approve the plan if the
Secretary determines that the plan is reasonable and
consistent with this title, the Settlement Agreement, and the
Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement.
(D) Annual report.--The Pueblos shall submit to the
Secretary an annual report that describes all expenditures
from the Fund during the year covered by the report.
(6) No per capita payments.--No part of the principal of
the Fund, or the interest or income accruing on the principal
shall be distributed to any member of a Pueblo on a per
capita basis.
(7) Availability of amounts from the fund.--
(A) Approval of settlement agreement.--Amounts made
available under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section
117(c)(1) shall be available for expenditure or withdrawal
only after the date on which the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico issues an order approving the
Settlement Agreement.
(B) Completion of certain portions of regional water
system.--Amounts made available under section 117(c)(1)(B)
shall be available for expenditure or withdrawal only after
those portions of the Regional Water System described in
section 1.5.24 of the Settlement Agreement have been declared
substantially complete by the Secretary.
(C) Failure to fulfill conditions precedent.--If the
conditions precedent in section 123 have not been fulfilled
by June 30, 2016, the United States shall be entitled to set
off any funds expended or withdrawn from the amounts
appropriated pursuant to section 117(c), together with any
interest accrued, against any claims asserted by the Pueblos
against the United States relating to the water rights in the
Pojoaque Basin.

SEC. 116. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.

(a) In General.--In carrying out this subtitle, the
Secretary shall comply with each law of the Federal
Government relating to the protection of the environment,
including--
(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
(b) National Environmental Policy Act.--Nothing in this
title affects the outcome of any analysis conducted by the
Secretary or any other Federal official under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

SEC. 117. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Regional Water System.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (4), there is
authorized to be appropriated to the

[[Page 17703]]

Secretary for the planning, design, and construction of the
Regional Water System and the conduct of environmental
compliance activities under section 116 a total of
$106,400,000 between fiscal years 2009 and 2021.
(2) Priority of funding.--Of the amounts authorized under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to funding--
(A) the construction of the San Ildefonso portion of the
Regional Water System, consisting of--
(i) the surface water diversion, treatment, and
transmission facilities at San Ildefonso Pueblo; and
(ii) the San Ildefonso Pueblo portion of the Pueblo Water
Facilities; and
(B) that part of the Regional Water System providing 475
acre-feet to Pojoaque Pueblo pursuant to section 2.2 of the
Settlement Agreement.
(3) Adjustment.--The amount authorized under paragraph (1)
shall be adjusted annually to account for increases in
construction costs since October 1, 2006, as determined using
applicable engineering cost indices.
(4) Limitations.--
(A) In general.--No amounts shall be made available under
paragraph (1) for the construction of the Regional Water
System until the date on which the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico issues an order
approving the Settlement Agreement.
(B) Record of decision.--No amounts made available under
paragraph (1) shall be expended unless the record of decision
issued by the Secretary after completion of an environmental
impact statement provides for a preferred alternative that is
in substantial compliance with the proposed Regional Water
System, as defined in the Engineering Report.
(b) Acquisition of Water Rights.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary funds for the acquisition of
the water rights under section 113(a)(1)(B)--
(1) in the amount of $5,400,000.00 if such acquisition is
completed by December 31, 2009; and
(2) the amount authorized under paragraph (b)(1) shall be
adjusted according to the CPI Urban Index commencing January
1, 2010.
(c) Aamodt Settlement Pueblos' Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Fund the following amounts for the period of fiscal years
2009 through 2021:
(A) $8,000,000, which shall be allocated to the Pueblos, in
accordance with section 2.7.1 of the Settlement Agreement,
for the rehabilitation, improvement, operation, maintenance,
and replacement of the agricultural delivery facilities,
waste water systems, and other water-related infrastructure
of the applicable Pueblo. The amount authorized herein shall
be adjusted according to the CPI Urban Index commencing
October 1, 2006.
(B) $37,500,000, which shall be allocated to an account, to
be established not later than January 1, 2016, to assist the
Pueblos in paying the Pueblos' share of the cost of
operating, maintaining, and replacing the Pueblo Water
Facilities and the Regional Water System.
(C) $5,000,000 and any interest thereon, which shall be
allocated to the Pueblo of Nambe for the acquisition of the
Nambe reserved water rights in accordance with section
113(a)(1)(A). The amount authorized herein shall be adjusted
according to the CPI Urban Index commencing January 1, 2011.
The funds provided under this section may be used by the
Pueblo of Nambe only for the acquisition of land, other real
property interests, or economic development.
(2) Operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.--
(A) In general.--Prior to conveyance of the Regional Water
System pursuant to section 111, the Secretary shall pay any
operation, maintenance or replacement costs associated with
the Pueblo Water Facilities or the Regional Water System up
to an amount that does not exceed $5,000,000, which is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary.
(B) Obligation of the federal government after
completion.--Except as provided in section 113(a)(4)(B),
after construction of the Regional Water System is completed
and the amounts required to be deposited in the account have
been deposited under this section the Federal Government
shall have no obligation to pay for the operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs of the Regional Water
System.

Subtitle B--Pojoaque Basin Indian Water Rights Settlement

SEC. 121. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT APPROVAL.

(a) Approval.--To the extent the Settlement Agreement and
the Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement do not
conflict with this title, the Settlement Agreement and the
Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement (including any
amendments to the Settlement Agreement and the Cost-Sharing
and System Integration Agreement that are executed to make
the Settlement Agreement or the Cost-Sharing and System
Integration Agreement consistent with this title) are
authorized, ratified, and confirmed.
(b) Execution.--To the extent the Settlement Agreement and
the Cost-Sharing and System Integration Agreement do not
conflict with this title, the Secretary shall execute the
Settlement Agreement and the Cost-Sharing and System
Integration Agreement (including any amendments that are
necessary to make the Settlement Agreement or the Cost-
Sharing and System Integration Agreement consistent with this
title).
(c) Authorities of the Pueblos.--
(1) In general.--Each of the Pueblos may enter into
contracts to lease or exchange water rights or to forbear
undertaking new or expanded water uses for water rights
recognized in section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement for use
within the Pojoaque Basin in accordance with the other
limitations of section 2.1.5 of the Settlement Agreement
provided that section 2.1.5 is amended accordingly.
(2) Execution.--The Secretary shall not execute the
Settlement Agreement until such amendment is accomplished
under paragraph (1).
(3) Approval by secretary.--Consistent with the Settlement
Agreement as amended under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
approve or disapprove a lease entered into under paragraph
(1).
(4) Prohibition on permanent alienation.--No lease or
contract under paragraph (1) shall be for a term exceeding 99
years, nor shall any such lease or contract provide for
permanent alienation of any portion of the water rights made
available to the Pueblos under the Settlement Agreement.
(5) Applicable law.--Section 2116 of the Revised Statutes
(25 U.S.C. 177) shall not apply to any lease or contract
entered into under paragraph (1).
(6) Leasing or marketing of water supply.--The water supply
provided on behalf of the Pueblos pursuant to section
113(a)(1) may only be leased or marketed by any of the
Pueblos pursuant to the intergovernmental agreements
described in section 114(c)(2).
(d) Amendments to Contracts.--The Secretary shall amend the
contracts relating to the Nambe Falls Dam and Reservoir that
are necessary to use water supplied from the Nambe Falls Dam
and Reservoir in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

SEC. 122. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.

(a) Effect of Execution of Settlement Agreement.--The
execution of the Settlement Agreement under section 121(b)
shall not constitute a major Federal action under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(b) Compliance With Environmental Laws.--In carrying out
this subtitle, the Secretary shall comply with each law of
the Federal Government relating to the protection of the
environment, including--
(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).

SEC. 123. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND ENFORCEMENT DATE.

(a) Conditions Precedent.--
(1) In general.--Upon the fulfillment of the conditions
precedent described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register a statement of finding that
the conditions have been fulfilled.
(2) Requirements.--The conditions precedents referred to in
paragraph (1) are the conditions that--
(A) to the extent that the Settlement Agreement conflicts
with this title, the Settlement Agreement has been revised to
conform with this title;
(B) the Settlement Agreement, so revised, including waivers
and releases pursuant to section 124, has been executed by
the appropriate parties and the Secretary;
(C) Congress has fully appropriated, or the Secretary has
provided from other authorized sources, all funds authorized
by section 117, with the exception of subsection (a)(1) of
that section, by June 30, 2016;
(D) the State of New Mexico has enacted any necessary
legislation and provided any funding that may be required
under the Settlement Agreement;
(E) a partial final decree that sets forth the water rights
and other rights to water to which the Pueblos are entitled
under the Settlement Agreement and this title and that
substantially conforms to the Settlement Agreement has been
approved by the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico; and
(F) a final decree that sets forth the water rights for all
parties to the Aamodt Case and that substantially conforms to
the Settlement Agreement has been approved by the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico by
December 15, 2012, or within the time period of any extension
of that deadline granted by that court.
(b) Enforcement Date.--The Settlement Agreement shall
become enforceable as of the date that the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico enters a
partial final decree pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(E) and an
Interim Administrative Order consistent with the Settlement
Agreement. The waivers and releases executed pursuant to
section 124 shall become effective as of the date that the
conditions precedent described in subsection (a)(2) have been
fulfilled.
(c) Expiration.--If the parties to the Settlement Agreement
entitled to provide notice regarding the lack of substantial
completion of the Regional Water System provide such notice
in accordance with section

[[Page 17704]]

10.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement
shall no longer be effective, the waivers and releases
executed pursuant to section 124 shall no longer be
effective, and any unexpended Federal funds, together with
any income earned thereon, and title to any property acquired
or constructed with expended Federal funds, shall be returned
to the Federal Government unless otherwise agreed to by the
appropriate parties in writing and approved by Congress.

SEC. 124. WAIVERS AND RELEASES.

(a) Claims by the Pueblo and the United States.--The
Pueblos, on behalf of themselves and their members, and the
United States, acting in its capacity as trustee for the
Pueblos, as part of their obligations under the Settlement
Agreement, shall each execute a waiver and release of--
(1) all past, present, and future claims to surface and
groundwater rights that the Pueblos, or the United States on
behalf of the Pueblos, asserted or could have asserted in the
Aamodt Case;
(2) all past, present, and future claims for damages,
losses or injuries to water rights or claims of interference,
diversion or taking of water for lands within the Pojoaque
Basin that accrued at any time up to and including the
enforcement date identified in section 123(b), that the
Pueblos or their members, or the United States on behalf of
the Pueblos, asserted or could have asserted against the
parties to the Aamodt Case;
(3) their defenses in the Aamodt Case to the claims
previously asserted therein by the other Settlement Parties;
and
(4) all pending inter se challenges against other parties
to the Settlement Agreement.
(b) Claims by the Pueblos.--The Pueblos, on behalf of
themselves and their members, as part of their obligations
under the Settlement Agreement, shall execute a waiver and
release of--
(1) all causes of action against the United States, its
agencies, or employees, arising out of all past, present, and
future claims for water rights that were asserted, or could
have been asserted, by the United States as trustee for the
Pueblos and on behalf of the Pueblos in the Aamodt case;
(2) all claims for damages, losses or injuries to water
rights or claims of interference, diversion or taking of
water for lands within the Pojoaque Basin that accrued at any
time up to and including the enforcement date identified in
section 123(b), that the Pueblos or their members may have
against the United States, its agencies, or employees; and
(3) all claims arising out of or resulting from the
negotiation or the adoption of the Settlement Agreement,
exhibits thereto, the Final Decree, or this title, that the
Pueblos of their members may have against the United States,
its agencies, agents or employees.
(c) Reservation of Rights and Retention of Claims.--
Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), and except as
otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement, the Pueblos
and the United States shall retain--
(1) all claims for water rights or injuries to water rights
arising out of activities occurring outside the Pojoaque
Basin except insofar as such claims are specifically
addressed in the Cost-Sharing and System Integration
Agreement;
(2) all claims for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement,
the Final Decree, or this title, through such legal and
equitable remedies as may be available in any court of
competent jurisdiction;
(3) all rights to use and protect water rights acquired
pursuant to state law to the extent not inconsistent with the
Final Decree and the Settlement Agreement;
(4) all claims relating to activities affecting the quality
of water; and
(5) all rights, remedies, privileges, immunities, powers,
and claims not specifically waived and released pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement or this title.
(d) Tolling of Claims.--
(1) In general.--Each applicable period of limitation and
time-based equitable defense relating to a claim described in
this section shall be tolled for the period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act and ending on the Enforcement
Date.
(2) No revival of claims.--Nothing in this subsection
revives any claim or tolls any period of limitation or time-
based equitable defense that expired before the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 125. EFFECT.

Nothing in this title or the Settlement Agreement affects
the land and water rights, claims, or entitlements to water
of any Indian tribe, pueblo, or community other than the
Pueblos.

TITLE II--TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Taos Pueblo Indian Water
Rights Settlement Act''.

SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to approve, ratify, and confirm the Taos Pueblo Indian
Water Rights Settlement Agreement;
(2) to authorize and direct the Secretary to execute the
Settlement Agreement and to perform all obligations of the
Secretary under the Settlement Agreement and this title; and
(3) to authorize all actions and appropriations necessary
for the United States to meet its obligations under the
Settlement Agreement and this title.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Eligible non-pueblo entities.--The term ``Eligible Non-
Pueblo Entities'' means the Town of Taos, EPWSD, and the New
Mexico Department of Finance and Administration Local
Government Division on behalf of the Acequia Madre del Rio
Lucero y del Arroyo Seco, the Acequia Madre del Prado, the
Acequia del Monte, the Acequia Madre del Rio Chiquito, the
Upper Ranchitos Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association,
the Upper Arroyo Hondo Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association, and the Llano Quemado Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association.
(2) Enforcement date.--The term ``Enforcement Date'' means
the date upon which all conditions precedent set forth in
section 210(f)(2) have been fulfilled.
(3) Mutual-benefit projects.--The term ``Mutual-Benefit
Projects'' means the projects described and identified in
Articles 6 and 10.1 of the Settlement Agreement.
(4) Partial final decree.--The term ``Partial Final
Decree'' means the Decree entered in New Mexico v. Abeyta and
New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) and
7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M) (consolidated), for the resolution of
the Pueblo's water right claims and which is substantially in
the form agreed to by the Parties and attached to the
Settlement Agreement as Attachment 5.
(5) Parties.--The term ``Parties'' means the Parties to the
Settlement Agreement, as identified in Article 1 of the
Settlement Agreement.
(6) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Taos Pueblo, a
sovereign Indian Tribe duly recognized by the United States
of America.
(7) Pueblo lands.--The term ``Pueblo lands'' means those
lands located within the Taos Valley to which the Pueblo, or
the United States in its capacity as trustee for the Pueblo,
holds title subject to Federal law limitations on alienation.
Such lands include Tracts A, B, and C, the Pueblo's land
grant, the Blue Lake Wilderness Area, and the Tenorio and
Karavas Tracts and are generally depicted in Attachment 2 to
the Settlement Agreement.
(8) San juan-chama project.--The term ``San Juan-Chama
Project'' means the Project authorized by section 8 of the
Act of June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96, 97), and the Act of April
11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105).
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(10) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement
Agreement'' means the contract dated March 31, 2006, between
and among--
(A) the United States, acting solely in its capacity as
trustee for Taos Pueblo;
(B) the Taos Pueblo, on its own behalf;
(C) the State of New Mexico;
(D) the Taos Valley Acequia Association and its 55 member
ditches (``TVAA'');
(E) the Town of Taos;
(F) El Prado Water and Sanitation District (``EPWSD''); and
(G) the 12 Taos area Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Associations (``MDWCAs''),
as amended to conform with this title.
(11) State engineer.--The term ``State Engineer'' means the
New Mexico State Engineer.
(12) Taos valley.--The term ``Taos Valley'' means the
geographic area depicted in Attachment 4 of the Settlement
Agreement.

SEC. 204. PUEBLO RIGHTS.

(a) In General.--Those rights to which the Pueblo is
entitled under the Partial Final Decree shall be held in
trust by the United States on behalf of the Pueblo and shall
not be subject to forfeiture, abandonment or permanent
alienation.
(b) Subsequent Act of Congress.--The Pueblo shall not be
denied all or any part of its rights held in trust absent its
consent unless such rights are explicitly abrogated by an Act
of Congress hereafter enacted.

SEC. 205. PUEBLO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHED
ENHANCEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide grants and
technical assistance to the Pueblo on a nonreimbursable basis
to--
(1) plan, permit, design, engineer, construct, reconstruct,
replace, or rehabilitate water production, treatment, and
delivery infrastructure;
(2) restore, preserve, and protect the environment
associated with the Buffalo Pasture area; and
(3) protect and enhance watershed conditions.
(b) Availability of Grants.--Upon the Enforcement Date, all
amounts appropriated pursuant to section 210(c)(1) shall be
available in grants to the Pueblo after the requirements of
subsection (c) have been met.
(c) Plan.--The Secretary shall provide financial assistance
pursuant to subsection (a) upon the Pueblo's submittal of a
plan that identifies the projects to be implemented
consistent with the purposes of this section and describes
how such projects are consistent with the Settlement
Agreement.

[[Page 17705]]

(d) Early Funds.--Notwithstanding subsection (b),
$10,000,000 of the monies authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to section 210(c)(1)--
(1) shall be made available in grants to the Pueblo by the
Secretary upon appropriation or availability of the funds
from other authorized sources; and
(2) shall be distributed by the Secretary to the Pueblo on
receipt by the Secretary from the Pueblo of a written notice,
a Tribal Council resolution that describes the purposes under
subsection (a) for which the monies will be used, and a plan
under subsection (c) for this portion of the funding.

SEC. 206. TAOS PUEBLO WATER DEVELOPMENT FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund to be known as the ``Taos Pueblo
Water Development Fund'' (hereinafter, ``Fund'') to be used
to pay or reimburse costs incurred by the Pueblo for--
(1) acquiring water rights;
(2) planning, permitting, designing, engineering,
constructing, reconstructing, replacing, rehabilitating,
operating, or repairing water production, treatment or
delivery infrastructure, on-farm improvements, or wastewater
infrastructure;
(3) restoring, preserving and protecting the Buffalo
Pasture, including planning, permitting, designing,
engineering, constructing, operating, managing and replacing
the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project;
(4) administering the Pueblo's water rights acquisition
program and water management and administration system; and
(5) for watershed protection and enhancement, support of
agriculture, water-related Pueblo community welfare and
economic development, and costs related to the negotiation,
authorization, and implementation of the Settlement
Agreement.
(b) Management of the Fund.--The Secretary shall manage the
Fund, invest amounts in the Fund, and make monies available
from the Fund for distribution to the Pueblo consistent with
the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(25 U.S.C. 4001, et seq.) (hereinafter, ``Trust Fund Reform
Act''), this title, and the Settlement Agreement.
(c) Investment of the Fund.--The Secretary shall invest
amounts in the Fund in accordance with--
(1) the Act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. 70, ch. 41, 25
U.S.C. 161);
(2) the first section of the Act of June 24, 1938 (52 Stat.
1037, ch. 648, 25 U.S.C. 162a); and
(3) the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
(d) Availability of Amounts From the Fund.--Upon the
Enforcement Date, all monies deposited in the Fund pursuant
to section 210(c)(2) shall be available to the Pueblo for
expenditure or withdrawal after the requirements of
subsection (e) have been met.
(e) Expenditures and Withdrawal.--
(1) Tribal management plan.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo may withdraw all or part of the
Fund on approval by the Secretary of a tribal management plan
as described in the Trust Fund Reform Act.
(B) Requirements.--In addition to the requirements under
the Trust Fund Reform Act, the tribal management plan shall
require that the Pueblo spend any funds in accordance with
the purposes described in subsection (a).
(2) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take judicial or
administrative action to enforce the requirement that monies
withdrawn from the Fund are used for the purposes specified
in subsection (a).
(3) Liability.--If the Pueblo exercises the right to
withdraw monies from the Fund, neither the Secretary nor the
Secretary of the Treasury shall retain any liability for the
expenditure or investment of the monies withdrawn.
(4) Expenditure plan.--
(A) In general.--The Pueblo shall submit to the Secretary
for approval an expenditure plan for any portions of the
funds made available under this title that the Pueblo does
not withdraw under paragraph (1)(A).
(B) Description.--The expenditure plan shall describe the
manner in which, and the purposes for which, amounts
remaining in the Fund will be used.
(C) Approval.--On receipt of an expenditure plan under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall approve the plan if the
Secretary determines that the plan is reasonable and
consistent with this title.
(5) Annual report.--The Pueblo shall submit to the
Secretary an annual report that describes all expenditures
from the Fund during the year covered by the report.
(f) Funds Available Upon Appropriation.--Notwithstanding
subsection (d), $15,000,000 of the monies authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 210(c)(2)--
(1) shall be available upon appropriation for the Pueblo's
acquisition of water rights in fulfillment of the Settlement
Agreement, the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project,
implementation of the Pueblo's water rights acquisition
program and water management and administration system, the
design, planning, and permitting of water or wastewater
infrastructure eligible for funding under sections 205 or
206, or costs related to the negotiation, authorization, and
implementation of the Settlement Agreement; and
(2) shall be distributed by the Secretary to the Pueblo on
receipt by the Secretary from the Pueblo of a written notice
and a Tribal Council resolution that describes the purposes
under paragraph (1) for which the monies will be used.
(g) No Per Capita Distributions.--No part of the Fund shall
be distributed on a per capita basis to members of the
Pueblo.

SEC. 207. MARKETING.

(a) Pueblo Water Rights.--Subject to the approval of the
Secretary in accordance with subsection (e), the Pueblo may
market water rights secured to it under the Settlement
Agreement and Partial Final Decree, provided that such
marketing is in accordance with this section.
(b) Pueblo Contract Rights to San Juan-Chama Project
Water.--Subject to the approval of the Secretary in
accordance with subsection (e), the Pueblo may subcontract
water made available to the Pueblo under the contract
authorized under section 209(b)(1)(A) to third parties to
supply water for use within or without the Taos Valley,
provided that the delivery obligations under such subcontract
are not inconsistent with the Secretary's existing San Juan-
Chama Project obligations and such subcontract is in
accordance with this section.
(c) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Diversion or use of water off Pueblo Lands
pursuant to Pueblo water rights or Pueblo contract rights to
San Juan-Chama Project water shall be subject to and not
inconsistent with the same requirements and conditions of
State law, any applicable Federal law, and any applicable
interstate compact as apply to the exercise of water rights
or contract rights to San Juan-Chama Project water held by
non-Federal, non-Indian entities, including all applicable
State Engineer permitting and reporting requirements.
(2) Effect on water rights.--Such diversion or use off
Pueblo Lands under paragraph (1) shall not impair water
rights or increase surface water depletions within the Taos
Valley.
(d) Maximum Term.--
(1) In general.--The maximum term of any water use lease or
subcontract, including all renewals, shall not exceed 99
years in duration.
(2) Alienation of rights.--The Pueblo shall not permanently
alienate any rights it has under the Settlement Agreement,
the Partial Final Decree, and this title.
(e) Approval of Secretary.--The Secretary shall approve or
disapprove any lease or subcontract submitted by the Pueblo
for approval not later than--
(1) 180 days after submission; or
(2) 60 days after compliance, if required, with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)), or any other requirement of Federal law,
whichever is later, provided that no Secretarial approval
shall be required for any water use lease or subcontract with
a term of less than 7 years.
(f) No Forfeiture or Abandonment.--The nonuse by a lessee
or subcontractor of the Pueblo of any right to which the
Pueblo is entitled under the Partial Final Decree shall in no
event result in a forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment, or
other loss of all or any part of those rights.
(g) No Preemption.--
(1) In general.--The approval authority of the Secretary
provided under subsection (e) shall not amend, construe,
supersede, or preempt any State or Federal law, interstate
compact, or international treaty that pertains to the
Colorado River, the Rio Grande, or any of their tributaries,
including the appropriation, use, development, storage,
regulation, allocation, conservation, exportation, or
quantity of those waters.
(2) Applicable law.--The provisions of section 2116 of the
Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 177) shall not apply to any water
made available under the Settlement Agreement.
(h) No Prejudice.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
to establish, address, prejudice, or prevent any party from
litigating whether or to what extent any applicable State
law, Federal law or interstate compact does or does not
permit, govern, or apply to the use of the Pueblo's water
outside of New Mexico.

SEC. 208. MUTUAL-BENEFIT PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--Upon the Enforcement Date, the Secretary,
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide
financial assistance in the form of grants on a
nonreimbursable basis to Eligible Non-Pueblo Entities to
plan, permit, design, engineer, and construct the Mutual
Benefits Projects in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement--
(1) to minimize adverse impacts on the Pueblo's water
resources by moving future non-Indian ground water pumping
away from the Pueblo's Buffalo Pasture; and
(2) to implement the resolution of a dispute over the
allocation of certain surface water flows between the Pueblo
and non-Indian irrigation water right owners in the community
of Arroyo Seco Arriba.
(b) Cost-Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of
planning, designing, and constructing the Mutual Benefit
Projects authorized in subsection (a) shall be 75 percent and
shall be nonreimbursable.

[[Page 17706]]

(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the total
cost of planning, designing, and constructing the Mutual
Benefit Projects shall be 25 percent and may be in the form
of in-kind contributions, including the contribution of any
valuable asset or service that the Secretary determines would
substantially contribute to completing the Mutual Benefit
Projects.

SEC. 209. SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Contracts issued under this section shall
be in accordance with this title and the Settlement
Agreement.
(b) Contracts for San Juan-Chama Project Water.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into 3 repayment
contracts by December 31, 2009, for the delivery of San Juan-
Chama Project water in the following amounts:
(A) 2,215 acre-feet/annum to the Pueblo.
(B) 366 acre-feet/annum to the Town of Taos.
(C) 40 acre-feet/annum to EPWSD.
(2) Requirements.--Each such contract shall provide that if
the conditions precedent set forth in section 210(f)(2) have
not been fulfilled by December 31, 2015, the contract shall
expire on that date.
(c) Waiver.--With respect to the contracts authorized and
required by subsection (b)(1) and notwithstanding the
provisions of Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 96) or any other
provision of law--
(1) the Secretary shall waive the entirety of the Pueblo's
share of the construction costs, both principal and the
interest, for the San Juan-Chama Project and pursuant to that
waiver, the Pueblo's share of all construction costs for the
San Juan-Chama Project, inclusive of both principal and
interest shall be nonreimbursable; and
(2) the Secretary's waiver of the Pueblo's share of the
construction costs for the San Juan-Chama Project will not
result in an increase in the pro rata shares of other San
Juan-Chama Project water contractors, but such costs shall be
absorbed by the United States Treasury or otherwise
appropriated to the Department of the Interior.

SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATIONS, RATIFICATIONS, CONFIRMATIONS, AND
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

(a) Ratification.--
(1) In general.--Except to the extent that any provision of
the Settlement Agreement conflicts with any provision of this
title, the Settlement Agreement is authorized, ratified, and
confirmed.
(2) Amendments.--To the extent amendments are executed to
make the Settlement Agreement consistent with this title,
such amendments are also authorized, ratified, and confirmed.
(b) Execution of Settlement Agreement.--To the extent that
the Settlement Agreement does not conflict with this title,
the Secretary shall execute the Settlement Agreement,
including all exhibits to the Settlement Agreement requiring
the signature of the Secretary and any amendments necessary
to make the Settlement Agreement consistent with this title,
after the Pueblo has executed the Settlement Agreement and
any such amendments.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Taos pueblo infrastructure and watershed fund.--There
is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide
grants pursuant to section 205, $30,000,000, as adjusted
under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal years 2009
through 2015.
(2) Taos pueblo water development fund.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Taos Pueblo Water
Development Fund, established at section 206(a), $50,000,000,
as adjusted under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal
years 2009 through 2015.
(3) Mutual-benefit projects funding.--There is further
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide
grants pursuant to section 208, a total of $33,000,000, as
adjusted under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal years
2009 through 2015.
(4) Adjustments to amounts authorized.--The amounts
authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1) through
(3) shall be adjusted by such amounts as may be required by
reason of changes since April 1, 2007, in construction costs,
as indicated by engineering cost indices applicable to the
types of construction or rehabilitation involved.
(5) Deposit in fund.--Except for the funds to be provided
to the Pueblo pursuant to section 205(d), the Secretary shall
deposit the funds made available pursuant to paragraphs (1)
and (3) into a Taos Settlement Fund to be established within
the Treasury of the United States so that such funds may be
made available to the Pueblo and the Eligible Non-Pueblo
Entities upon the Enforcement Date as set forth in sections
205(b) and 208(a).
(d) Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary is
authorized to enter into such agreements and to take such
measures as the Secretary may deem necessary or appropriate
to fulfill the intent of the Settlement Agreement and this
title.
(e) Environmental Compliance.--
(1) Effect of execution of settlement agreement.--The
Secretary's execution of the Settlement Agreement shall not
constitute a major Federal action under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(2) Compliance with environmental laws.--In carrying out
this title, the Secretary shall comply with each law of the
Federal Government relating to the protection of the
environment, including--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
(f) Conditions Precedent and Secretarial Finding.--
(1) In general.--Upon the fulfillment of the conditions
precedent described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register a statement of finding that
the conditions have been fulfilled.
(2) Conditions.--The conditions precedent referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) The President has signed into law the Taos Pueblo
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
(B) To the extent that the Settlement Agreement conflicts
with this title, the Settlement Agreement has been revised to
conform with this title.
(C) The Settlement Agreement, so revised, including waivers
and releases pursuant to section 211, has been executed by
the Parties and the Secretary prior to the Parties' motion
for entry of the Partial Final Decree.
(D) Congress has fully appropriated or the Secretary has
provided from other authorized sources all funds authorized
by paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (c) so that the
entire amounts so authorized have been previously provided to
the Pueblo pursuant to sections 205 and 206, or placed in the
Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund or the Taos Settlement
Fund as directed in subsection (c).
(E) The Legislature of the State of New Mexico has fully
appropriated the funds for the State contributions as
specified in the Settlement Agreement, and those funds have
been deposited in appropriate accounts.
(F) The State of New Mexico has enacted legislation that
amends NMSA 1978, section 72-6-3 to state that a water use
due under a water right secured to the Pueblo under the
Settlement Agreement or the Partial Final Decree may be
leased for a term, including all renewals, not to exceed 99
years, provided that this condition shall not be construed to
require that said amendment state that any State law based
water rights acquired by the Pueblo or by the United States
on behalf of the Pueblo may be leased for said term.
(G) A Partial Final Decree that sets forth the water rights
and contract rights to water to which the Pueblo is entitled
under the Settlement Agreement and this title and that
substantially conforms to the Settlement Agreement and
Attachment 5 thereto has been approved by the Court and has
become final and nonappealable.
(g) Enforcement Date.--The Settlement Agreement shall
become enforceable, and the waivers and releases executed
pursuant to section 211 and the limited waiver of sovereign
immunity set forth in section 212(a) shall become effective,
as of the date that the conditions precedent described in
subsection (f)(2) have been fulfilled.
(h) Expiration Date.--
(1) In general.--If all of the conditions precedent
described in section (f)(2) have not been fulfilled by
December 31, 2015, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and
void, the waivers and releases executed pursuant to section
211 shall not become effective, and any unexpended Federal
funds, together with any income earned thereon, and title to
any property acquired or constructed with expended Federal
funds, shall be returned to the Federal Government, unless
otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing and approved by
Congress.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) or any
other provision of law, any unexpended Federal funds,
together with any income earned thereon, made available under
sections 205(d) and 206(f) and title to any property acquired
or constructed with expended Federal funds made available
under sections 205(d) and 206(f) shall be retained by the
Pueblo.
(3) Right to set-off.--In the event the conditions
precedent set forth in subsection (f)(2) have not been
fulfilled by December 31, 2015, the United States shall be
entitled to set off any funds expended or withdrawn from the
amount appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (c) or made available from other authorized
sources, together with any interest accrued, against any
claims asserted by the Pueblo against the United States
relating to water rights in the Taos Valley.

SEC. 211. WAIVERS AND RELEASES.

(a) Claims by the Pueblo and the United States.--The
Pueblo, on behalf of itself and its members, and the United
States, acting through the Secretary in its capacity as
trustee for the Pueblo, as part of their obligations under
the Settlement Agreement, shall each execute a waiver and
release of claims against all Parties to the Settlement
Agreement, including individual members of signatory
Acequias, from--
(1) all past, present, and future claims to surface and
groundwater rights that the Pueblo, or the United States on
behalf of the Pueblo, asserted or could have asserted in New
Mexico v. Abeyta and New Mexico v.

[[Page 17707]]

Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) and 7939-BB (U.S.
D.N.M.) (consolidated);
(2) all past, present, and future claims for damages,
losses or injuries to water rights or claims of interference,
diversion or taking of water for lands within the Taos Valley
that accrued from time immemorial through the Enforcement
Date that the Pueblo, or the United States on behalf of the
Pueblo, asserted or could have asserted;
(3) all past, present, and future claims to surface and
groundwater rights to the use of Rio Grande mainstream or
tributary water, whether presently known or unknown, whether
for consumptive or nonconsumptive use, that the Pueblo, or
the United States on behalf of the Pueblo, could assert in
any present or future water rights adjudication proceeding
that are not based on ownership of land or that are based on
Pueblo or United States ownership of lands or water rights at
any time prior to the Enforcement Date, except that nothing
in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the Pueblo or
the United States from fully participating in the inter se
phase of any such present or future water rights adjudication
proceeding;
(4) all past, present, and future claims for damages,
losses or injuries to water rights or claims of interference,
diversion or taking of Rio Grande mainstream or tributary
water that accrued from time immemorial through the
Enforcement Date that the Pueblo, or the United States on
behalf of the Pueblo, asserted or could have asserted; and
(5) all past, present, and future claims arising out of or
resulting from the negotiation or the adoption of the
Settlement Agreement, attachments thereto, or any specific
terms and provisions thereof, against the State of New
Mexico, its agencies, agents or employees.
(b) Claims by the Pueblo.--The Pueblo, on behalf of itself
and its members, as part of its obligations under the
Settlement Agreement, shall execute a waiver and release of
claims against the United States, its agencies, and its
employees from--
(1) all past, present, and future claims for water rights
that were asserted, or could have been asserted, by the
United States as trustee for the Pueblo and on behalf of the
Pueblo in New Mexico v. Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano,
Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M)
(consolidated);
(2) all past, present, and future claims for damages,
losses or injuries to water rights or all past, present, and
future claims for failure to intervene or act on the Pueblo's
behalf in the protection of its water rights, or all past,
present, and future claims for failure to acquire and/or
develop the water rights and resources of the Pueblo, that
accrued from time immemorial through the Enforcement Date;
and
(3) all past, present, and future claims arising out of or
resulting from the negotiation or the adoption of the
Settlement Agreement, attachments thereto, or negotiation and
enactment of this title or any specific terms and provisions
thereof, against the United States, its agencies, agents or
employees.
(c) Reservation of Rights and Retention of Claims.--
Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Pueblo and its
members, and the United States, as trustee for the Pueblo and
its members, shall retain the following rights and claims:
(1) All claims against persons other than the Parties to
the Settlement Agreement for injuries to water rights arising
out of activities occurring outside the Taos Valley or the
Taos Valley Stream System.
(2) All claims for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement,
the San Juan-Chama Project contract between the Pueblo and
the United States, the Partial Final Decree, or this title,
through such legal and equitable remedies as may be available
in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(3) All rights to use and protect water rights acquired
pursuant to state law, to the extent not inconsistent with
the Partial Final Decree and the Settlement Agreement.
(4) All claims relating to activities affecting the quality
of water.
(5) All rights, remedies, privileges, immunities, powers,
and claims not specifically waived and released pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement or this title.
(d) Tolling of Claims.--
(1) In general.--Each applicable period of limitation and
time-based equitable defense relating to a claim described in
this section shall be tolled for the period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act and ending on the Enforcement
Date.
(2) No revival of claims.--Nothing in this subsection
revives any claim or tolls any period of limitation or time-
based equitable defense that expired before the date of
enactment of this title.
(3) Limitation.--Nothing in this section precludes the
tolling of any period of limitations or any time-based
equitable defense under any other applicable law.

SEC. 212. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--Upon and after
the Enforcement Date, if any Party to the Settlement
Agreement brings an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction over the subject matter relating only and
directly to the interpretation or enforcement of the
Settlement Agreement or this title, and names the United
States or the Pueblo as a party, then the United States, the
Pueblo, or both may be added as a party to any such action,
and any claim by the United States or the Pueblo to sovereign
immunity from the action is waived, but only for the limited
and sole purpose of such interpretation or enforcement, and
no waiver of sovereign immunity is made for any action
against the United States or the Pueblo that seeks money
damages.
(b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Not Affected.--Nothing in
this title shall be deemed as conferring, restricting,
enlarging, or determining the subject matter jurisdiction of
any court, including the jurisdiction of the court that
enters the Partial Final Decree adjudicating the Pueblo's
water rights.
(c) Regulatory Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this
title shall be deemed to determine or limit any authority of
the State or the Pueblo to regulate or administer waters or
water rights now or in the future.

SEC. 213. DISCLAIMER.

Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or this title shall be
construed in any way to quantify or otherwise adversely
affect the land and water rights, claims, or entitlements to
water of any other Indian tribe.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are
introducing a bill that I am pleased to say, will help end contentious
disputes over water rights claims in two long-standing general stream
adjudications in northern New Mexico. The bill accomplishes this by
authorizing two Indian water rights settlements. The first is a
settlement involving the water rights claims of the Nambe, Pojoaque,
San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos in the Rio Pojoaque stream system,
north of Santa Fe. The second settlement resolves Taos Pueblo's water
rights claims in the Rio Pueblo de Taos stream system.
The Rio Pojoaque stream adjudication is known as the Aamodt case, and
it's my understanding that it's the longest active case in the Federal
court system nationwide. The case began in 1966, and since that time
has been actively litigated before the district court in New Mexico and
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Forty years of litigation resolved
very little, certainly not what the parties accomplished by engaging
directly with each other in an attempt to resolve their differences.
The Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act represents an agreement by the
parties that will 1. secure water to meet the present and future needs
of the four Pueblos involved in the litigation; 2. protect the
interests and rights of long-standing water users, including century-
old irrigation practices; and 3. ensure that water is available for
municipal and domestic needs for all residents in the Pojoaque basin.
Negotiation of this agreement was a lengthy process and the parties had
to renegotiate several issues to address local, State, and Federal
policy concerns. In the end, however, their commitment to solving the
water supply issues in the basin prevailed.
The Rio Pueblo de Taos adjudication is a dispute that is almost 40
years old. Similar to the Aamodt case, little has been resolved by the
pending litigation. The parties have been in settlement discussions for
well over a decade but it was not until the last 5 years that the
discussions took on the sense of urgency needed to resolve the issues
at hand. The settlement will fulfill the rights of the Pueblo
consistent with the Federal trust responsibility, while continuing the
practice of sharing the water necessary to protect the sustainability
of traditional agricultural communities. The town of Taos and other
local entities are also secure in their ability to access the water
necessary to meet municipal and domestic needs. The Taos Pueblo Indian
Water Rights Settlement Act represents a commonsense set of solutions
that all parties to the adjudication have a stake in implementing.
Both settlements are widely supported in their respective
communities. Moreover, the State of New Mexico, under Governor
Richardson's leadership, deserves special recognition for actively
pursuing a settlement in both of these matters and committing
significant resources so that the Federal Government does not have to
bear the entire cost of these settlements. To the extent that going
concerns may exist by some remaining water users, I am committed to
continuing the dialog about the value of these settlements.

[[Page 17708]]

This bill is critical for New Mexico's future. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that it gets enacted
into law. The U.S. Supreme Court once characterized the Federal
Government's responsibilities to Indian tribes as ``moral obligation of
the highest responsibility and trust.'' This bill is an attempt to
ensure that the Government lives up to that standard, and does so in a
manner that also addresses the needs of the Pueblos' neighbors.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3382. A bill for the relief of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast,
but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for
approximately 15 years.
The story of the Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe
they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary
form of relief as a private bill.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the
early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration
against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own
government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several
years later learned that she had contracted HIV.
Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were
able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr.
Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms.
Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being
diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children,
Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6.
Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated
themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay
taxes and own their own home in Hercules, California. They are active
members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.
Mr. Tape is the owner of a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning &
Upholstery, which has four other employees. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr.
Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that
the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life-
long surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease.
In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a
certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care
Specialist at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, California. She hopes
to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. She
is currently taking classes at Contra Costa Community College. Ms. Toto
continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her
doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory
monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the
U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately
denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to
imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been
afraid to return to Ivory Coast due to his prior association with
President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape had previously sought to promote democracy
and peace in the region in support of the current President Gbagbo's
party. However, in 2006 Mr. Tape publically distanced himself from
President Gbagbo's government when he accused the party of violence and
corruption. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family
will be targeted if they return to Ivory Coast.
One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to
remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have
on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United
States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that
if the family returns to Ivory Coast, these two young children will be
forced to enter the army.
This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United
States. To send them back to Ivory Coast, where they may face
persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would
be devastating to the family. They are contributing members of their
community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work
ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from
the church community in support of this family.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 3382

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR GUY PRIVAT TAPE AND
LOU NAZIE RAYMONDE TOTO.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto shall each
be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence upon filing an application for
issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act
or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto enters the United States before the filing
deadline specified in subsection (c), Guy Privat Tape and Lou
Nazie Raymonde Toto shall be considered to have entered and
remained lawfully in the United States and shall be eligible
for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application
for the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for
adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later
than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Guy Privat Tape and
Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas
that are made available to natives of the country of birth of
Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto under section
202(e) of such Act.
____

Black Alliance for

Just Immigration,

Berkeley, CA, July 17, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator,
San Francisco, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I'm writing on behalf of Guy Privat
Tape and Raymond Tape and their three children. The Tape
family arrived in the United States in 1993 (husband) and
1995 (wife) as political refugees from the Ivory Coast. Both
of them were imprisoned, tortured and beaten, and Mrs. Tape
was repeatedly raped, while in the Ivory Coast. As a
consequence, she is HIV positive. They were very fortunate to
escape with their lives. On the facts, they seem to have a
strong case for political sanctuary since the same forces are
in power in their homeland.
Recently the Tape family received the terrifying notice
from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that on
August 6 they should report to be deported. It is outrageous
that our government is about to send this family into a
dangerous situation. And the impact upon the two children
will be devastating.
Please intervene and use your power to ask ICE to
reconsider their petition for political asylum. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Gerald Lenoir,
Director.
____

June 29, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator,
San Francisco, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing this letter on behalf
of Guy Privat Tape and his wife, Lou Nazie Toto and their two
children. Guy Tape arrived in the United States in 1993 and
his wife, Lou Nazie Toto, arrived in 1995 as political
refugees from the Ivory

[[Page 17709]]

Coast. In 1995 they applied for political asylum.
They became members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church
in Richmond, California shortly after they arrived in the
United States and have been faithful and loyal members since
that time. They are the proud parents of two children who are
United States Citizens. Their daughter sings in the
children's choir and is a member of the children's usher
board.
Guy Tape is self employed and Lou Nazie Toto is employed as
a CNA (Nurse's Assistant). They own their own home and are
productive taxpayers.
The U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) is
deporting Guy Tape and his wife, Lou Nazie Toto, back to the
Ivory Coast on August 5, 2008. The United States government
will be returning this family back to the people who jailed
them, beat them.
I am asking you to please intervene and use your power to
ask ICE to reconsider this couple's petition for political
asylum.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Rev. Billye Austin,
Pastor.
p.s. America made a promise of political asylum to the
Tapes--it should keep it!
____

Easter Hill

United Methodist Church,

Richmond, CA, June 30, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator,
San Francisco, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The members of Easter Hill United
Methodist Church are asking your assistance to prevent the
deportation of the Tape family on August 5, 2008. The Tape
family are faithful members of Easter Hill Church. The
enclosed 48 letters asking for your help were signed by
members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church on Sunday,
June 29, 2008:
The following are the members who have signed requesting
your assistance for the Tape family:
Joyce Clark; Annie Harris; Horacio Avelino; Thelma Daniels;
Augustine Williams; Justin M. McMath; Clara Davis; Karen
Colquitt; Meredith Withers; Malanna Wheat; Jay Jackson; Dr.
Robert Anderson; Monique Lee; Edward Colquitt; Cecile Smith;
Dr. Corann Withers; and Ila Warner.
Pauline Wesley; Zachary Harris; Shirley Haney; Nicole
Kelly; Charlesetta Cannady; Sylvester Weaver; Bennie Smith;
Joan Daniels; Valree Wilson; Dr. Nannette Finley Hancock;
Adolphus Benjamin; Harriet M. Brown; Beverly Hardy; Ernest
Baffo-Gyan; Bassey Effiong; and Girlee Parr.
Gladys Harvey; Alfred J. Daniels, Jr.; Sheila Phillips;
Renee Lowery; James Bell; Vesper Wheat; William Harris;
Napoleon Britt; Todd Wheat; Carolyn Benjamin; Samuel Harvey;
Cassandra Clarke; Sharon Nash Haynes; Ena A. Harris; Eloise
Hewitt; and Frank Fisher.
Thank you,
Myrtle Braxton Ellington,
Church & Society Chairperson.
______

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 3383. A bill to establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical
Park in Auburn, New York, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad
National Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties,
Maryland, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce The Harriet
Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground
Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mrs. Clinton, Ms.
Mikulski, and Mr. Schumer as original cosponsors.
The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born Araminta,
Minty, Ross approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland. She
spent nearly 30 years of her life as a slave on Maryland's eastern
shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25
she married John Tubman.
Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead
of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that are a
hallmark of Maryland's Eastern Shore. She did so alone, demonstrating
courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not
satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for
more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and
Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led
away many family members and other slaves to their freedom. Tubman
became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists.
She was perhaps the most famous and most important conductor in the
network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad.
During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a
scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina.
She is credited with leading hundreds of slaves from those slave states
to freedom during those years.
Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, New York. There
she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also
established the one of the first incorporated homes for aged African-
Americans. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist
Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913
and she is buried there in the Fort Hill Cemetery.
Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many
were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their
owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the
early years of Tubman's life still stand. The landscapes of the Eastern
Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman
lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also
notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. In
particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross,
her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where
she worked as a slave, and others are within the boundaries of the
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to
freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in
Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the
plantation, are today protected by various conservation easements. Were
she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she
knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to
their freedom.
In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with
Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman
Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME
Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant.
In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special
Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit
of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has
taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the
lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. There has
never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her
contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the
most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions,
however, has been more difficult. Eventually, the Park Service came to
realize that determined that a Park that would include two
geographically separate units would be appropriate. The New York unit
would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in Auburn. The
Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are
evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Special
Resource Study will be finalized and released later this year.

The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act

The legislation I am introducing today establishes two parks. The
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park includes important historical
structures in Auburn, New York. They include Tubman's home, the Home
for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME
Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried.
The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park
includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and
Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet
Tubman. The Maryland properties include about 2,200 acres in Caroline
County that

[[Page 17710]]

comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849.
The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County
would also be included in the Park. In Dorchester County, the parcels
would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 acres. All of
them are included within the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
boundaries or abut that resource land. The National Park Service would
not own any of these lands.
The bill authorizes $7.5 million in grants for the New York
properties for their preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of
those resources.
The bill authorizes $11 million in grants for the Maryland section.
Funds can be used for the construction of the State Harriet Tubman Park
Visitors Center and/or for easements or acquisition of properties
inside or adjacent to the Historical Park boundaries.
Finally, the bill also authorizes a new grants program. Under the
program, the National Park Service would award competitive grants to
historically Black colleges and universities, predominately Black
institutions, and minority serving institutions for research into the
life of Harriet Tubman and the African-American experience during the
years that coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman. The legislation
authorizes $200,000 annually for this scholarship program.
Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom
liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles
and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has
earned a nation's respect and honor. That is why I am so proud to
introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National
Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park.
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. 3383

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 ``Harriet Tubman National
Historical Park and Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad
National Historical Park Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Harriet Tubman (born Araminta ``Minty'' Ross)--
(A) was born into slavery in Maryland around 1822;
(B) married John Tubman at age 25;
(C) endured through her youth and young adulthood the
hardships of enslaved African Americans; and
(D) boldly emancipated herself from bondage in 1849;
(2) not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, Harriet
Tubman--
(A) returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the
places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline
Counties, Maryland; and
(B) under the most adverse circumstances led away many
family members and acquaintances to freedom in the northern
region of the United States and Canada;
(3) Harriet Tubman was--
(A) called ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white
abolitionists; and
(B) acknowledged as 1 of the most prominent ``conductors''
of the resistance that came to be known as the ``Underground
Railroad'';
(4) in 1868, Frederick Douglass wrote that, with the
exception of John Brown, Douglass knew of ``no one who has
willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our
enslaved people'' than Harriet Tubman;
(5) during the Civil War, Harriet Tubman--
(A) was recruited to assist Union troops as a nurse, a
scout, and a spy; and
(B) served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina, where
she is credited with facilitating the rescue of hundreds of
enslaved people;
(6) Harriet Tubman established in Auburn, New York, 1 of
the first incorporated homes for aged African Americans in
the United States, which, 10 years before her death, she
bequeathed to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church;
(7) there are nationally significant resources comprised of
relatively unchanged landscapes associated with the early
life of Harriet Tubman in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot
Counties, Maryland;
(8) there are nationally significant resources relating to
Harriet Tubman in Auburn, New York, including--
(A) the residence of Harriet Tubman;
(B) the Tubman Home for the Aged;
(C) the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Church; and
(D) the final resting place of Harriet Tubman in Fort Hill
Cemetery;
(9) in developing interpretive programs, the National Park
Service would benefit from increased scholarship of the
African-American experience during the decades preceding the
Civil War and throughout the remainder of the 19th century;
and
(10) it is fitting and proper that the nationally
significant resources relating to Harriet Tubman be preserved
for future generations as units of the National Park System
so that people may understand and appreciate the
contributions of Harriet Tubman to the history and culture of
the United States.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to preserve and promote stewardship of the resources in
Auburn, New York, and Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot
Counties, Maryland, relating to the life and contributions of
Harriet Tubman;
(2) to provide for partnerships with the African Methodist
Episcopal Zion Church, the States of New York and Maryland,
political subdivisions of the States, the Federal Government,
local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private
property owners for resource protection, research,
interpretation, education, and public understanding and
appreciation of the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman;
(3) to sustain agricultural and forestry land uses in
Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, that
remain evocative of the landscape during the life of Harriet
Tubman; and
(4) to establish a competitive grants program for scholars
of African-American history relating to Harriet Tubman and
the Underground Railroad.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Church.--The term ``Church'' means the Thompson
Memorial AME Zion Church located in Auburn, New York.
(2) Historically black college or university.--The term
``historically Black college or university'' has the meaning
given the term ``part B institution'' in section 322 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061)).
(3) Predominantly black institution.--The term
``Predominantly Black Institution'' has the meaning given the
term in section 499A(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1099e(c)).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) Visitor center.--The term ``Visitor Center'' means the
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park Visitor Center
to be constructed under section 5(d).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HARRIET TUBMAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK.

(a) Establishment.--On the execution of easements with the
Church, the Secretary shall--
(1) establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park
(referred to in this section as the ``Historical Park'') in
the City of Auburn, New York, as a unit of the National Park
System; and
(2) publish notice of the establishment of the Historical
Park in the Federal Register.
(b) Boundary.--
(1) In general.--The Historical Park shall be comprised of
structures and properties associated with the Harriet Tubman
home, the Tubman Home for the Aged, the Church, and the
Rectory, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Harriet
Tubman National Historical Park-Proposed Boundary'', numbered
[____], and dated [___].
(2) Availability of map.--The map described in paragraph
(1) shall be available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
(c) Acquisition of Land.--The Secretary may acquire from
willing sellers, by donation, purchase with donated or
appropriated funds, or exchange, land or interests in land
within the boundary of the Historical Park.
(d) Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may provide grants
to, and enter into cooperative agreements with--
(1) the Church for--
(A) historic preservation of, rehabilitation of, research
on, and maintenance of properties within the boundary of the
Historical Park; and
(B) interpretation of the Historical Park;
(2) the Fort Hill Cemetery Association for maintenance and
interpretation of the gravesite of Harriet Tubman; and
(3) the State of New York, any political subdivisions of
the State, the City of Auburn, and nonprofit organizations
for--
(A) preservation and interpretation of resources relating
to Harriet Tubman in the City of Auburn, New York;
(B) conducting research, including archaeological research;
and
(C) providing for stewardship programs, education, public
access, signage, and other interpretive devices at the
Historical Park for interpretive purposes.
(e) Interpretation.--The Secretary may provide interpretive
tours to sites located outside the boundaries of the
Historical Park in Auburn, New York, that include resources
relating to Harriet Tubman.
(f) General Management Plan.--

[[Page 17711]]

(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this subsection,
the Secretary, in cooperation with the Church, shall complete
a general management plan for the Historical Park in
accordance with section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.
C. 1a-7(b)).
(2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
preparation and implementation of the general management plan
for the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park with--
(A) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park in Maryland; and
(B) the National Underground Railroad: Network to Freedom.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HARRIET TUBMAN UNDERGROUND
RAILROAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

(a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the
National Park System the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad
National Historical Park (referred to in this section as the
``Historical Park'') in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot
Counties, Maryland.
(b) Boundary.--
(1) In general.--The boundary of the Historical Park shall
consist of certain landscapes and associated resources
relating to the early life and enslavement of Harriet Tubman
and the Underground Railroad, as generally depicted on the
map entitled ``Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park-Proposed Boundary'', numbered [____], and
dated [_____].
(2) Additional sites.--The Secretary, after consultation
with landowners, the State of Maryland, and units of local
government, may modify the boundary of the Historical Park to
include additional resources relating to Harriet Tubman
that--
(A) are located within the vicinity of the Historical Park;
and
(B) are identified in the general management plan prepared
under subsection (g) as appropriate for interpreting the life
of Harriet Tubman.
(3) Availability of map.--On modification of the boundary
of the Historical Park under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall make available for public inspection in the appropriate
offices of the National Park Service a revised map of the
Historical Park.
(c) Acquisition of Land.--The Secretary may acquire from
willing sellers, by donation, purchase with donated or
appropriated funds, or exchange, land or an interest in land
within the boundaries of the Historical Park.
(d) Grants.--In accordance with section 7(b)(2), the
Secretary may provide grants--
(1) to the State of Maryland, political subdivisions of the
State, and nonprofit organizations for the acquisition of
less than fee title (including easements) or fee title to
land in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland,
within the boundary of the Historical Park; and
(2) on execution of a memorandum of understanding between
the State of Maryland and the Director of the National Park
Service, to the State of Maryland for the construction of the
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park Visitor Center
on land owned by the State of Maryland in Dorchester County,
Maryland, subject to the condition that the State of Maryland
provide the Director of the National Park Service, at no
additional cost, sufficient office space and exhibition areas
in the Visitor Center to carry out the purposes of the
Historical Park.
(e) Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may provide grants
to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the State of
Maryland, political subdivisions of the State, nonprofit
organizations, colleges and universities, and private
property owners for--
(1) the restoration or rehabilitation, public use, and
interpretation of sites and resources relating to Harriet
Tubman;
(2) the conduct of research, including archaeological
research;
(3) providing stewardship programs, education, signage, and
other interpretive devices at the sites and resources for
interpretive purposes; and
(4)(A) the design and construction of the Visitor Center;
and
(B) the operation and maintenance of the Visitor Center.
(f) Interpretation.--The Secretary may provide interpretive
tours to sites and resources located outside the boundary of
the Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot
Counties, Maryland, relating to the life of Harriet Tubman
and the Underground Railroad.
(g) General Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this subsection,
the Secretary, in coordination with the State of Maryland,
political subdivisions of the State, and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, shall complete a general
management plan for the Historical Park in accordance with
section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S. C. 1a-7(b)).
(2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
preparation and implementation of the general management plan
for the Historical Park with--
(A) the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn,
New York;
(B) the National Underground Railroad: Network to Freedom;
(C) the Maryland Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State
Park; and
(D) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway in
Dorchester and Caroline Counties, Maryland.
(3) Priority treatment.--The general management plan for
the Historical Park shall give priority to the adequate
protection of, interpretation of, public appreciation for,
archaeological investigation of, and research on Stewart's
Canal, the Jacob Jackson home site, the Brodess Farm, the Ben
Ross and Anthony Thompson properties on Harrisville Road, and
the James Cook site, all of which are privately owned and
located in the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
(h) Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.--
(1) Interagency agreement.--The Secretary shall ensure
that, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the National Park Service and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service enter into an interagency agreement
that--
(A) promotes and mutually supports the compatible
stewardship and interpretation of Harriet Tubman resources at
the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge; and
(B) provides for the maximum level of cooperation between
those Federal agencies to further the purposes of this Act.
(2) Effect of act.--Nothing in this Act modifies, alters,
or amends the authorities of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service in the administration and management of the
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the Harriet
Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Historical Park in accordance
with this Act and the laws generally applicable to units of
the National Park System including--
(1) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.); and
(2) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(b) Park Regulations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
regulations and policies applicable to units of the National
Park System shall apply only to Federal land administrated by
the National Park Service that is located within the boundary
of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act (other than
subsection (b)), including the provision of National Park
Service personnel and National Park Service management funds
for the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park.
(b) Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated not
more than--
(1) $7,500,000 to provide grants to the Church for--
(A) historic preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration
of resources within the boundary of the Harriet Tubman
National Historical Park; and
(B) the costs of design, construction, installation, and
maintenance of exhibits and other interpretive devices
authorized under section 4(d)(1)(B);
(2) $11,000,000 for grants to the State of Maryland for
activities authorized under subsections (d)(1) and (e)(4)(A)
of section 5; and
(3) $200,000 for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year
thereafter for competitive grants to historically Black
colleges and universities, Predominately Black Institutions,
and minority serving institutions for research into the life
of Harriet Tubman and the African-American experience during
the years that coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman.
(c) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) Church and visitor center grants.--The Federal share of
the cost of activities provided grants under paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (b) and any maintenance, construction, or
utility costs incurred pursuant to a cooperative agreement
entered into under section 4(d)(1)(A) or section 5(e) shall
not be more than 50 percent.
(2) Historically black colleges and universities.--The
Federal share of the cost of activities provided assistance
under subsection (b)(3) shall be not more than 75 percent.
(3) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share
required under this subsection may be in the form of in-kind
contributions of goods or services fairly valued.
______

By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Coleman, and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 3384. A bill to amend section 11317 of title 40, United States
Code, to require greater accountability for cost overruns on Federal IT
investment projects; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.

[[Page 17712]]

Mr. CARPER. Mr President, I rise today with my colleagues on the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to introduce the
Information Technology Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act
of 2008.
With a long name like that, you would hope that it is addressing a
very serious problem. Well I assure you, that it is.
Every year agencies spend billions of dollars on IT investments
that--if planned and implemented properly--can increase productivity,
reduce costs, and improve efficiency. As everyone knows, information
technology has become a cornerstone of the way we conduct business.
Just look at the rise in popularity of Blackberries, not only outside
these walls, but right here in the Senate.
In fiscal year 2009, agencies are planning to spend almost $71
billion to improve their financial systems for better reporting,
streamline their grant processes, and reduce wasteful paper
applications. And this is a good thing.
However, the Government Accountability Office has reported for
several years that many of these investments are poorly planned, poorly
performing--or in some cases--both. Yet, agencies continue to fund
these risky investments without any oversight or accountability. In
fact, I was surprised to hear GAO report that $25.2 billion is at
danger of being wasted because agencies failed to properly plan or
manage their investments.
Mr. President, $25.2 billion may not be a very large sum of money
when you compare it to what we spend every year, but I assure you that
it is a very real sum of money to those families who can't pay for the
gas they need to get to work, or who are struggling to put food on
their table.
To illustrate my point further, this chamber had to include emergency
funding in the last supplemental appropriations bill to bail out the
Census Bureau's 2010 operations. They had been planning for more than a
decade to use advanced handheld computers to verify addresses and
follow up with households who don't send their census forms in on time.
My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee heard, however, that Census Bureau officials failed to define
what they need out of the handheld project and, as a result, the
contractor was having trouble delivering a product that could work. We
held two hearings to try and get to the bottom of the problem and find
a solution but, at the end of the day, the Census Bureau had to scrap
the handheld project and go with the same expensive and inefficient
``pen and paper'' counting method that they have used for centuries.
The cost of this failure on the part of the Census Bureau is expected
to total in the billions.
This extra money that the Census Bureau will need to spend between
now and 2010 could have been used to improve the quality of the final
count by outreaching to historically-undercounted groups. In fact, it
could have been used for any number of worthwhile purposes.
My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I
chair, have held three hearings on the issue of troubled IT projects
now, including one this morning. And what we've learned is that some
agencies can't keep the expected cost of their investments down or
deliver on time as promised. Nor do these agencies, in many cases, have
qualified IT experts they can turn to before a project spirals out of
control. The bill Senators Lieberman, Collins and I have put forward
today addresses these issues.
Our bill starts by requiring agencies to inform Congress when an
investment begins to see increased costs, schedule delays, or
performance deficiencies outside of 20 percent of the original plan.
Our bill would also require agencies to inform Congress if an
investment exceeds 40 percent of their original plan, and require the
agency head to conduct an analysis that determines whether we should
continue to fund this investment or just pull the plug.
Many agencies today simply rewrite their plans when they run into
trouble. They don't tell Congress that anything is wrong and the
troubled projects just keep getting funded year in and year out.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, our bill recognizes that, many
times, agencies lack the experience necessary to manage complex IT
investments. To remedy this, we propose that OMB create what my staff
and I have come to call an ``IT Strike Team.'' This team would be
comprised of known individuals inside and outside government who have
records of successfully managing complex IT projects. If an agency or
OMB recognizes that an investment is beginning to experience problems,
the team would come in make sure the project is brought online or
scrapped before more money is wasted.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important
and necessary reforms enacted. I think I speak for all of us when I say
that investing in IT systems is important. But these investments
shouldn't come with wasted time and money that they all too often
bring. In tight fiscal times like these, we need to make sure the money
we do invest is spent wisely.
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. 3384

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 ``Information Technology
Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of
2008''.

SEC. 2. IT INVESTMENT PROJECTS.

(a) Significant and Gross Deviations.--Section 11317 of
title 40, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 11317. SIGNIFICANT AND GROSS DEVIATIONS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this subchapter:
``(1) Agency head.--The term `Agency Head' means the head
of the Federal agency that is primarily responsible for the
IT investment project under review.
``(2) ANSI eia-748 standard.--The term `ANSI EIA-748
Standard' means the measurement tool jointly developed by the
American National Standards Institute and the Electronic
Industries Alliance to analyze earned value management
systems.
``(3) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
``(B) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of
the House of Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
``(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives; and
``(E) any other relevant congressional committee with
jurisdiction over an agency required to take action under
this section.
``(4) Chief information officer.--The term `Chief
Information Officer' means the Chief Information Officer
designated under section 3506(a)(2) of title 44 of the
Federal agency that is primarily responsible for the IT
investment project under review.
``(5) Core it investment project.--The terms `core IT
investment project' and `core project' mean a mission
critical IT investment project jointly designated as such by
the Agency Head and the Director under subsection (b).
``(6) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
``(7) Grossly deviated.--The term `grossly deviated' means
cost, schedule, or performance variance that is at least 40
percent from the Original Baseline.
``(8) Independent cost estimate.--The term `independent
cost estimate' means a pragmatic and neutral analysis,
assessment, and quantification of all costs and risks
associated with the acquisition of an IT investment project,
which--
``(A) is based on programmatic and technical specifications
provided by the office within the agency with primary
responsibility for the development, procurement, and delivery
of the project;
``(B) is formulated and provided by an entity other than
the office within the agency with primary responsibility for
the development, procurement, and delivery of the project;
``(C) contains sufficient detail to inform the selection of
a baseline benchmark measure under the ANSI EIA-748 standard;
and
``(D) accounts for the full life cycle cost plus associated
operations and maintenance expenses over the usable life of
the project's deliverables.
``(9) IT investment project.--The terms `IT investment
project' and `project' mean

[[Page 17713]]

an information technology system or acquisition that--
``(A) requires special management attention because of its
importance to the mission or function of the agency, a
component of the agency, or another organization;
``(B) is for financial management and obligates more than
$500,000 annually;
``(C) has significant program or policy implications;
``(D) has high executive visibility;
``(E) has high development, modernization, or enhancement
costs;
``(F) is funded through other than direct appropriations;
or
``(G) is defined as major by the agency's capital planning
and investment control process.
``(10) Life cycle cost.--The term `life cycle cost' means
the total cost of an IT investment project for planning,
research and development, modernization, and enhancement.
``(11) Original baseline.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph
(B), the term `Original Baseline' means the ANSI EIA-748
Standard-compliant cost, schedule, and performance benchmark
established at the commencement of an IT investment project
contract.
``(B) Grossly deviated project.--If an IT investment
project grossly deviates from its Original Baseline (as
defined in subparagraph (A)), the term `Original Baseline'
means the ANSI EIA-748 Standard-compliant cost, schedule, and
performance benchmark established under subsection (e)(3)(C).
``(12) Significantly deviated.--The term `significantly
deviated' means cost, schedule, or performance variance that
is at least 20 percent from the Original Baseline.
``(b) Core IT Investment Projects.--
``(1) Designation.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
each Agency Head and the Director shall jointly designate not
fewer than 5 of the agency's most mission critical IT
investment projects as `core IT investment projects' or `core
projects', after considering, among other factors--
``(A) whether the project represents a high-dollar value
relative to the average IT investment project in the agency's
portfolio;
``(B) whether the project delivers a capability critical to
the successful completion of the agency mission, or a portion
of such mission; and
``(C) whether the project incorporates unproven or
previously undeveloped technology to meet primary project
technical requirements.
``(2) Exception.--If the Agency Head and the Director
jointly determine that fewer than 5 IT investment projects
meet the criteria described in paragraph (1), the Director--
``(A) may provide the agency with written authorization to
designate fewer than 5 projects; and
``(B) shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees that contains notice of, and
justification for, any such authorization.
``(c) Cost, Schedule, and Performance Reports.--
``(1) Quarterly reports.--Not later than 7 days after the
end of each fiscal quarter, the project manager for an IT
investment project shall submit a written report to the Chief
Information Officer that includes, as of the last day of the
applicable quarter--
``(A) a description of the cost, schedule, and performance
of all projects under the project manager's supervision;
``(B) the original and current project cost, schedule, and
performance benchmarks for each project under the project
manager's supervision;
``(C) the cost, schedule, or performance variance related
to each IT investment project under the project manager's
supervision since the commencement of the contract;
``(D) for each project under the project manager's
supervision, any known, expected, or anticipated changes to
project schedule milestones or project performance benchmarks
included as part of the original or current baseline
description; and
``(E) the current cost, schedule, and performance status of
all projects under supervision that were previously
identified as significantly deviated or grossly deviated.
``(2) Interim reports.--If the project manager for an IT
investment project determines that there is reasonable cause
to believe that an IT investment project has significantly
deviated or grossly deviated since the issuance of the latest
quarterly report, the project manager shall submit to the
Chief Information Officer, not later than 7 days after such
determination, a report on the project that includes, as of
the date of the report--
``(A) a description of the original and current program
cost, schedule, and performance benchmarks;
``(B) the cost, schedule, or performance variance related
to the IT investment project since the commencement of the
contract;
``(C) any known, expected, or anticipated changes to the
project schedule milestones or project performance benchmarks
included as part of the original or current baseline
description; and
``(D) the major reasons underlying the significant or gross
deviation of the project.
``(d) Determination of Significant Deviation.--
``(1) Chief information officer.--Upon receiving a report
under subsection (c), the Chief Information Officer shall--
``(A) determine if any IT investment project has
significantly deviated; and
``(B) report such determination to the Agency Head.
``(2) Congressional notification.--If the Chief Information
Officer determines under paragraph (1) that an IT investment
project has significantly deviated and the Agency Head has
not issued a report to the appropriate congressional
committees of a significant deviation for that project under
this section since the project was last required to be re-
baselined under this section, the Agency Head shall submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the
Government Accountability Office that includes--
``(A) written notification of such determination;
``(B) the date on which such determination was made;
``(C) the amount of the cost increases and the extent of
the schedule delays with respect to such project;
``(D) any requirements that--
``(i) were added subsequent to the original contract; or
``(ii) were originally contracted for, but were changed by
deferment or deletion from the original schedule, or were
otherwise no longer included in the requirements contracted
for;
``(E) an explanation of the differences between--
``(i) the estimate at completion between the project
manager, any contractor, and any independent analysis; and
``(ii) the original budget at completion;
``(F) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any
reasonable alternative system, or reasonable alternative
approach to establishing an equivalent outcome or capability;
``(G) a statement of the reasons underlying the project's
significant deviation;
``(H) the identities of the project managers responsible
for program management and cost control of the program; and
``(I) a summary of the plan of action to remedy the
significant deviation.
``(3) Deadline.--
``(A) Notification based on quarterly report.--If the
determination of significant deviation is based on a report
submitted under subsection (b)(1), the Agency Head shall
notify Congress in accordance with paragraph (2) not later
than 14 days after the end of the quarter upon which such
report is based.
``(B) Notification based on interim report.--If the
determination of significant deviation is based on a report
submitted under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall notify
Congress in accordance with paragraph (2) not later than 14
days after the submission of such report.
``(e) Determination of Gross Deviation.--
``(1) Chief information officer.--Upon receiving a report
under subsection (c), the Chief Information Officer shall--
``(A) determine if any IT investment project has grossly
deviated; and
``(B) report any such determination to the Agency Head.
``(2) Congressional notification.--If the Chief Information
Officer determines under paragraph (1) that an IT investment
project has grossly deviated and the Agency Head has not
issued a report to the appropriate congressional committees
of a gross deviation for that project under this section
since the project was last required to be re-baselined under
this section, the Agency Head shall submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees and to the Government
Accountability Office that includes--
``(A) written notification of such determination, which
states--
``(i) the date on which such determination was made; and
``(ii) an indication of whether or not the project has been
previously reported as a significant or gross deviation by
the Chief Information Officer, and the date of any such
report;
``(B) incorporations by reference of all prior reports to
Congress on the project required under this section;
``(C) updated accounts of the items described in
subparagraphs (C) through (H) of subsection (d)(2);
``(D) the original estimate at completion for the project
manager, any contractor, and any independent analysis;
``(E) a graphical depiction of actual cost variance since
the commencement of the contract;
``(F) the amount, if any, of incentive award fees any
contractor has received since the commencement of the
contract and the reasons for receiving such award fees;
``(G) the project manager's estimated cost at completion
and estimated completion date for the project if current
requirements are not modified;
``(H) the project manager's estimated cost at completion
and estimated completion date for the project based on
reasonable modification of such requirements;
``(I) an explanation of the most significant occurrence
contributing to the variance

[[Page 17714]]

identified, including cost, schedule, and performance
variances, and the effect such occurrence will have on future
project costs and program schedule;
``(J) a statement regarding previous or anticipated re-
baselining or re-planning of the project and the names of the
individuals responsible for approval;
``(K) the original life cycle cost of the investment and
the expected life cycle cost of the investment expressed in
constant base year dollars and in current dollars; and
``(L) a comprehensive plan of action to remedy the gross
deviation, and milestones established to control future cost,
schedule, and performance deviations in the future.
``(3) Remedial action.--If the Chief Information Officer
determines under paragraph (1) that an IT investment project
has grossly deviated, the Agency Head, in consultation with
the Chief Information Officer, shall ensure that--
``(A) a report is submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees that--
``(i) describes the primary business case and key
functional requirements for the project;
``(ii) describes any portions of the project that have
technical requirements of sufficient clarity that such
portions may be feasibly procured under firm, fixed-price
contract;
``(iii) includes a certification by the Agency Head, after
consultation with the Chief Information Officer, that all
technical requirements have been reviewed and validated to
ensure alignment with the reported business case;
``(iv) describes any changes to the primary business case
or key functional requirements which have occurred since
project inception; and
``(v) includes an independent cost estimate for the project
conducted by an entity approved by the Director;
``(B) an analysis is submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees that--
``(i) describes agency business goals that the project was
originally designed to address;
``(ii) includes a gap analysis of what project deliverables
remain in order for the agency to accomplish the business
goals referred to in clause (i);
``(iii) identifies the 3 most cost-effective alternative
approaches to the project which would achieve the business
goals referred to in clause (i); and
``(iv) includes a cost-benefit analysis, which compares--

``(I) the completion of the project with the completion of
each alternative approach, after factoring in future costs
associated with the termination of the project; and
``(II) the termination of the project without pursuit of
alternatives, after factoring in foregone benefits; and

``(C) a new baseline of the project is established that is
consistent with the independent cost estimate required under
subparagraph (A)(v); and
``(D) the project is designated as a core IT investment
project and subjected to the requirements under subsection
(f).
``(4) Deadline and funding contingency.--
``(A) Notification and remedial action based on quarterly
report.--
``(i) In general.--If the determination of gross deviation
is based on a report submitted under subsection (c)(1), the
Agency Head shall--

``(I) not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter
upon which such report is based, notify the appropriate
congressional committees in accordance with paragraph (2);
and
``(II) not later than 180 days after the end of the quarter
upon which such report is based, ensure the completion of
remedial action under paragraph (3).

``(I) not later than 45 days after the submission of such
report, notify the appropriate congressional committees in
accordance with paragraph (2); and
``(II) not later than 180 days after the submission of such
report, ensure the completion of remedial action in
accordance with paragraph (3).

``(ii) Failure to meet deadlines.--If the Agency Head fails
to meet the deadlines described in clause (i)(II), additional
funds may not be obligated to support expenditures associated
with the project until the requirements of this subsection
have been fulfilled.
``(f) Additional Requirements for Core IT Investment
Project Reports.--
``(1) Initial report.--If a report described in subsection
(e)(3)(A) has not been submitted for a core IT investment
project, the Agency Head, in coordination with the Chief
Information Officer and responsible program managers, shall
prepare an initial report for inclusion in the first budget
submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code, after the designation of a project as a
core IT investment project, which includes--
``(A) a description of the primary business case and key
functional requirements for the project;
``(B) an identification and description of any portions of
the project that have technical requirements of sufficient
clarity that such portions may be feasibly procured under
firm, fixed-price contracts;
``(C) an independent cost estimate for the project;
``(D) certification by the Chief Information Officer that
all technical requirements have been reviewed and validated
to ensure alignment with the reported business case; and
``(E) any changes to the primary business case or key
functional requirements which have occurred since project
inception.
``(2) Quarterly review of business case.--The Agency Head,
in coordination with the Chief Information Officer and
responsible program managers, shall--
``(A) monitor the primary business case and core
functionality requirements reported to Congress for
designated core IT investment projects; and
``(B) if changes to the primary business case or key
functional requirements for a core IT investment project
occur in any fiscal quarter, submit a report to Congress not
later than 7 days after the end of such quarter that details
the changes and describes the impact the changes will have on
the cost and ultimate effectiveness of the project.
``(3) Alternative significant deviation determination.--If
the Chief Information Officer determines, subsequent to a
change in the primary business case or key functional
requirements, that without such change the project would have
significantly deviated--
``(A) the Chief Information Officer shall notify the Agency
Head of the significant deviation; and
``(B) the Agency Head shall fulfill the requirements under
subsection (d)(2) in accordance with the deadlines under
subsection (d)(3).
``(4) Alternative gross deviation determination.--If the
Chief Information Officer determines, subsequent to a change
in the primary business case or key functional requirements,
that without such change the project would have grossly
deviated--
``(A) the Chief Information Officer shall notify the Agency
Head of the gross deviation; and
``(B) the Agency Head shall fulfill the requirements under
subsections (e)(2) and (e)(3) in accordance with subsection
(e)(4).''.
(b) Inclusion in the Budget Submitted to Congress.--Section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``include in each budget the following:'' and inserting
``include in each budget--'';
(2) by redesignating the second paragraph (33) (as added by
section 889(a) of Public Law 107-296) as paragraph (35);
(3) in each of paragraphs (1) through (34), by striking the
period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
(4) in paragraph (35) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and'';
and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(36) the reports prepared under section 11317(f) of title
40, United States Code, relating to the core IT investment
projects of the agency.''.
(c) Improvement of Information Technology Acquisition and
Development.--Subchapter II of chapter 113 of title 40,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 11319. ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT.

``(a) Establishment of Programs.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this section, each Agency
Head (as defined in section 11317(a) of title 49, United
States Code) shall establish a program to improve the
information technology (referred to in this section as `IT')
processes of the agency overseen by the Agency Head.
``(b) Program Requirements.--Each program established
pursuant to this section shall include--
``(1) a documented process for information technology
acquisition planning, requirements development and
management, project management and oversight, earned-value
management, and risk management;
``(2) the development of appropriate metrics for
performance measurement of--
``(A) processes and development status; and
``(B) continuous process improvement;
``(3) a process to ensure that key program personnel have
an appropriate level of experience or training in the
planning, acquisition, execution, management, and oversight
of information technology; and
``(4) a process to ensure that the applicable department
and subcomponents implement and adhere to established
processes and requirements relating to the planning,
acquisition, execution, management, and oversight of
information technology programs and developments.
``(c) OMB Guidance.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall--
``(1) prescribe uniformly applicable guidance to the
administration of all the programs established under
subsection (a); and

[[Page 17715]]

``(2) take any actions that are necessary to ensure that
Federal agencies comply with the guidance.
``(d) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than the last
day of February of each year, the Agency Head shall submit a
report to Congress that includes--
``(1) a detailed summary of the accomplishments of the
program established by the Agency Head pursuant to this
section;
``(2) the status of completeness of implementation of each
of the program requirements, and the date each such
requirement was deemed to be completed;
``(3) the percentage of Federal IT projects covered under
the program compared to all of the IT projects of the agency,
listed by number of programs and by annual dollars expended;
``(4) the identification, listed by name and position, of--
``(A) the person assigned responsibility for implementation
and management of the program and the percent of such
person's time used to carry out such responsibility; and
``(B) the person to whom the person described in
subparagraph (A) reports;
``(5) a detailed breakdown of the sources and uses of the
amounts spent by the agency during the previous fiscal year
to support the activities of the program;
``(6) a copy of any guidance issued under the program and a
statement regarding whether each such guidance is mandatory;
``(7) the identification of the metrics developed in
accordance with subsection (b)(2);
``(8) a description of how paragraphs (3) and (4) of
subsection (b) have been implemented and any related agency
guidance; and
``(9) a description of how continuous process improvement
has been implemented and the objectives of such guidance.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for chapter
113 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 11317 and
inserting the following:

``11317. Significant and gross deviations.''; and

(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 11318
the following:

``11319. Acquisition and development.''.

SEC. 3. IT STRIKE FORCE.

(a) Purpose.--The Director of the Office of Management of
Budget (referred to in this section as the ``Director''), in
consultation with the Administrator of the Office of
Electronic Government and Information and Technology at the
Office of Management and Budget (referred to in this section
as the ``E-Gov Administrator''), shall assist agencies in
avoiding significant and gross deviations in the cost,
schedule, and performance of IT investment projects (as such
terms are defined in section 11317(a) of title 40, United
States Code).
(b) IT Strike Force.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the E-Gov Administrator shall
establish a small group of individuals (referred to in this
section as the ``IT Strike Force'') to carry out the purpose
described in subsection (a).
(2) Qualifications.--Individuals selected for the IT Strike
Force--
(A) shall be certified at the Senior/Expert level according
to the Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and
Project Managers (FAC-P/PM); or
(B) shall have comparable education, certification,
training, and experience to successfully manage high-risk IT
investment projects.
(3) Number.--The Director, in consultation with the E-Gov
Administrator, shall determine the number of individuals who
will be selected for the IT Strike Force.
(c) Outside Consultants.--
(1) Identification.--The E-Gov Administrator shall identify
consultants in the private sector who have expert knowledge
in IT program management and program management review teams.
Not more than 20 percent of such consultants may be formally
associated with any 1 of the following types of entities:
(A) Commercial firms.
(B) Nonprofit entities.
(C) Research and development corporations receiving Federal
financial assistance.
(2) Use of consultants.--
(A) In general.--Consultants identified under paragraph (1)
may be used to assist the IT Strike Force in assessing and
improving IT investment projects.
(B) Limitation.--Consultants with a formally established
relationship with an organization may not participate in any
assessment involving an IT investment project for which such
organization is under contract to provide technical support.
(C) Exception.--The limitation described in subparagraph
(B) may not be construed as precluding access to anyone
having relevant information helpful to the conduct of the
assessment.
(3) Contracts.--The E-Gov Administrator, in conjunction
with the Administrator of the General Services Administration
(GSA), may establish competitively bid contracts with 1 or
more qualified consultants, independent of any GSA schedule.
(d) Initial Response to Anticipated Significant or Gross
Deviation.--If the E-Gov Administrator determines there is
reasonable cause to believe that a major IT investment
project is likely to significantly or grossly deviate (as
defined in section 11317(a) of title 40, United States Code),
including the receipt of inconsistent or missing data, the E-
Gov Administrator shall carry out the following activities:
(1) Recommend the assignment of 1 or more members of the IT
Strike Force to assess the project in accordance with the
scope and time period described in section 11317(c)(1) of
title 40, United States Code, beginning not later than 7 days
after such recommendation. No member of the Strike Force who
is associated with the department or agency whose IT
investment project is the subject of the assessment may be
assigned to participate in this assessment. Such limitation
may not be construed as precluding access to anyone having
relevant information helpful to the conduct of the
assessment.
(2) If the E-Gov Administrator determines that 1 or more
qualified consultants are needed to support the efforts of
the IT Strike Force under paragraph (1), negotiate a contract
with the consultant to provide such support during the period
in which the IT Strike Force is conducting the assessment
described in paragraph (1).
(3) Ensure that the costs of an assessment under paragraph
(1) and the support services of 1 or more consultants under
paragraph (2) are paid by the major IT investment project
being assessed.
(4) Monitor the progress made by the IT Strike Force in
assessing the project.
(e) Reduction of Significant or Gross Deviation.--If the E-
Gov Administrator determines that the assessment conducted
under subsection (d) confirms that a major IT investment
project is likely to significantly or grossly deviate, the E-
Gov Administrator shall recommend that the Agency Head (as
defined in section 11317(a)(1) of title 40, United States
Code) take steps to reduce the deviation, which may include--
(1) providing training or mentoring to improve the
qualifications of the program manager;
(2) replacing the program manager or other staff;
(3) supplementing the program management team with Federal
Government employees or independent contractors;
(4) terminating the project; or
(5) hiring an independent contractor to report directly to
senior management and the E-Gov Administrator.
(f) Reprogramming of Funds.--
(1) Authorization.--The Director may direct an Agency Head
to reprogram amounts which have been appropriated for such
agency to pay for an assessment under subsection (d).
(2) Notification.--An Agency Head who reprograms
appropriations under paragraph (1) shall notify the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives of any such
reprogramming.
(g) Report to Congress.--The Director shall include in the
annual Report to Congress on the Benefits of E-Government
Initiatives a detailed summary of the composition and
activities of the IT Strike Force, including--
(1) the number and qualifications of individuals on the IT
Strike Force;
(2) a description of the IT investment projects that the IT
Strike Force has worked during the previous fiscal year;
(3) the major issues that necessitated the involvement of
the IT Strike Force to assist agencies with assessing and
managing IT investment projects and whether such issues were
satisfactorily resolved;
(4) if the issues referred to in paragraph (3) were not
satisfactorily resolved, the issues still needed to be
resolved and the Agency Head's plan for resolving such
issues;
(5) a detailed breakdown of the sources and uses of the
amounts spent by the Office of Management and Budget and
other Federal agencies during the previous fiscal year to
support the activities of the IT Strike Force; and
(6) a determination of whether the IT Strike Force has been
effective in reducing the amount of IT investment projects
that deviate or significantly deviate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Carper in
introducing a bill that will improve agency performance and
Congressional oversight of major Federal information-technology, IT
projects.
The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census
Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling
implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation
of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous
failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT
projects like the FBI's virtual case file initiative. Former IBM
executive and Carnegie-Mellon University technology expert Watts
Humphrey makes the point succinctly: ``Software failures are common,
and the biggest projects fail most often.''

[[Page 17716]]

During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs
investigated the botched automated recordkeeping project for the
Federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan TSP. This project was terminated
in 2001 after a 4-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was
charged to the accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second
vendor needed an additional $33 million to bring the system online,
years overdue and costing more than double its original estimate.
In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the board characterized the
project as ``ill-fated `` and acknowledged the importance of careful
planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk
management--all of which were lacking on that project.
Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of
dollars in wasted expenditures. The waste is troubling, but even more
troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can
undermine the Government's ability to defend the Nation, enforce its
laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we
have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined
and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk
management, and lax monitoring of performance.
Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, tells us
in a new report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of
effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs
of possible trouble.
The GAO reports that the Federal Government will spend over $70
billion in fiscal year 2008 on IT projects. Most of that spending is
concentrated in two dozen agencies that have 778 major projects
underway. These Federal entities range from Cabinet departments like
Commerce, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to agencies like NASA, the
Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International
Development.
The GAO observes that ``Effectively managing projects involves
pulling together essential cost, schedule, and performance goals in a
meaningful, coherent fashion so that managers have an accurate view of
the program's development status.'' This set of goals becomes the
project ``baseline.''
When the GAO conducted a study of a random sample of those major
Federal IT projects, however, they found that 85--nearly half the
sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been
rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four
times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been
rebaselined six times.
Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope
or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as
the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns
and schedule delays.'' All major Federal agencies have rebaselining
policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and
that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.''
The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward
addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the
risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond
deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers'
money. We are pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and
McCaskill join us as cosponsors in this effort.
Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of
large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires
agencies to track the earned value management index, a key cost and
performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall
below a defined threshold.
The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific
corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen.
Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on
original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic
to hide troubled projects. If severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, the
bill can even suspend commitment of funds to a project until the agency
takes the required corrective actions.
Our bill does not envision making Congress a micromanager of Federal
projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology.
But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will
be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of
shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with followup
reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project
alternatives when the original projects have run off course.
The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress
their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would
be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance
monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply
extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage and not just
when execution begins.
In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making
core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that
outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and
schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the
project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the
project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements;
and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements,
including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase.
To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill
also provides two new support mechanisms.
First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT-
management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project
planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and
risk.
Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator will be
required to establish an IT strike force of experts and independent
consultants who can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled
projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that
agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the
management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent
contractor to report on the project.
These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid
problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems
arise, and promote prompt corrective action.
In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong
remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20
percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress
but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the
problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have 6 months to
take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending
until those steps are completed.
If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past
decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress
might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased
functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the
handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census.
The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might
have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that
ultimately landed on high-risk lists.
Our bill creates a measured, methodical plan to ensure that Federal
agencies apply best practices to IT projects, supply timely reports of
problems, and devise corrective actions sooner rather than later. Our
Government and our citizens will benefit from these improvements. I
urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Burr, Mr.
Harkin, and Mr. Alexander):
S. 3385. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to the safety of the food supply;

[[Page 17717]]

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act.
Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for
ensuring the safety of about 80 percent of our food supply, announced
that it was one step closer to pinpointing the source of the current
Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak. At first we were told tomatoes were the
culprit. Then tomatoes were exonerated and jalapeno peppers in south
Texas were to blame. Now FDA is saying it has discovered a strain of
the bacteria in Serrano peppers from a farm in Tamaulipas, Mexico.
In the meantime, over three months have passed since the first
reported case. At least 255 people have been hospitalized and two have
died because of the outbreak. The tomato industry faces tens of
millions of dollars in losses and a loss in consumer confidence. Some
estimate that the economic impact may be as much as $100 to $500
million.
Over the last couple of years we have seen news headlines about E.
coli in spinach, pet food spiked with melamine, Salmonella-tainted
peanut butter, and now contaminated peppers. It's clear that these are
not isolated cases but the product of a food safety system that is
outdated, under-funded, and overwhelmed. Some of our most important
food safety statutes date back to the early 1900s. Standards have not
been updated. The budgets of the agencies that act as watchdogs over
the system have eroded. We import more of our food than ever but we
don't have the systems in place to make sure this food is as safe as it
could be. All these shortcomings put consumers at unnecessary risk.
FDA is struggling to keep up. There are holes in its ability to
protect consumers from unsafe foods. For example, the Consumer
Protection Safety Commission, the EPA, and even FDA with respect to
infant formula all have recall authority. But FDA is unable to pull any
other contaminated food off the shelf when the company that makes it
will not. FDA can suggest a recall and most of the time companies
comply. But there are always bad actors and sometimes companies choose
not to recall their products because they are afraid of upsetting
consumer confidence or losing market share. In this case, FDA's hands
are tied.
These are significant gaps in our food safety system that need to be
addressed. We can and should do better.
That is why I am pleased to introduce The FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, along with Senators Gregg, Dodd, Burr, Harkin, and
Alexander. This bill is a comprehensive, bipartisan effort that
addresses some of the weaknesses in FDA's authorities and resources and
updates food safety standards to make important improvements in our
current food safety system. The bill includes a number of important
preventive measures, such as increasing the frequency of FDA
inspections of food facilities, especially high-risk facilities;
directing FDA to set standards for fresh produce; and requiring the
food industry to control hazards in the food supply chain. It also
enables FDA to more effectively respond to an outbreak by giving the
agency new authorities to order recalls, shut down tainted facilities,
and access records to track and trace food.
The food industry is one of the most important sectors of our
economy, generating more than $1 trillion annually in economic activity
and employing millions of American workers. Food is also a deeply
personal experience, a part of our daily lives and our traditions and
culture. For far too long Congress has gone without a comprehensive
review of our food safety laws. As long as we continue to do nothing,
we will pay the price for an outdated and ill-equipped food safety
system.
I thank Senators Gregg, Dodd, Burr, Harkin, and Alexander for joining
me in crafting this bill and urge my colleagues to support.
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. 3385

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise specified, whenever in
this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment
to a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered to be made to a section or other provision of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.

TITLE I--GENERAL FOOD PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Inspections of records.
Sec. 102. Registration of food facilities.
Sec. 103. Mandatory recall authority.
Sec. 104. Hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
Sec. 105. Performance standards.
Sec. 106. Standards for produce safety.
Sec. 107. Targeting of inspection resources for domestic facilities,
foreign facilities, and ports of entry; annual report.
Sec. 108. Administrative detention of food.
Sec. 109. Protection against intentional adulteration.
Sec. 110. National agriculture and food defense strategy.
Sec. 111. Food and Agriculture Coordinating Councils.
Sec. 112. Decontamination and disposal standards and plans.
Sec. 113. Authority to collect fees.
Sec. 114. Final rule for prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in shell
eggs during production.
Sec. 115. Sanitary transportation of food.
Sec. 116. Food allergy and anaphylaxis management.

TITLE II--DETECTION AND SURVEILLANCE

Sec. 201. Recognition of laboratory accreditation for analyses of
foods.
Sec. 202. Integrated consortium of laboratory networks.
Sec. 203. Building domestic capacity.
Sec. 204. Enhancing traceback and recordkeeping.
Sec. 205. Surveillance.

TITLE III--SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR IMPORTED FOOD

Sec. 301. Foreign supplier verification program.
Sec. 302. Voluntary qualified importer program.
Sec. 303. Authority to require import certifications for food.
Sec. 304. Prior notice of imported food shipments.
Sec. 305. Review of a regulatory authority of a foreign country.
Sec. 306. Building capacity of foreign governments with respect to
food.
Sec. 307. Inspection of foreign food facilities.
Sec. 308. Accreditation of qualified third-party auditors.
Sec. 309. Foreign offices of the Food and Drug Administration.
Sec. 310. Funding for food safety.
Sec. 311. Jurisdiction; authorities.

TITLE I--GENERAL FOOD PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. INSPECTIONS OF RECORDS.

Section 414(a) (21 U.S.C. 350c(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking the heading and all follows through ``of
food is'' and inserting the following: ``Records
Inspection.--
``(1) Adulterated food.--If the Secretary has a reasonable
belief that an article of food, and any other article of food
that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be
affected in a similar manner, is'';
(2) by inserting ``, and to any other article of food that
the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in
a similar manner,'' after ``relating to such article'';
(3) by striking the last sentence; and
(4) by inserting at the end the following:
``(2) Serious adverse health consequences.--If the
Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability
that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any
other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes
is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause
serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or
animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who
manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds,
or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer
or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such
officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate
credentials and a written notice to such person, at
reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a
reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records
relating to such article and to any other article of food
that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be
affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the
Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable
probability that the use of or exposure to the food will
cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans
or animals.

[[Page 17718]]

``(3) Application.--The requirement under paragraphs (1)
and (2) applies to all records relating to the manufacture,
processing, packing, distribution, receipt, holding, or
importation of such article maintained by or on behalf of
such person in any format (including paper and electronic
formats) and at any location.''.

SEC. 102. REGISTRATION OF FOOD FACILITIES.

(a) Updating of Food Category Regulations; Biennial
Registration Renewal.--Section 415(a) (21 U.S.C. 350d(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by--
(A) striking ``conducts business and'' and inserting
``conducts business, the e-mail address for the contact
person of the facility, and''; and
(B) inserting ``, or any other food categories as
determined appropriate by the Secretary, including by
guidance)'' after ``Code of Federal Regulations'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Biennial registration renewal.--During the period
beginning on October 1 and ending on December 31 of each
even-numbered year, a registrant that has submitted a
registration under paragraph (1) shall submit to the
Secretary a renewal registration containing the information
described in paragraph (2). The Secretary shall provide for
an abbreviated registration renewal process for any
registrant that has not had any changes to such information
since the registrant submitted the preceding registration or
registration renewal for the facility involved.''.
(b) Suspension of Registration.--
(1) In general.--Section 415 (21 U.S.C. 350d) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``The registration shall contain a
consent to permit the Secretary to inspect such facility.'';
(B) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Suspension of Registration.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that food
manufactured, processed, packed, or held by a facility
registered under this section has a reasonable probability of
causing serious adverse health consequences or death to
humans or animals, the Secretary may by order suspend the
registration of the facility under this section in accordance
with this subsection.
``(2) Hearing on suspension.--The Secretary shall provide
the registrant subject to an order under paragraph (1) with
an opportunity for an informal hearing, to be held as soon as
possible but not later than 2 days after the issuance of the
order, on the actions required for reinstatement of
registration and why the registration that is subject to
suspension should be reinstated. The Secretary may reinstate
a registration if the Secretary determines, based on evidence
presented, that adequate grounds do not exist to continue the
suspension of the registration.
``(3) Post-hearing corrective action plan; vacating of
order.--
``(A) Corrective action plan.--If, after providing
opportunity for an informal hearing under paragraph (2), the
Secretary determines that the suspension of registration
remains necessary, the Secretary shall require the registrant
to submit a corrective action plan to demonstrate how the
registrant plans to correct the conditions found by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall review such plan in a timely
manner.
``(B) Vacating of order.--Upon a determination by the
Secretary that adequate grounds do not exist to continue the
suspension actions required by the order, or that such
actions should be modified, the Secretary shall vacate the
order or modify the order.
``(4) Effect of suspension.--If the registration of a
facility is suspended under this subsection, such facility
shall not import food or offer to import food into the United
States, or otherwise introduce food into interstate commerce
in the United States.
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations that describe the standards officials will use in
making a determination to suspend a registration, and the
format such officials will use to explain to the registrant
the conditions found at the facility.
``(6) No delegation.--The authority conferred by this
subsection to issue an order to suspend a registration or
vacate an order of suspension shall not be delegated to any
officer or employee other than the Commissioner.''.
(2) Imported food.--Section 801(l) (21 U.S.C. 381(l)) is
amended by inserting ``(or for which a registration has been
suspended under such section)'' after ``section 415''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 301(d) (21 U.S.C. 331(d)) is amended by
inserting ``415,'' after ``404,''.
(2) Section 415(d), as redesignated by subsection (b), is
amended by adding at the end before the period ``for a
facility to be registered, except with respect to the
reinstatement of a registration that is suspended under
subsection (b)''.

SEC. 103. MANDATORY RECALL AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Chapter IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 418. MANDATORY RECALL AUTHORITY.

``(a) Voluntary Procedures.--If the Secretary determines,
based on information gathered through the reportable food
registry under section 417 or through any other means, that
there is a reasonable probability that an article of food
(other than infant formula) is adulterated under section 402
or misbranded under section 403(w) and the use of or exposure
to such article will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary
shall provide the responsible party (as defined in section
417) with an opportunity to cease distribution and recall
such article.
``(b) Prehearing Order To Cease Distribution and Give
Notice.--If the responsible party refuses to or does not
voluntarily cease distribution or recall such article within
the time and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary (if so
prescribed), the Secretary may, by order require, as the
Secretary deems necessary, such person to--
``(1) immediately cease distribution of such article; or
``(2) immediately notify all persons--
``(A) manufacturing, processing, packing, transporting,
distributing, receiving, holding, or importing and selling
such article; and
``(B) to which such article has been distributed,
transported, or sold, to immediately cease distribution of
such article.
``(c) Hearing on Order.--The Secretary shall provide the
responsible party subject to an order under subsection (b)
with an opportunity for an informal hearing, to be held as
soon as possible but not later than 2 days after the issuance
of the order, on the actions required by the order and on why
the article that is the subject of the order should not be
recalled.
``(d) Post-Hearing Recall Order and Modification of
Order.--
``(1) Amendment of order.--If, after providing opportunity
for an informal hearing under subsection (c), the Secretary
determines that removal of the article from commerce is
necessary, the Secretary shall, as appropriate--
``(A) amend the order to require recall of such article or
other appropriate action;
``(B) specify a timetable in which the recall shall occur;
``(C) require periodic reports to the Secretary describing
the progress of the recall; and
``(D) provide notice to consumers to whom such article was,
or may have been, distributed.
``(2) Vacating of order.--If, after such hearing, the
Secretary determines that adequate grounds do not exist to
continue the actions required by the order, or that such
actions should be modified, the Secretary shall vacate the
order or modify the order.
``(e) Cooperation and Consultation.--The Secretary shall
work with State and local public health officials in carrying
out this section, as appropriate.
``(f) Public Notification.--In conducting a recall under
this section, the Secretary shall ensure that a press release
is published regarding the recall, as well as alerts and
public notices, as appropriate, in order to provide
notification of the recall to consumers and retailers to whom
such article was, or may have been, distributed. The
notification shall include, at a minimum--
``(1) the name of the article of food subject to the
recall; and
``(2) a description of the risk associated with such
article.
``(g) No Delegation.--The authority conferred by this
section to order a recall or vacate a recall order shall not
be delegated to any officer or employee other than the
Commissioner.
``(h) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall affect the
authority of the Secretary to request or participate in a
voluntary recall.''.
(b) Civil Penalty.--Section 303(f)(2)(A) (21 U.S.C.
333(f)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ``or any person who
does not comply with a recall order under section 418'' after
``section 402(a)(2)(B)''.
(c) Prohibited Acts.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(oo) The refusal or failure to follow an order under
section 418.''.

SEC. 104. HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK-BASED PREVENTIVE CONTROLS.

(a) In General.--Chapter IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as
amended by section 103, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 419. HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK-BASED PREVENTIVE
CONTROLS.

``(a) In General.--Each owner, operator, or agent in charge
of a facility shall, in accordance with this section,
evaluate the hazards that could affect food manufactured,
processed, packed, or held by such facility, identify and
implement preventive controls to significantly minimize or
prevent their occurrence and provide assurances that such
food is not adulterated under section 402 or misbranded under
section 403(w), monitor the performance of those controls,
and maintain records of this monitoring as a matter of
routine practice.
``(b) Hazard Analysis.--The owner, operator, or agent in
charge of a facility shall--

[[Page 17719]]

``(1) identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable
hazards that may be associated with the facility, including--
``(A) biological, chemical, physical, and radiological
hazards, natural toxins, pesticides, drug residues,
decomposition, parasites, allergens, and unapproved food and
color additives; and
``(B) hazards that occur naturally, may be unintentionally
introduced, or may be intentionally introduced, including by
acts of terrorism; and
``(2) develop a written analysis of the hazards.
``(c) Preventive Controls.--The owner, operator, or agent
in charge of a facility shall identify and implement
preventive controls, including at critical control points, if
any, to provide assurances that--
``(1) hazards identified in the hazard analysis conducted
under subsection (b) will be significantly minimized or
prevented; and
``(2) the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by
such facility will not be adulterated under section 402 or
misbranded under section 403(w).
``(d) Monitoring of Effectiveness.--The owner, operator, or
agent in charge of a facility shall monitor the effectiveness
of the preventive controls implemented under subsection (c)
to provide assurances that the outcomes described in
subsection (c) shall be achieved.
``(e) Corrective Actions.--The owner, operator, or agent in
charge of a facility shall establish procedures that a
facility will implement if the preventive controls
implemented under subsection (c) are found to be ineffective
through monitoring under subsection (d).
``(f) Verification.--The owner, operator, or agent in
charge of a facility shall verify that--
``(1) the preventive controls implemented under subsection
(c) are adequate to control the hazards identified under
subsection (b);
``(2) the owner, operator, or agent is conducting
monitoring in accordance with subsection (d);
``(3) the owner, operator, or agent is making appropriate
decisions about corrective actions taken under subsection
(e); and
``(4) there is documented, periodic reanalysis of the plan
under subsection (i) to ensure that the plan is still
relevant to the raw materials, as well as to conditions and
processes in the facility, and to new and emerging threats.
``(g) Recordkeeping.--The owner, operator, or agent in
charge of a facility shall maintain, for not less than 2
years, records documenting the monitoring of the preventive
controls implemented under subsection (c), instances of
nonconformance material to food safety, instances when
corrective actions were implemented, and the efficacy of
preventive controls and corrective actions.
``(h) Written Plan and Documentation.--Each owner,
operator, or agent in charge of a facility shall prepare a
written plan that documents and describes the procedures used
by the facility to comply with the requirements of this
section, including analyzing the hazards under subsection (b)
and identifying the preventive controls adopted to address
those hazards under subsection (c). Such written plan,
together with documentation that the plan is being
implemented, shall be made promptly available to a duly
authorized representative of the Secretary upon oral or
written request.
``(i) Requirement To Reanalyze.--Each owner, operator, or
agent in charge of a facility shall conduct a reanalysis
under subsection (b) whenever a significant change is made in
the activities conducted at a facility operated by such
owner, operator, or agent if the change creates a reasonable
potential for a new hazard or a significant increase in a
previously identified hazard or not less frequently than once
every 3 years, whichever is earlier. Such reanalysis shall be
completed and additional preventive controls needed to
address the hazard identified, if any, shall be implemented
before the change in activities at the facility is commenced.
Such owner, operator, or agent shall revise the written plan
required under subsection (h) if such a significant change is
made or document the basis for the conclusion that no
additional or revised preventive controls are needed. The
Secretary may require a reanalysis under this section to
respond to new hazards and developments in scientific
understanding.
``(j) Deemed Compliance of Seafood, Juice, and Low-Acid
Canned Food Facilities in Compliance With HACCP.--An owner,
operator, or agent in charge of a facility required to comply
with 1 of the following standards and regulations with
respect to such facility shall be deemed to be in compliance
with this section, with respect to such facility:
``(1) The Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
Program of the Food and Drug Administration.
``(2) The Juice Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
Program of the Food and Drug Administration.
``(3) The Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods Packaged in
Hermetically Sealed Containers standards of the Food and Drug
Administration (or any successor standards).
``(k) Exception for Facilities in Compliance With Section
420.--This section shall not apply to a facility that is
subject to section 420.
``(l) Authority With Respect to Certain Facilities.--The
Secretary may, by regulation, exempt or modify the
requirements for compliance under this section with respect
to facilities that are solely engaged in the storage of
packaged foods that are not exposed to the environment.
``(m) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Critical control point.--The term `critical control
point' means a point, step, or procedure in a food process at
which control can be applied and is essential to prevent or
eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable
level.
``(2) Facility.--The term `facility' means a domestic
facility or a foreign facility that is required to register
under section 415.
``(3) Preventive controls.--The term `preventive controls'
means those risk-based, reasonably appropriate procedures,
practices, and processes that a person knowledgeable about
the safe manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding of
food would have employed to significantly minimize or prevent
the hazards identified under the hazard analysis conducted
under subsection (a) and that are consistent with the current
scientific understanding of safe food manufacturing,
processing, packing, or holding at the time of the analysis.
Those procedures, practices, and processes may include the
following:
``(A) Sanitation procedures for food contact surfaces and
utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment.
``(B) Supervisor, manager, and employee hygiene training.
``(C) An environmental monitoring program to verify the
effectiveness of pathogen controls.
``(D) An allergen control program.
``(E) A recall contingency plan.
``(F) Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs).
``(G) Supplier verification activities.''.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall
promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum
standards for conducting a hazard analysis, documenting
hazards, implementing preventive controls, and documenting
the implementation of the preventive controls under section
419 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by
subsection (a)).
(2) Content.--The regulations promulgated under paragraph
(1) shall provide sufficient flexibility to be applicable in
all situations, including in the operations of small
businesses.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to provide the Secretary with the authority to
apply specific technologies, practices, or critical controls
to an individual facility.
(4) Review.--In promulgating the regulations under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review regulatory hazard
analysis and preventive control programs in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act to ensure that the program
under such section 419 is consistent, to the extent
practicable, with applicable internationally recognized
standards in existence on such date.
(c) Guidance Document.--The Secretary shall issue a
guidance document related to hazard analysis and preventive
controls required under section 419 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by subsection (a)).
(d) Prohibited Acts.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331), as
amended by section 103, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(pp) The operation of a facility that manufacturers,
processes, packs, or holds food for sale in the United States
if the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such facility
is not in compliance with section 419.''.
(e) No Effect on HACCP Authorities.--Nothing in the
amendments made by this section limits the authority of the
Secretary under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) to revise, issue, or enforce product and
category-specific regulations, such as the Seafood Hazard
Analysis Critical Controls Points Program, the Juice Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Program, and the Thermally
Processed Low-Acid Foods Packaged in Hermetically Sealed
Containers standards.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) General rule.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
(A) the amendments made by this section shall apply to a
small business (as defined by the Secretary) after the date
that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) the amendments made by this section shall apply to a
very small business (as defined by the Secretary) after the
date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 105. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

The Secretary shall, not less frequently than every 2
years, review and evaluate epidemiological data and other
appropriate sources of information to determine the most
significant food-borne contaminants and the most significant
resulting hazards,

[[Page 17720]]

and may issue science-based guidance documents, action
levels, and regulations to help prevent adulteration under
section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 342). Such standards shall be applicable to products
and product classes and shall not be written to be facility-
specific.

SEC. 106. STANDARDS FOR PRODUCE SAFETY.

(a) In General.--Chapter IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as
amended by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 420. STANDARDS FOR PRODUCE SAFETY.

``(a) Proposed Rulemaking.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture
and representatives of State departments of agriculture,
shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish
science-based minimum standards for the safe production and
harvesting of those types of fruits and vegetables that are
raw agricultural commodities for which the Secretary has
determined that such standards minimize the risk of serious
adverse health consequences or death.
``(2) Public input.--During the comment period on the
notice of proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall conduct not less than 3 public meetings in
diverse geographical areas of the United States to provide
persons in different regions an opportunity to comment.
``(3) Content.--The proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1)
shall--
``(A) include, with respect to growing, harvesting,
sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to
fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature
controls, animal encroachment, and water; and
``(B) consider hazards that occur naturally, may be
unintentionally introduced, or may be intentionally
introduced, including by acts of terrorism.
``(4) Prioritization.--The Secretary shall prioritize the
implementation of the regulations for specific fruits and
vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities that have
been associated with food-borne illness outbreaks.
``(b) Final Regulation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the close of
the comment period for the proposed rulemaking under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall adopt a final regulation
to provide for minimum standards for those types of fruits
and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for
which the Secretary has determined that such standards
minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or
death.
``(2) Final regulation.--The final regulation shall--
``(A) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance,
taking into account the needs of small businesses for
additional time to comply;
``(B) provide for coordination of education and enforcement
activities by State and local officials, as designated by the
Governors of the respective States; and
``(C) include a description of the variance process under
subsection (c) and the types of permissible variances the
Secretary may grant.
``(c) Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The regulations adopted under subsection
(b) shall--
``(A) set forth those procedures, processes, and practices
as the Secretary determines to be reasonably necessary to
prevent the introduction of known or reasonably foreseeable
biological, chemical, and physical hazards, including hazards
that occur naturally, may be unintentionally introduced, or
may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of
terrorism, into fruits and vegetables that are raw
agricultural commodities and to provide reasonable assurances
that the produce is not adulterated under section 402; and
``(B) permit States and foreign countries from which food
is imported into the United States, subject to paragraph (2),
to request from the Secretary variances from the requirements
of the regulations, where upon approval of the Secretary, the
variance is considered permissible under the requirements of
the regulations adopted under subsection (b)(1)(C) and where
the State or foreign country determines that the variance is
necessary in light of local growing conditions and that the
procedures, processes, and practices to be followed under the
variance are reasonably likely to ensure that the produce is
not adulterated under section 402 to the same extent as the
requirements of the regulation adopted under subsection (b).
``(2) Approval of variances.--A State or foreign country
from which food is imported into the United States shall
request a variance from the Secretary in writing. The
Secretary may deny such a request as not reasonably likely to
ensure that the produce is not adulterated under section 402
to the same extent as the requirements of the regulation
adopted under subsection (b).
``(d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may coordinate with the
Secretary of Agriculture and shall contract and coordinate
with the agency or department designated by the Governor of
each State to perform activities to ensure compliance with
this section.
``(e) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the
Secretary shall publish, after consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State
departments of agriculture, updated good agricultural
practices and guidance for the safe production and harvesting
of specific types of fresh produce.
``(f) Exception for Facilities in Compliance With Section
419.--This section shall not apply to a facility that is
subject to section 419.''.
(b) Prohibited Acts.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331), as
amended by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(qq) The production or harvesting of produce not in
accordance with minimum standards as provided by regulation
under section 420(b) or a variance issued under section
420(c).''.
(c) No Effect on HACCP Authorities.--Nothing in the
amendments made by this section limits the authority of the
Secretary under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) to revise, issue, or enforce product and
category-specific regulations, such as the Seafood Hazard
Analysis Critical Controls Points Program, the Juice Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Program, and the Thermally
Processed Low-Acid Foods Packaged in Hermetically Sealed
Containers standards.

SEC. 107. TARGETING OF INSPECTION RESOURCES FOR DOMESTIC
FACILITIES, FOREIGN FACILITIES, AND PORTS OF
ENTRY; ANNUAL REPORT.

(a) Targeting of Inspection Resources for Domestic
Facilities, Foreign Facilities, and Ports of Entry.--Chapter
IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended by section 106, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 421. TARGETING OF INSPECTION RESOURCES FOR DOMESTIC
FACILITIES, FOREIGN FACILITIES, AND PORTS OF
ENTRY; ANNUAL REPORT.

``(a) Identification and Inspection of Facilities.--
``(1) Identification.--The Secretary shall allocate
resources to inspect facilities according to the risk profile
of the facilities, which shall be based on the following
factors:
``(A) The risk profile of the food manufactured, processed,
packed, or held at the facility.
``(B) The facility's history of food recalls, outbreaks,
and violations of food safety standards.
``(C) The rigor of the facility's hazard analysis and risk-
based preventive controls.
``(D) Whether the food manufactured, processed, packed,
handled, prepared, treated, distributed, or stored at the
facility meets the criteria for priority under section
801(h)(1).
``(E) Whether the facility has received a certificate as
described in section 809(b).
``(F) Any other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate
by the Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection
resources.
``(2) Inspections.--The Secretary shall increase the
frequency of inspection of all facilities, and shall increase
the frequency of inspection of facilities identified under
paragraph (1) as high-risk facilities such that--
``(A) for the first 2 years after the date of enactment of
the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, each high-risk
facility is inspected not less often than once every 2 years;
and
``(B) for each succeeding year, each high-risk facility is
inspected not less often than once each year.
``(b) Identification and Inspection at Ports of Entry.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, shall allocate resources to inspect articles of
food imported into the United States according to the risk
profile of the article of food, which shall be based on the
following factors:
``(1) The risk profile of the food imported.
``(2) The risk profile of the countries of origin and
countries of transport of the food imported.
``(3) The history of food recalls, outbreaks, and
violations of food safety standards of the food importer.
``(4) The rigor of the foreign supplier verification
program under section 805.
``(5) Whether the food importer participates in the
Voluntary Qualified Importer Program under section 806.
``(6) Whether the food meets the criteria for priority
under section 801(h)(1).
``(7) Whether the food is from a facility that has received
a certificate as described in section 809(b).
``(8) Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the
Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection resources.
``(c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall improve
coordination and cooperation with the Secretary of
Agriculture to target food inspection resources.
``(d) Facility.--For purposes of this section, the term
`facility' means a domestic facility or a foreign facility
that is required to register under section 415.''.
(b) Annual Report.--Section 903 (21 U.S.C. 393) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Annual Report Regarding Food.--Not later than
February 1 of each year, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report regarding--

[[Page 17721]]

``(1) information about food facilities including--
``(A) the appropriations used to inspect facilities
registered pursuant to section 415 in the previous fiscal
year;
``(B) the average cost of both a non-high-risk food
facility inspection and a high-risk food facility inspection,
if such a difference exists, in the previous fiscal year;
``(C) the number of domestic facilities and the number of
foreign facilities registered pursuant to section 415 that
the Secretary inspected in the previous fiscal year;
``(D) the number of domestic facilities and the number of
foreign facilities registered pursuant to section 415 that
the Secretary did not inspect in the previous fiscal year;
``(E) the number of high-risk facilities identified
pursuant to section 421 that the Secretary inspected in the
previous fiscal year; and
``(F) the number of high-risk facilities identified
pursuant to section 421 that the Secretary did not inspect in
the previous fiscal year;
``(2) information about food imports including--
``(A) the number of lines of food imported into the United
States that the Secretary physically inspected or sampled in
the previous fiscal year;
``(B) the number of lines of food imported into the United
States that the Secretary did not physically inspect or
sample in the previous fiscal year; and
``(C) the average cost of physically inspecting or sampling
a food line subject to this Act that is imported or offered
for import into the United States; and
``(3) information on the foreign offices established under
section 309 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
including--
``(A) the number of foreign offices established; and
``(B) the number of personnel permanently stationed in each
foreign office.
``(i) Public Availability of Annual Food Reports.--The
Secretary shall make the reports required under subsection
(h) available to the public on the Internet Web site of the
Food and Drug Administration.''.

SEC. 108. ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION OF FOOD.

(a) In General.--Section 304(h)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C.
334(h)(1)(A)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``credible evidence or information
indicating'' and inserting ``reason to believe''; and
(2) striking ``presents a threat of serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals'' and inserting
``is adulterated or misbranded''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue an interim
final rule amending subpart K of part 1 of title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations, to implement the amendment made by this
section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 109. PROTECTION AGAINST INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION.

(a) In General.--Chapter IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as
amended by section 107, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 422. PROTECTION AGAINST INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall promulgate
regulations to protect against the intentional adulteration
of food subject to this Act.
``(b) Content of Regulations.--Regulations under subsection
(a) shall only apply to food--
``(1) for which the Secretary has identified clear
vulnerabilities (such as short shelf-life or susceptibility
to intentional contamination at critical control points);
``(2) in bulk or batch form, prior to being packaged for
the final consumer; and
``(3) for which there is a high risk of intentional
contamination, as determined by the Secretary, that could
cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans
or animals.
``(c) Determinations.--In making the determination under
subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall--
``(1) conduct vulnerability assessments of the food system;
``(2) consider the best available understanding of
uncertainties, risks, costs, and benefits associated with
guarding against intentional adulteration at vulnerable
points; and
``(3) determine the types of science-based mitigation
strategies or measures that are necessary to protect against
the intentional adulteration of food.
``(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to food
produced on farms, except for milk.
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`farm' has the meaning given that term in section 1.227 of
title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation).''.
(b) Guidance Documents.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Agriculture, shall issue guidance documents related to
protection against the intentional adulteration of food,
including mitigation strategies or measures to guard against
such adulteration as required under section 422 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection
(a).
(2) Content.--The guidance document issued under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) specify how a person shall assess whether the person is
required to implement mitigation strategies or measures
intended to protect against the intentional adulteration of
food;
(B) specify appropriate science-based mitigation strategies
or measures to prepare and protect the food supply chain at
specific vulnerable points, as appropriate;
(C) include a model assessment for a person to use under
subparagraph (A);
(D) include examples of mitigation strategies or measures
described in subparagraph (B); and
(E) specify situations in which the examples of mitigation
strategies or measures described in subparagraph (D) are
appropriate.
(3) Limited distribution.--In the interest of national
security, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, may determine the time and manner in
which the guidance documents issued under paragraph (1) are
made public, including by releasing such documents to
targeted audiences.
(c) Periodic Review.--The Secretary shall periodically
review and, as appropriate, update the regulation under
subsection (a) and the guidance documents under subsection
(b).
(d) Prohibited Acts.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331 et seq.),
as amended by section 106, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(rr) The failure to comply with section 422.''.

SEC. 110. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD DEFENSE STRATEGY.

(a) Development and Submission of Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall prepare and
submit to the relevant committees of Congress, and make
publicly available on the Internet Web site of the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Department of
Agriculture, the National Agriculture and Food Defense
Strategy.
(2) Implementation plan.--The strategy shall include an
implementation plan for use by the Secretaries described
under paragraph (1) in carrying out the strategy.
(3) Research.--The strategy shall include a coordinated
research agenda for use by the Secretaries described under
paragraph (1) in conducting research to support the goals and
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(b).
(4) Revisions.--Not later than 4 years after the date on
which the strategy is submitted to the relevant committees of
Congress under paragraph (1), and not less frequently than
every 4 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall revise and
submit to the relevant committees of Congress the strategy.
(5) Consistency with existing plans.--The strategy
described in paragraph (1) shall be consistent with--
(A) the National Incident Management System;
(B) the National Response Framework;
(C) the National Infrastructure Protection Plan;
(D) the National Preparedness Goals; and
(E) other relevant national strategies.
(b) Components.--
(1) In general.--The strategy shall include a description
of the process to be used by the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Department of Homeland Security--
(A) to achieve each goal described in paragraph (2); and
(B) to evaluate the progress made by Federal, State, local,
and tribal governments towards the achievement of each goal
described in paragraph (2).
(2) Goals.--The strategy shall include a description of the
process to be used by the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department
of Homeland Security to achieve the following goals:
(A) Preparedness goal.--Enhance the preparedness of the
agriculture and food system by--
(i) conducting vulnerability assessments of the agriculture
and food system;
(ii) mitigating vulnerabilities of the system;
(iii) improving communication and training relating to the
system;
(iv) developing and conducting exercises to test
decontamination and disposal plans;
(v) developing modeling tools to improve event consequence
assessment and decision support; and
(vi) preparing risk communication tools and enhancing
public awareness through outreach.
(B) Detection goal.--Improve agriculture and food system
detection capabilities by--

[[Page 17722]]

(i) identifying contamination in food products at the
earliest possible time; and
(ii) conducting surveillance to prevent the spread of
diseases.
(C) Emergency response goal.--Ensure an efficient response
to agriculture and food emergencies by--
(i) immediately investigating animal disease outbreaks and
suspected food contamination;
(ii) preventing additional human illnesses;
(iii) organizing, training, and equipping animal, plant,
and food emergency response teams of--

(I) the Federal Government; and
(II) State, local, and tribal governments;

(iv) designing, developing, and evaluating training and
exercises carried out under agriculture and food defense
plans; and
(v) ensuring consistent and organized risk communication to
the public by--

(I) the Federal Government;
(II) State, local, and tribal governments; and
(III) the private sector.

(D) Recovery goal.--Secure agriculture and food production
after an agriculture or food emergency by--
(i) working with the private sector to develop business
recovery plans to rapidly resume agriculture and food
production;
(ii) conducting exercises of the plans described in
subparagraph (C) with the goal of long-term recovery results;
(iii) rapidly removing, and effectively disposing of--

(I) contaminated agriculture and food products; and
(II) infected plants and animals; and

(iv) decontaminating and restoring areas affected by an
agriculture or food emergency.

SEC. 111. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COORDINATING COUNCILS.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary
of Agriculture, shall within 180 days of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, submit to the relevant
committees of Congress, and make publicly available on the
Internet Web site of the Department of Homeland Security, a
report on the activities of the Food and Agriculture
Government Coordinating Council and the Food and Agriculture
Sector Coordinating Council, including the progress of such
Councils on--
(1) facilitating partnerships between public and private
entities to help unify and enhance the protection of the
agriculture and food system of the United States;
(2) providing for the regular and timely interchange of
information between each council relating to the security of
the agriculture and food system (including intelligence
information);
(3) identifying best practices and methods for improving
the coordination among Federal, State, local, and private
sector preparedness and response plans for agriculture and
food defense; and
(4) recommending methods by which to protect the economy
and the public health of the United States from the effects
of--
(A) animal or plant disease outbreaks;
(B) food contamination; and
(C) natural disasters affecting agriculture and food.

SEC. 112. DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL STANDARDS AND PLANS.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the
``Administrator''), in coordination with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security,
and Secretary of Agriculture, shall provide support for, and
technical assistance to, State, local, and tribal governments
in preparing for, assessing, decontaminating, and recovering
from an agriculture or food emergency.
(b) Development of Standards.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security,
Secretary of Agriculture, and State, local, and tribal
governments, shall develop and disseminate specific standards
and protocols to undertake clean-up, clearance, and recovery
activities following the decontamination and disposal of
specific threat agents and foreign animal diseases.
(c) Development of Model Plans.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly
develop and disseminate model plans for--
(1) the decontamination of individuals, equipment, and
facilities following an intentional contamination of
agriculture or food; and
(2) the disposal of large quantities of animals, plants, or
food products that have been infected or contaminated by
specific threat agents and foreign animal diseases.
(d) Exercises.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Administrator, in coordination with the entities described
under subsection (b), shall conduct exercises at least
annually to evaluate and identify weaknesses in the
decontamination and disposal model plans described in
subsection (c). Such exercises shall be carried out, to the
maximum extent practicable, as part of the national exercise
program under section 648(b)(1) of the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 748(b)(1)).
(e) Modifications.--Based on the exercises described in
subsection (d), the Administrator, in coordination with the
entities described in subsection (b), shall review and modify
as necessary the plans described in subsection (c) not less
frequently than biennially.
(f) Prioritization.--The Administrator, in coordination
with the entities described in subsection (b), shall develop
standards and plans under subsections (b) and (c) in an
identified order of priority that takes into account--
(1) highest-risk biological, chemical, and radiological
threat agents;
(2) agents that could cause the greatest economic
devastation to the agriculture and food system; and
(3) agents that are most difficult to clean or remediate.

SEC. 113. AUTHORITY TO COLLECT FEES.

(a) Fees for Reinspection, Recall, and Importation
Activities.--Subchapter C of chapter VII (21 U.S.C. 379f et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 740 the
following:

``PART 5--FEES RELATED TO FOOD

``SEC. 740A. AUTHORITY TO COLLECT AND USE FEES.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Purpose and authority.--For fiscal year 2009 and each
subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary shall, in accordance
with this section, assess and collect fees from--
``(A) domestic facilities required to register under
section 415, to cover reinspection-related costs for each
such year;
``(B) domestic facilities required to register under
section 415, to cover food recall activities performed by the
Secretary, including technical assistance, follow-up
effectiveness checks, and public notifications, for each such
year;
``(C) importers required to register under section 415, to
cover the administrative costs of participating in the
voluntary qualified importer program under section 806 for
each such year; and
``(D) importers, to cover reinspection-related costs at
ports of entry for each such year.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) the term `reinspection' means 1 or more inspections
conducted under section 704 of this Act subsequent to an
inspection conducted under such provision which identified
noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement
of this Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has
been achieved to the Secretary's satisfaction; and
``(B) the term `reinspection-related costs' means all
expenses, including administrative expenses, incurred in
connection with--
``(i) arranging, conducting, and evaluating the results of
reinspections; and
``(ii) assessing and collecting reinspection fees under
this section.
``(b) Establishment of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the
Secretary shall establish the fees to be collected under this
section for each fiscal year specified in subsection (a)(1),
based on the methodology described under paragraph (2), and
shall publish such fees in a Federal Register notice not
later than 60 days before the start of each such year.
``(2) Fee methodology.--
``(A) Fees.--Fees amounts established for collection--
``(i) under subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(1) for a
fiscal year shall be based on the Secretary's estimate of 100
percent of the costs of the reinspection-related activities
(including by type or level of reinspection activity, as the
Secretary determines applicable) described in such
subparagraph (A) for such year;
``(ii) under subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) for a
fiscal year shall be based on the Secretary's estimate of 100
percent of the costs of the activities described in such
subparagraph (B) for such year;
``(iii) under subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) for a
fiscal year shall be based on the Secretary's estimate of 100
percent of the costs of the activities described in such
subparagraph (C) for such year; and
``(iv) under subparagraph (D) of subsection (a)(1) for a
fiscal year shall be based on the Secretary's estimate of 100
percent of the costs of the activities described in such
subparagraph (D) for such year.
``(B) Other considerations.--In establishing the fee
amounts for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide for
the crediting of fees from the previous year to the next year
if the Secretary overestimated the amount of fees needed to
carry out such activities, and consider the need to account
for any adjustment of fees and such other factors as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
``(3) Compliance with international agreements.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to authorize the assessment
of any fee inconsistent with the agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international
agreement to which the United States is a party.
``(c) Limitations.--
``(1) In general.--Fees under subsection (a) shall be
refunded for a fiscal year beginning after fiscal year 2009
unless appropriations for the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition and the Center for Veterinary Medicine and
related activities of the Office of Regulatory Affairs at the
Food and Drug

[[Page 17723]]

Administration for such fiscal year (excluding the amount of
fees appropriated for such fiscal year) are equal to or
greater than the amount of appropriations for the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Center for
Veterinary Medicine and related activities of the Office of
Regulatory Affairs at the Food and Drug Administration for
the preceding fiscal year (excluding the amount of fees
appropriated for such fiscal year) multiplied by 1 plus 4.5
percent.
``(2) Authority.--If the Secretary does not assess fees
under subsection (a) during any portion of a fiscal year
because of paragraph (1) and if at a later date in such
fiscal year the Secretary may assess such fees, the Secretary
may assess and collect such fees, without any modification in
the rate, under subsection (a), notwithstanding the
provisions of subsection (a) relating to the date fees are to
be paid.
``(3) Limitation on amount of certain fees.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in no
case may the amount of the fees collected for a fiscal year--
``(A) under subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) exceed
$20,000,000; and
``(B) under subparagraphs (A) and (D) of subsection (a)(1)
exceed $25,000,000 combined.
``(d) Crediting and Availability of Fees.--Fees authorized
under subsection (a) shall be collected and available for
obligation only to the extent and in the amount provided in
appropriations Acts. Such fees are authorized to remain
available until expended. Such sums as may be necessary may
be transferred from the Food and Drug Administration salaries
and expenses account without fiscal year limitation to such
appropriation account for salaries and expenses with such
fiscal year limitation. The sums transferred shall be
available solely for the purpose of paying the operating
expenses of the Food and Drug Administration employees and
contractors performing activities associated with these food
safety fees.
``(e) Collection of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall specify in the
Federal Register notice described in subsection (b)(1) the
time and manner in which fees assessed under this section
shall be collected.
``(2) Collection of unpaid fees.--In any case where the
Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under
this section within 30 days after it is due, such fee shall
be treated as a claim of the United States Government subject
to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31,
United States Code.
``(f) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than 120 days
after each fiscal year for which fees are assessed under this
section, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
United States House of Representatives, to include a
description of fees assessed and collected for each such year
and a summary description of the entities paying such fees
and the types of business in which such entities engage.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--For fiscal year
2009 and each fiscal year thereafter, there is authorized to
be appropriated for fees under this section an amount equal
to the total revenue amount determined under subsection (b)
for the fiscal year, as adjusted or otherwise affected under
the other provisions of this section.''.
(b) Export Certification Fees for Foods and Animal Feed.--
(1) Authority for export certifications for food, including
animal feed.--Section 801(e)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(4)(A))
is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``a
drug'' and inserting ``a food, drug'';
(B) in clause (i) by striking ``exported drug'' and
inserting ``exported food, drug''; and
(C) in clause (ii) by striking ``the drug'' each place it
appears and inserting ``the food, drug''.
(2) Clarification of certification.--Section 801(e)(4) (21
U.S.C. 381(e)(4)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph
(B) the following new subparagraph:
``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a certification by
the Secretary shall be made on such basis, and in such form
(including a publicly available listing) as the Secretary
determines appropriate.''.

SEC. 114. FINAL RULE FOR PREVENTION OF SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS
IN SHELL EGGS DURING PRODUCTION.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule based on the
proposed rule issued by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs
entitled ``Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell
Eggs During Production'', 69 Fed. Reg. 56824, (September 22,
2004).

SEC. 115. SANITARY TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations described in
section 416(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 350e(b)).

SEC. 116. FOOD ALLERGY AND ANAPHYLAXIS MANAGEMENT.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Early childhood education program.--The term ``early
childhood education program'' means--
(A) a Head Start program or an Early Head Start program
carried out under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et
seq.);
(B) a State licensed or regulated child care program or
school; or
(C) a State prekindergarten program that serves children
from birth through kindergarten.
(2) ESEA definitions.--The terms ``local educational
agency'', ``secondary school'', ``elementary school'', and
``parent'' have the meanings given the terms in section 9101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7801).
(3) School.--The term ``school'' includes public--
(A) kindergartens;
(B) elementary schools; and
(C) secondary schools.
(b) Establishment of Voluntary Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis
Management Guidelines.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Education, shall--
(i) develop guidelines to be used on a voluntary basis to
develop plans for individuals to manage the risk of food
allergy and anaphylaxis in schools and early childhood
education programs; and
(ii) make such guidelines available to local educational
agencies, schools, early childhood education programs, and
other interested entities and individuals to be implemented
on a voluntary basis only.
(B) Applicability of ferpa.--Each plan described in
subparagraph (A) that is developed for an individual shall be
considered an education record for the purpose of the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
(2) Contents.--The voluntary guidelines developed by the
Secretary under paragraph (1) shall address each of the
following, and may be updated as the Secretary deems
necessary:
(A) Parental obligation to provide the school or early
childhood education program, prior to the start of every
school year, with--
(i) documentation from their child's physician or nurse--

(I) supporting a diagnosis of food allergy and the risk of
anaphylaxis;

(II) identifying any food to which the child is allergic;
(III) describing, if appropriate, any prior history of
anaphylaxis;
(IV) listing any medication prescribed for the child for
the treatment of anaphylaxis;
(V) detailing emergency treatment procedures in the event
of a reaction;
(VI) listing the signs and symptoms of a reaction; and
(VII) assessing the child's readiness for self-
administration of prescription medication; and

(ii) a list of substitute meals that may be offered to the
child by school or early childhood education program food
service personnel.
(B) The creation and maintenance of an individual health
care plan for food allergy management, in consultation with
the parent, tailored to the needs of each child with a
documented risk for anaphylaxis, including any procedures for
the self-administration of medication by such children in
instances where--
(i) the children are capable of self-administering
medication; and
(ii) such administration is not prohibited by State law.
(C) Communication strategies between individual schools or
early childhood education programs and local providers of
emergency medical services, including appropriate
instructions for emergency medical response.
(D) Strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to
anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school
or early childhood education program areas such as
cafeterias.
(E) The dissemination of general information on life-
threatening food allergies to school or early childhood
education program staff, parents, and children.
(F) Food allergy management training of school or early
childhood education program personnel who regularly come into
contact with children with life-threatening food allergies.
(G) The authorization and training of school or early
childhood education program personnel to administer
epinephrine when the nurse is not immediately available.
(H) The timely accessibility of epinephrine by school or
early childhood education program personnel when the nurse is
not immediately available.
(I) The creation of a plan contained in each individual
health care plan for food allergy management that addresses
the appropriate response to an incident of anaphylaxis of a
child while such child is engaged in extracurricular programs
of a school or early childhood education program, such as
non-academic outings and field trips, before- and after-
school programs or before- and after-early child education
program programs, and school-sponsored or early childhood
education program-sponsored programs held on weekends.

[[Page 17724]]

(J) Maintenance of information for each administration of
epinephrine to a child at risk for anaphylaxis and prompt
notification to parents.
(K) Other elements the Secretary deems necessary for the
management of food allergies and anaphylaxis in schools and
early childhood education programs.
(3) Relation to state law.--Nothing in this section or the
guidelines developed by the Secretary under paragraph (1)
shall be construed to preempt State law, including any State
law regarding whether students at risk for anaphylaxis may
self-administer medication.
(c) School-Based Food Allergy Management Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants to local
educational agencies to assist such agencies with
implementing voluntary food allergy and anaphylaxis
management guidelines described in subsection (b).
(2) Application.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, a local educational agency shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and including such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) an assurance that the local educational agency has
developed plans in accordance with the food allergy and
anaphylaxis management guidelines described in subsection
(b);
(ii) a description of the activities to be funded by the
grant in carrying out the food allergy and anaphylaxis
management guidelines, including--

(I) how the guidelines will be carried out at individual
schools served by the local educational agency;
(II) how the local educational agency will inform parents
and students of the guidelines in place;
(III) how school nurses, teachers, administrators, and
other school-based staff will be made aware of, and given
training on, when applicable, the guidelines in place; and
(IV) any other activities that the Secretary determines
appropriate;

(iii) an itemization of how grant funds received under this
subsection will be expended;
(iv) a description of how adoption of the guidelines and
implementation of grant activities will be monitored; and
(v) an agreement by the local educational agency to report
information required by the Secretary to conduct evaluations
under this subsection.
(3) Use of funds.--Each local educational agency that
receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant
funds for the following:
(A) Purchase of materials and supplies, including limited
medical supplies such as epinephrine and disposable wet
wipes, to support carrying out the food allergy and
anaphylaxis management guidelines described in subsection
(b).
(B) In partnership with local health departments, school
nurse, teacher, and personnel training for food allergy
management.
(C) Programs that educate students as to the presence of,
and policies and procedures in place related to, food
allergies and anaphylactic shock.
(D) Outreach to parents.
(E) Any other activities consistent with the guidelines
described in subsection (b).
(4) Duration of awards.--The Secretary may award grants
under this subsection for a period of not more than 2 years.
In the event the Secretary conducts a program evaluation
under this subsection, funding in the second year of the
grant, where applicable, shall be contingent on a successful
program evaluation by the Secretary after the first year.
(5) Limitation on grant funding.--The Secretary may not
provide grant funding to a local educational agency under
this subsection after such local educational agency has
received 2 years of grant funding under this subsection.
(6) Maximum amount of annual awards.--A grant awarded under
this subsection may not be made in an amount that is more
than $50,000 annually.
(7) Priority.--In awarding grants under this subsection,
the Secretary shall give priority to local educational
agencies with the highest percentages of children who are
counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)).
(8) Matching funds.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may not award a grant under
this subsection unless the local educational agency agrees
that, with respect to the costs to be incurred by such local
educational agency in carrying out the grant activities, the
local educational agency shall make available (directly or
through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal funds toward such costs in an amount equal to not
less than 25 percent of the amount of the grant.
(B) Determination of amount of non-federal contribution.--
Non-Federal funds required under subparagraph (A) may be cash
or in kind, including plant, equipment, or services. Amounts
provided by the Federal Government, and any portion of any
service subsidized by the Federal Government, may not be
included in determining the amount of such non-Federal funds.
(9) Administrative funds.--A local educational agency that
receives a grant under this subsection may use not more than
2 percent of the grant amount for administrative costs
related to carrying out this subsection.
(10) Progress and evaluations.--At the completion of the
grant period referred to in paragraph (4), a local
educational agency shall provide the Secretary with
information on how grant funds were spent and the status of
implementation of the food allergy and anaphylaxis management
guidelines described in subsection (b).
(11) Supplement, not supplant.--Grant funds received under
this subsection shall be used to supplement, and not
supplant, non-Federal funds and any other Federal funds
available to carry out the activities described in this
subsection.
(12) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $30,000,000
for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as may be necessary for
each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
(d) Voluntary Nature of Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--The food allergy and anaphylaxis
management guidelines developed by the Secretary under
subsection (b) are voluntary. Nothing in this section or the
guidelines developed by the Secretary under subsection (b)
shall be construed to require a local educational agency to
implement such guidelines.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Secretary may enforce an agreement by a local educational
agency to implement food allergy and anaphylaxis management
guidelines as a condition of the receipt of a grant under
subsection (c).

TITLE II--DETECTION AND SURVEILLANCE

SEC. 201. RECOGNITION OF LABORATORY ACCREDITATION FOR
ANALYSES OF FOODS.

(a) In General.--Chapter IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as
amended by section 109, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 423. RECOGNITION OF LABORATORY ACCREDITATION FOR
ANALYSES OF FOODS.

``(a) Recognition of Laboratory Accreditation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) provide for the recognition of accreditation bodies
that accredit laboratories, including laboratories run and
operated by a State or locality, with a demonstrated
capability to conduct analytical testing of food products;
and
``(B) establish a publicly available registry of
accreditation bodies, including the name of, contact
information for, and other information deemed necessary by
the Secretary about such bodies.
``(2) Model accreditation standards.--The Secretary shall
develop model standards that an accreditation body shall
require laboratories to meet in order to be included in the
registry provided for under paragraph (1). In developing the
model standards, the Secretary shall look to existing
standards for guidance. The model standards shall include
methods to ensure that--
``(A) appropriate sampling and analytical procedures are
followed and reports of analyses are certified as true and
accurate;
``(B) internal quality systems are established and
maintained;
``(C) procedures exist to evaluate and respond promptly to
complaints regarding analyses and other activities for which
the laboratory is recognized;
``(D) individuals who conduct the analyses are qualified by
training and experience to do so; and
``(E) any other criteria determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(3) Review of accreditation.--To assure compliance with
the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall--
``(A) periodically, or at least every 5 years, reevaluate
accreditation bodies recognized under paragraph (1); and
``(B) promptly revoke the recognition of any accreditation
body found not to be in compliance with the requirements of
this section.
``(b) Testing Procedures.--Food testing shall be conducted
by either Federal laboratories or non-Federal laboratories
that have been accredited by an accreditation body on the
registry established by the Secretary under subsection (a)
whenever such testing is either conducted by or on behalf of
an owner or consignee--
``(1) in support of admission of an article of food under
section 801(a);
``(2) due to a specific testing requirement in this Act or
implementing regulations;
``(3) under an Import Alert that requires successful
consecutive tests; or
``(4) is so required by the Secretary as the Secretary
deems appropriate.
The results of any such sampling or testing shall be sent
directly to the Food and Drug Administration.
``(c) Review by Secretary.--If food sampling and testing
performed by a laboratory run and operated by a State or
locality that is accredited by an accreditation body on the

[[Page 17725]]

registry established by the Secretary under subsection (a)
result in a State recalling a food, the Secretary shall
review the sampling and testing results for the purpose of
determining the need for a national recall or other
compliance and enforcement activities.''.
(b) Food Emergency Response Network.--The Secretary, in
coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and State, local, and tribal
governments shall, not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, submit to
the relevant committees of Congress, and make publicly
available on the Internet Web site of the Department of
Health and Human Services, a report on the progress in
implementing a national food emergency response laboratory
network that--
(1) provides ongoing surveillance, rapid detection, and
surge capacity for large-scale food-related emergencies,
including intentional adulteration of the food supply;
(2) coordinates the food laboratory capacities of State
food laboratories, including the sharing of data between
State laboratories to develop national situational awareness;
(3) provides accessible, timely, accurate, and consistent
food laboratory services throughout the United States;
(4) develops and implements a methods repository for use by
Federal, State, and local officials;
(5) responds to food-related emergencies; and
(6) is integrated with relevant laboratory networks
administered by other Federal agencies.

SEC. 202. INTEGRATED CONSORTIUM OF LABORATORY NETWORKS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall maintain an agreement
through which relevant laboratory network members, as
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall--
(1) agree on common laboratory methods in order to
facilitate the sharing of knowledge and information relating
to animal health, agriculture, and human health;
(2) identify the means by which each laboratory network
member could work cooperatively--
(A) to optimize national laboratory preparedness; and
(B) to provide surge capacity during emergencies; and
(3) engage in ongoing dialogue and build relationships that
will support a more effective and integrated response during
emergencies.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall, on a biennial basis, submit to the relevant
committees of Congress, and make publicly available on the
Internet Web site of the Department of Homeland Security, a
report on the progress of the integrated consortium of
laboratory networks, as established under subsection (a), in
carrying out this section.

SEC. 203. BUILDING DOMESTIC CAPACITY.

(a) In General.--
(1) Initial report.--The Secretary shall, not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to
Congress a comprehensive report that identifies programs and
practices that are intended to promote the safety and
security of food and to prevent outbreaks of food-borne
illness and other food-related hazards that can be addressed
through preventive activities. Such report shall include a
description of the following:
(A) Analysis of the need for regulations or guidance to
industry.
(B) Outreach to food industry sectors, including through
the Food and Agriculture Coordinating Councils referred to in
section 111, to identify potential sources of emerging
threats to the safety and security of the food supply and
preventive strategies to address those threats.
(C) Systems to ensure the prompt distribution to the food
industry of information and technical assistance concerning
preventive strategies.
(D) Communication systems to ensure that information about
specific threats to the safety and security of the food
supply are rapidly and effectively disseminated.
(E) Surveillance systems and laboratory networks to rapidly
detect and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks and other
food-related hazards, including how such systems and networks
are integrated.
(F) Outreach, education, and training provided to States to
build State food safety and food defense capabilities,
including progress implementing strategies developed under
sections 110 and 205.
(G) The estimated resources needed to effectively implement
the programs and practices identified in the report developed
in this section over a 5-year period.
(2) Biennial reports.--On a biennial basis following the
submission of the report under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report that--
(A) reviews previous food safety programs and practices;
(B) outlines the success of those programs and practices;
(C) identifies future programs and practices; and
(D) includes information related to any matter described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (1), as necessary.
(b) Risk-Based Activities.--The report developed under
subsection (a)(1) shall describe methods that seek to ensure
that resources available to the Secretary for food safety-
related activities are directed at those actions most likely
to reduce risks from food, including the use of preventive
strategies and allocation of inspection resources. The
Secretary shall promptly undertake those risk-based actions
that are identified during the development of the report as
likely to contribute to the safety and security of the food
supply.
(c) Capability for Laboratory Analyses; Research.--The
report developed under subsection (a)(1) shall provide a
description of methods to increase capacity to undertake
analyses of food samples promptly after collection, to
identify new and rapid analytical techniques, including
techniques that can be employed at ports of entry and through
Food Emergency Response Network laboratories, and to provide
for well-equipped and staffed laboratory facilities.
(d) Information Technology.--The report developed under
subsection (a)(1) shall include a description of such
information technology systems as may be needed to identify
risks and receive data from multiple sources, including
foreign governments, State, local, and tribal governments,
other Federal agencies, the food industry, laboratories,
laboratory networks, and consumers. The information
technology systems that the Secretary describes shall also
provide for the integration of the facility registration
system under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350d), and the prior notice system
under section 801(m) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 381(m)) with
other information technology systems that are used by the
Federal Government for the processing of food offered for
import into the United States.
(e) Automated Risk Assessment.--The report developed under
subsection (a)(1) shall include a description of progress
toward developing and improving an automated risk assessment
system for food safety surveillance and allocation of
resources.
(f) Traceback and Surveillance Report.--The Secretary shall
include in the report developed under subsection (a)(1) an
analysis of the Food and Drug Administration's performance in
food-borne illness outbreaks during the 5-year period
preceding the date of enactment of this Act involving fruits
and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities (as
defined in section 201(r) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(r)) and recommendations for
enhanced surveillance, outbreak response, and traceability.
Such findings and recommendations shall address communication
and coordination with the public and industry, outbreak
identification, and traceback.
(g) Biennial Food Safety and Food Defense Research Plan.--
The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall, on a
biennial basis, submit to Congress a joint food safety and
food defense research plan which may include studying the
long-term health effects of food-borne illness. Such biennial
plan shall include a list and description of projects
conducted during the previous 2-year period and the plan for
projects to be conducted during the following 2-year period.

SEC. 204. ENHANCING TRACEBACK AND RECORDKEEPING.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State
departments of health and agriculture, shall improve the
capacity of the Secretary to effectively and rapidly track
and trace, in the event of an outbreak, fruits and vegetables
that are raw agricultural commodities.
(b) Pilot Project.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a pilot
project in coordination with the produce industry to explore
and evaluate new methods for rapidly and effectively tracking
and tracing fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural
commodities so that, if an outbreak occurs involving such a
fruit or vegetable, the Secretary may quickly identify the
source of the outbreak and the recipients of the contaminated
food.
(2) Content.--The Secretary shall select participants from
the produce industry to run projects which overall shall
include at least 3 different types of fruits or vegetables
that have been the subject of outbreaks during the 5-year
period preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and shall
be selected in order to develop and demonstrate--
(A) methods that are applicable and appropriate for small
businesses; and
(B) technologies, including existing technologies, that
enhance traceback and trace forward.
(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress
on the findings of the pilot project under subsection (b)
together with recommendations for establishing more effective
traceback and trace forward procedures for fruits and
vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities.

[[Page 17726]]

(d) Traceback Performance Requirements.--Not later than 24
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish
standards for the type of information, format, and timeframe
for persons to submit records to aid the Secretary in
effectively and rapidly tracking and tracing, in the event of
an outbreak, fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural
commodities. Nothing in this section shall be construed as
giving the Secretary the authority to prescribe specific
technologies for the maintenance of records.
(e) Public Input.--During the comment period in the notice
of proposed rulemaking under subsection (d), the Secretary
shall conduct not less than 3 public meetings in diverse
geographical areas of the United States to provide persons in
different regions an opportunity to comment.
(f) Raw Agricultural Commodity.--In this section, the term
``raw agricultural commodity'' has the meaning given that
term in section 201(r) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(r)).

SEC. 205. SURVEILLANCE.

(a) Definition of Food-Borne Illness Outbreak.--In this
section, the term ``food-borne illness outbreak'' means the
occurrence of 2 or more cases of a similar illness resulting
from the ingestion of a food.
(b) Food-Borne Illness Surveillance Systems.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall
enhance food-borne illness surveillance systems to improve
the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data
on food-borne illnesses by--
(A) coordinating Federal, State and local food-borne
illness surveillance systems, including complaint systems,
and increasing participation in national networks of public
health and food regulatory agencies and laboratories;
(B) facilitating sharing of findings on a more timely basis
among governmental agencies, including the Food and Drug
Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and State and
local agencies, and with the public;
(C) developing improved epidemiological tools for obtaining
quality exposure data, and microbiological methods for
classifying cases;
(D) augmenting such systems to improve attribution of a
food-borne illness outbreak to a specific food;
(E) expanding capacity of such systems, including working
toward automatic electronic searches, for implementation of
fingerprinting strategies for food-borne infectious agents,
in order to identify new or rarely documented causes of food-
borne illness and submit standardized information to a
centralized database;
(F) allowing timely public access to aggregated, de-
identified surveillance data;
(G) at least annually, publishing current reports on
findings from such systems;
(H) establishing a flexible mechanism for rapidly
initiating scientific research by academic institutions;
(I) integrating food-borne illness surveillance systems and
data with other biosurveillance and public health situational
awareness capabilities at the state and federal levels; and
(J) other activities as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
(2) Partnerships.--The Secretary shall support and maintain
a diverse working group of experts and stakeholders from
Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies,
the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia. Such
working group shall provide the Secretary, through at least
annual meetings of the working group and an annual public
report, advice and recommendations on an ongoing and regular
basis regarding the improvement of food-borne illness
surveillance and implementation of this section, including
advice and recommendations on--
(A) the priority needs of regulatory agencies, the food
industry, and consumers for information and analysis on food-
borne illness and its causes;
(B) opportunities to improve the effectiveness of
initiatives at the Federal, State, and local levels,
including coordination and integration of activities among
Federal agencies, and between the Federal, State, and local
levels of government;
(C) improvement in the timeliness and depth of access by
regulatory and health agencies, the food industry, academic
researchers, and consumers to food-borne illness surveillance
data collected by government agencies at all levels,
including data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention;
(D) key barriers to improvement in food-borne illness
surveillance and its utility for preventing food-borne
illness at Federal, State, and local levels;
(E) the capabilities needed for establishing automatic
electronic searches of surveillance data; and
(F) specific actions to reduce barriers to improvement,
implement the working group's recommendations, and achieve
the purposes of this section, with measurable objectives and
timelines, and identification of resource and staffing needs.
(c) Improving Food Safety and Defense Capacity at the State
and Local Level.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
strategies to leverage and enhance the food safety and
defense capacities of State and local agencies in order to
achieve the following goals:
(A) Improve food-borne illness outbreak response and
containment.
(B) Accelerate food-borne illness surveillance and outbreak
investigation, including rapid shipment of clinical isolates
from clinical laboratories to appropriate State laboratories,
and conducting more standardized illness outbreak interviews.
(C) Strengthen the capacity of State and local agencies to
carry out inspections and enforce safety standards.
(D) Improve the effectiveness of Federal-State partnerships
to coordinate food safety and defense resources and reduce
the incidence of food-borne illness.
(E) Share information on a timely basis among public health
and food regulatory agencies, with the food industry, with
health care providers, and with the public.
(F) Strengthen the capacity of State and local agencies to
achieve the goals described in section 110.
(2) Review.--In developing of the strategies required by
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, complete a review of State and local
capacities, and needs for enhancement, which may include a
survey with respect to--
(A) staffing levels and expertise available to perform food
safety and defense functions;
(B) laboratory capacity to support surveillance, outbreak
response, inspection, and enforcement activities;
(C) information systems to support data management and
sharing of food safety and defense information among State
and local agencies and with counterparts at the Federal
level; and
(D) other State and local activities and needs as
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(d) Food Safety Capacity Building Grants.--Section 317R(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-20(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2009''; and
(2) by striking ``2003 through 2006'' and inserting ``2010
through 2013''.

TITLE III--SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR IMPORTED FOOD

SEC. 301. FOREIGN SUPPLIER VERIFICATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Chapter VIII (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 805. FOREIGN SUPPLIER VERIFICATION PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Verification requirement.--Each United States
importer of record shall perform risk-based foreign supplier
verification activities in accordance with regulations
promulgated under subsection (c) for the purpose of verifying
that the food imported by the importer of record or its agent
is--
``(A) produced in compliance with the requirements of
section 419 or 420, as appropriate; and
``(B) is not adulterated under section 402 or misbranded
under section 403(w).
``(2) Importer exclusion.--For purposes of this section, an
`importer of record' shall not include a person holding a
valid license under section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1641) (referred to as a `customs broker') if the
customs broker has executed a written agreement with another
person who has agreed to comply with the requirements of this
section with regard to food imported or offered for import by
the customs broker.
``(b) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the
Secretary shall issue guidance to assist United States
importers of record in developing foreign supplier
verification programs.
``(c) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the
Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the
content of the foreign supplier verification program
established under subsection (a). Such regulations shall, as
appropriate, include a process for verification by a United
States importer of record, with respect to each foreign
supplier from which it obtains food, that the imported food
is produced in compliance with the requirements of section
419 or 420, as appropriate, and is not adulterated under
section 402 or misbranded under section 403(w).
``(2) Verification.--The regulations under paragraph (1)
shall require that the foreign supplier verification program
of each importer of record be adequate to provide assurances
that each foreign supplier to the importer of record produces
the imported food employing processes and procedures,
including risk-based reasonably appropriate preventive
controls, equivalent in preventing adulteration and reducing
hazards as those required by section 419 or section 420, as
appropriate.
``(3) Activities.--Verification activities under a foreign
supplier verification program

[[Page 17727]]

under this section may include monitoring records for
shipments, lot-by-lot certification of compliance, annual on-
site inspections, checking the hazard analysis and risk-based
preventive control plan of the foreign supplier, and
periodically testing and sampling shipments.
``(d) Record Maintenance and Access.--Records of a United
States importer of record related to a foreign supplier
verification program shall be maintained for a period of not
less than 2 years and shall be made available promptly to a
duly authorized representative of the Secretary upon request.
``(e) Deemed Compliance of Seafood, Juice, and Low-Acid
Canned Food Facilities in Compliance With HACCP.--An owner,
operator, or agent in charge of a facility required to comply
with 1 of the following standards and regulations with
respect to such facility shall be deemed to be in compliance
with this section with respect to such facility:
``(1) The Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
Program of the Food and Drug Administration.
``(2) The Juice Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
Program of the Food and Drug Administration.
``(3) The Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods Packaged in
Hermetically Sealed Containers standards of the Food and Drug
Administration (or any successor standards).
``(f) Publication of List of Participants.--The Secretary
shall publish and maintain on the Internet Web site of the
Food and Drug Administration a current list that includes the
name of, location of, and other information deemed necessary
by the Secretary about, importers participating under this
section.''.
(b) Prohibited Act.--Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331), as
amended by section 109, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(ss) The importation or offering for importation of a
food if the importer of record does not have in place a
foreign supplier verification program in compliance with
section 805.''.
(c) Imports.--Section 801(a) (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) is amended
by adding ``or the importer of record is in violation of
section 805'' after ``or in violation of section 505''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 302. VOLUNTARY QUALIFIED IMPORTER PROGRAM.

Chapter VIII (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.), as amended by section
301, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 806. VOLUNTARY QUALIFIED IMPORTER PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--Beginning not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization
Act, the Secretary shall--
``(1) establish a program, in consultation with the
Department of Homeland Security, to provide for the expedited
review and importation of food offered for importation by
United States importers who have voluntarily agreed to
participate in such program; and
``(2) issue a guidance document related to participation
and compliance with such program.
``(b) Voluntary Participation.--An importer may request the
Secretary to provide for the expedited review and importation
of designated foods in accordance with the program procedures
established by the Secretary.
``(c) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible, an importer
shall be offering food for importation from a facility that
has a certification described in section 809(b). In reviewing
the applications and making determinations on such requests,
the Secretary shall consider the risk of the food to be
imported based on factors, such as the following:
``(1) The nature of the food to be imported.
``(2) The compliance history of the foreign supplier.
``(3) The capability of the regulatory system of the
country of export to ensure compliance with United States
food safety standards.
``(4) The compliance of the importer with the requirements
of section 805.
``(5) The recordkeeping, testing, inspections and audits of
facilities, traceability of articles of food, temperature
controls, and sourcing practices of the importer.
``(6) The potential risk for intentional adulteration of
the food.
``(7) Any other factor that the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(d) Review and Revocation.--Any importer qualified by the
Secretary in accordance with the eligibility criteria set
forth in this section shall be reevaluated not less often
than once every 3 years and the Secretary shall promptly
revoke the qualified importer status of any importer found
not to be in compliance with such criteria.
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`importer' means the person that brings food, or causes food
to be brought, from a foreign country into the customs
territory of the United States.''.

SEC. 303. AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE IMPORT CERTIFICATIONS FOR
FOOD.

(a) In General.--Section 801(a) (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) is
amended by inserting after the third sentence the following:
``With respect to an article of food, if importation of such
food is subject to, but not compliant with, the requirement
under subsection (p) that such food be accompanied by a
certification or other assurance that the food meets some or
all applicable requirements of this Act, then such article
shall be refused admission.''.
(b) Addition of Certification Requirement.--Section 801 (21
U.S.C. 381) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(p) Certifications Concerning Imported Foods.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, based on public health
considerations, including risks associated with the food or
its place of origin, may require as a condition of granting
admission to an article of food imported or offered for
import into the United States, that an entity specified in
paragraph (2) provide a certification or such other
assurances as the Secretary determines appropriate that the
article of food complies with some or all applicable
requirements of this Act, as specified by the Secretary. Such
certification or assurances may be provided in the form of
shipment-specific certificates, a listing of certified
entities, or in such other form as the Secretary may specify.
Such certification shall be used for designated food imported
from countries with which the Food and Drug Administration
has an agreement to establish a certification program.
``(2) Certifying entities.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
entities that shall provide the certification or assurances
described in such paragraph are--
``(A) an agency or a representative of the government of
the country from which the article of food at issue
originated, as designated by such government or the
Secretary; or
``(B) such other persons or entities accredited pursuant to
section 809 to provide such certification or assurance.
``(3) Renewal and refusal of certifications.--The Secretary
may--
``(A) require that any certification or other assurance
provided by an entity specified in paragraph (2) be renewed
by such entity at such times as the Secretary determines
appropriate; and
``(B) refuse to accept any certification or assurance if
the Secretary determines that such certification or assurance
is no longer valid or reliable.
``(4) Electronic submission.--The Secretary shall provide
for the electronic submission of certifications under this
subsection.''.
(c) Conforming Technical Amendment.--Section 801(b) (21
U.S.C. 381(b)) is amended in the second sentence by striking
``with respect to an article included within the provision of
the fourth sentence of subsection (a)'' and inserting ``with
respect to an article described in subsection (a) relating to
the requirements of sections 760 or 761,''.
(d) No Limit on Authority.--Nothing in the amendments made
by this section shall limit the authority of the Secretary to
conduct random inspections of imported food or to take such
other steps as the Secretary deems appropriate to determine
the admissibility of imported food.

SEC. 304. PRIOR NOTICE OF IMPORTED FOOD SHIPMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 801(m)(1) (21 U.S.C. 381(m)(1)) is
amended by inserting ``any country to which the article has
been refused entry;'' after ``the country from which the
article is shipped;''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue an interim
final rule amending subpart I of part 1 of title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations, to implement the amendment made by this
section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 305. REVIEW OF A REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.

Chapter VIII (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.), as amended by section
302, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 807. REVIEW OF A REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.

``The Secretary may review information from a country
outlining the statutes, regulations, standards, and controls
of such country, and conduct on-site audits in such country
to verify the implementation of those statutes, regulations,
standards, and controls. Based on such review, the Secretary
shall determine whether such country can provide reasonable
assurances that the food supply of the country is equivalent
in safety to food manufactured, processed, packed, or held in
the United States.''.

SEC. 306. BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO FOOD.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, not later than 2
years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a
comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and
regulatory capacity of foreign governments, and their
respective food industries, from which foods are exported to
the United States.
(b) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of
Agriculture,

[[Page 17728]]

Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry,
appropriate foreign government officials, and nongovernmental
organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and
other stakeholders.
(c) Plan.--The plan developed under subsection (a) shall
include, as appropriate, the following:
(1) Recommendations for bilateral and multilateral
arrangements and agreements, including provisions to provide
for responsibility of exporting countries to ensure the
safety of food.
(2) Provisions for electronic data sharing.
(3) Provisions for mutual recognition of inspection
reports.
(4) Training of foreign governments and food producers on
United States requirements for safe food.
(5) Recommendations to harmonize requirements under the
Codex Alimentarius.
(6) Provisions for the multilateral acceptance of
laboratory methods and detection techniques.

SEC. 307. INSPECTION OF FOREIGN FOOD FACILITIES.

Chapter VIII (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.), as amended by section
305, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

``SEC. 808. INSPECTION OF FOREIGN FOOD FACILITIES.

``(a) Inspection.--The Secretary--
``(1) may enter into arrangements and agreements with
foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of foreign
facilities registered under section 415; and
``(2) shall direct resources to inspections of foreign
facilities, suppliers, and food types, especially such
facilities, suppliers, and food types that present a high
risk (as identified by the Secretary), to help ensure the
safety and security of the food supply of the United States.
``(b) Effect of Inability To Inspect.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, food shall be refused admission into
the United States if it is from a foreign facility registered
under section 415 of which the owner, operator, or agent in
charge of the facility, or the government of the foreign
country, refuses to permit entry of United States inspectors,
upon request, to inspect such facility. For purposes of this
subsection, such an owner, operator, or agent in charge shall
be considered to have refused an inspection if such owner,
operator, or agent in charge refuses such a request to
inspect a facility more than 48 hours after such request is
submitted.''.

SEC. 308. ACCREDITATION OF QUALIFIED THIRD-PARTY AUDITORS.

Chapter VIII (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.), as amended by section
307, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 809. ACCREDITATION OF QUALIFIED THIRD-PARTY AUDITORS.

``(a) Accreditation of Certifying Agents.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization
Act, the Secretary shall establish and implement an
accreditation system under which a foreign government, a
State or regional food authority, a foreign or domestic
cooperative that aggregates the products of growers or
processors, or any other third party that the Secretary
determines appropriate, may request to be accredited as a
certifying agent to certify that eligible entities meet the
applicable requirements of this Act.
``(2) Review by secretary.--When establishing the
accreditation system under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
review third-party accreditation systems in existence on the
date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act,
to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and costs.
``(3) Request by foreign government.--Prior to accrediting
a foreign government as a certifying agent, the Secretary
shall perform such reviews and audits of food safety
programs, systems, and standards of the government as the
Secretary deems necessary to determine that they are adequate
to ensure that eligible entities certified by such government
meet the requirements of this Act with respect to food
manufactured, processed, packed, or held for import to the
United States.
``(4) Request by state or regional food authority.--Prior
to accrediting a State or regional food authority as a
certifying agent, the Secretary shall perform such reviews
and audits of the training and qualifications of auditors
used by the authority and conduct such reviews of internal
systems and such other investigation of the authority as the
Secretary deems necessary to determine that each eligible
entity certified by the authority has systems and standards
in use to ensure that such entity meets the requirements of
this Act.
``(5) Cooperatives and other third parties.--Prior to
accrediting a foreign or domestic cooperative that aggregates
the products of growers or processors or any other third
party that the Secretary determines appropriate as a
certifying agent, the Secretary shall perform such reviews
and audits of the training and qualifications of auditors
used by the cooperative or party and conduct such reviews of
internal systems and such other investigation of the
cooperative or party as the Secretary deems necessary to
determine that each eligible entity certified by the
cooperative or party has systems and standards in use to
ensure that such entity meets the requirements of this Act.
``(6) Limitation on third parties.--The Secretary may not
accredit a third party that the Secretary determines
appropriate as a certifying agent unless each auditor used by
such party prepares the audit report for an audit under this
section in a form and manner designated by the Secretary. An
audit report shall include--
``(A) the identity of the persons at the audited eligible
entity responsible for compliance with food safety
requirements;
``(B) the dates of the audit;
``(C) the scope of the audit; and
``(D) any other information required by the Secretary that
relate to or may influence an assessment of compliance with
this Act.
``(b) Importation.--As a condition of accrediting a foreign
government, a State or regional food authority, a foreign or
domestic cooperative that aggregates the products of growers
or processors, or any other third party that the Secretary
determines appropriate as a certifying agent, such
government, authority, cooperative, or party shall agree to
issue a written and electronic certification to accompany
each food shipment made for import from an eligible entity
certified by the certifying agent, subject to requirements
set forth by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider such
certificates when targeting inspection resources under
section 421.
``(c) Monitoring.--Following any accreditation of a
certifying agent, the Secretary may at any time--
``(1) conduct an on-site audit of any eligible entity
certified by the agent, with or without the certifying agent
present; or
``(2) require the agent to submit to the Secretary, for any
eligible entity certified by the agent, an onsite inspection
report and such other reports or documents the agent requires
as part of the audit process, including, for an eligible
entity located outside the United States, documentation that
the eligible is in compliance with any applicable
registration requirements.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Auditor.--The term `auditor' means an individual
who--
``(A) is qualified to conduct food safety audits; and
``(B) has successfully completed any training requirements
established by the Secretary for the conduct of food safety
audits.
``(2) Certifying agent.--The term `certifying agent' means
a foreign government, a State or regional food authority, a
foreign or domestic cooperative that aggregates the products
of growers or processors, or any other third party that
conducts audits of eligible entities and that is accredited
by the Secretary under this section.
``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means
any entity in the food supply chain that chooses to be
audited by a certifying agent.
``(e) Avoiding Conflicts of Interest With Certifying
Agents.--
``(1) In general.--A certifying agent shall--
``(A) not be owned, managed, or controlled by any person
that owns or operates an eligible entity to be certified by
such agent;
``(B) have procedures to ensure against the use, in
carrying out audits of eligible entities under this section,
of any officer or employee of such agent that has a financial
conflict of interest regarding an eligible entity to be
certified by such agent; and
``(C) annually make available to the Secretary, disclosures
of the extent to which such agent, and the officers and
employees of such agent, have maintained compliance with
subparagraphs (A) and (B) relating to financial conflicts of
interest.
``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act to ensure
that there are protections against conflicts of interest
between a certifying agent and the eligible entity to be
certified by such agent. Such regulations shall include--
``(A) requiring that domestic audits performed under this
section be unannounced;
``(B) a structure, including timing and public disclosure,
for fees paid by eligible entities to certifying agents to
decrease the potential for conflicts of interest; and
``(C) appropriate limits on financial affiliations between
a certifying agent and any person that owns or operates an
eligible entity to be certified by such agent.
``(f) False Statements.--Any statement of representation
made by an employee or agent of an eligible entity to an
auditor of a certifying agent or a certifying agent shall be
subject to section 1001 of title 18, United States Code.
``(g) Risks to Public Health.--If, at any time during an
audit, an auditor of a certifying agent discovers a condition
that could cause or contribute to a serious risk to the
public health, the auditor shall immediately notify the
Secretary of--
``(1) the identification of the eligible entity subject to
the audit; and
``(2) such condition.
``(h) Withdrawal of Accreditation.--The Secretary may
withdraw accreditation from a certifying agent--

[[Page 17729]]

``(1) if food from eligible entities certified by such
agent is linked to an outbreak of human or animal illness;
``(2) following a performance audit and finding by the
Secretary that the agent no longer meets the requirements for
accreditation; or
``(3) following a refusal to allow United States officials
to conduct such audits and investigations as may be necessary
to ensure continued compliance with the requirements set
forth in this section.
``(i) Performance Audits and Renewal.--To ensure that
accreditation of a certifying agent continues to meet the
standards of this section and this Act and to allow for the
renewal of accreditation of such certifying agent, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) audit the performance of such certifying agent on a
periodic basis, not less than every 4 years, through the
review of audit reports by such certifying agent and the
compliance history, as available, of eligible entities
certified by such certifying agent; and
``(2) any other measures deemed necessary by the Secretary.
``(j) Publication of List of Certifying Agents.--The
Secretary shall publish and maintain on the Internet Web site
of the Food and Drug Administration a current list,
including, the name, location and other information deemed
necessary by the Secretary, of certifying agents under this
section.
``(k) Neutralizing Costs.--The Secretary shall establish a
method, similar to the method used by the Department of
Agriculture, by which certifying agents reimburse the Food
and Drug Administration for the work performed to accredit
such certifying agents. The Secretary shall make operating
this program revenue-neutral and shall not generate surplus
revenue from such a reimbursement mechanism.
``(l) No Effect on Section 704 Inspections.--The audits
performed under this section shall not be considered
inspections under section 704.
``(m) No Effect on Inspection Authority.--Nothing in this
section affects the authority of the Secretary to inspect any
eligible entity pursuant to this Act.''.

SEC. 309. FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall by October 1, 2010,
establish an office of the Food and Drug Administration in
not less than 5 foreign countries selected by the Secretary,
to provide assistance to the appropriate governmental
entities of such countries with respect to measures to
provide for the safety of articles of food and other products
regulated by the Food and Drug Administration exported by
such country to the United States, including by directly
conducting risk-based inspections of such articles and
supporting such inspections by such governmental entity.
(b) Consultation.--In establishing the foreign offices
described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with
the Secretary of State and the United States Trade
Representative.
(c) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2011, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the basis for the
selection by the Secretary of the foreign countries in which
the Secretary established offices under subsection (a), the
progress which such offices have made with respect to
assisting the governments of such countries in providing for
the safety of articles of food and other products regulated
by the Food and Drug Administration exported to the United
States, and the plans of the Secretary for establishing
additional foreign offices of the Food and Drug
Administration, as appropriate.

SEC. 310. FUNDING FOR FOOD SAFETY.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out the activities of the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and
related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs
of the Food and Drug Administration--
(1) $775,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2010
through 2013.
(b) Increased Number of Field Staff.--To carry out the
activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related
field activities of the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the
Food and Drug Administration, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall increase the field staff of such Centers
and Office with a goal of not fewer than--
(1) 3,600 staff members in fiscal year 2009;
(2) 3,800 staff members in fiscal year 2010;
(3) 4,000 staff members in fiscal year 2011;
(4) 4,200 staff members in fiscal year 2012; and
(5) 4,600 staff members in fiscal year 2013.

SEC. 311. JURISDICTION; AUTHORITIES.

Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act,
shall be construed to--
(1) alter the jurisdiction between the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
under applicable statutes and regulations;
(2) limit the authority of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to issue regulations related to the safety of
food under--
(A) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
et seq.) as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act; or
(B) the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)
as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
Act; or
(3) impede, minimize, or affect the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture to prevent, control, or mitigate a
plant or animal health emergency, or a food emergency
involving products regulated under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the
Egg Products Inspection Act.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3387. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect
to pain care; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Pain
Care Policy Act of 2008. I am pleased to have worked with my colleague,
Senator Christopher Dodd, on this legislation which will help to
address barriers to pain care by enhancing coordination of research,
improving healthcare provider education and training, and elevating
public awareness of pain and pain management.
According to the American Pain Foundation, an estimated 75 million
Americans suffer from either chronic or acute pain. Pain is the most
common reason that people access the health care system and persistent
pain can interfere with everyday life and make ordinary tasks seem
impossible. Severe chronic pain also can hinder sleep, work, and social
functions. Due to its very nature as a prominent feature of many
chronic conditions, pain is said to affect more Americans than
diabetes, heart disease and cancer combined.
Most pain can be relieved with proper treatment. This simple fact
implies that the pain problems of these countless Americans can be
easily fixed. Unfortunately, many people in pain face considerable
barriers to accessing proper diagnosis, treatment, and management of
their pain.
Health care professionals are, more often than not, inadequately
trained regarding pain assessment and management, making it difficult
for them to treat their patients' pain safely and effectively. As such,
providers may be unfamiliar with current research and guidelines for
appropriate pain care. Further, health care professionals may be
hesitant to prescribe pain medications for pain management due to lack
of knowledge regarding regulatory policies.
To make worse the problem, the National Institutes of Health, NIH,
our country's premier institution for biomedical research, currently
dedicates less than 1 percent of its research budget to pain research.
Worse yet, this research is spread across multiple Institutes and
centers without efficient coordination. Effective education is
contingent upon adequate research.
Patients may also create for themselves barriers to pain care and
management. As impractical as it seems, patients often do not tell
their doctor about their pain because they do not want to complain or
appear to be a nuisance. They also may avoid taking pain medicines
because of addiction or dependency concerns which may be based on
misinformation due to lack of education.
The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 will help to identify these
barriers by authorizing an Institute of Medicine, IOM, Conference on
Pain Care to evaluate the adequacy of pain assessment, treatment and
management. The conference will establish an action agenda by which to
address barriers and improve education and training.
The bill also authorizes permanently the Pain Consortium at the
National Institutes of Health, NIH, to establish a coordinated clinical
research agenda and promote pain research across NIH institutes,
centers, and programs. The Consortium will convene annual conferences
to make recommendations on pain research and activities at the NIH. The
legislation also establishes a multidisciplinary Advisory Committee
The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 addresses the lack of pain
care education by creating a grant program for the development and
implementation of programs to educate and train

[[Page 17730]]

health care professionals in pain assessment and management. It also
requires the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to
collect evidence-based practices regarding pain and disseminate such
information to the pain care community.
This bill also will break down barriers to pain care access by
raising awareness among people who suffer from pain, and helping them
and their families find the proper information about pain management. A
national pain management public outreach and awareness campaign will be
developed and implemented by the Department of Health and Human
Services, HHS, to focus on the significance of pain as a national
public health problem.
The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 contains provisions that
will help the millions of Americans who live everyday with pain by
heightening awareness, enhancing coordination of research, and
advancing education. Similar legislation was introduced in the House by
Representatives Lois Capps and Mike Rogers last year. The House bill is
supported by more than 100 organizations in the pain care community,
including the America Pain Society, the American Academy of Pain
Medicine, and the American Cancer Society. I thank Senator Dodd for his
leadership on and interest in this issue, and I urge my colleagues to
support our bill.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah,
Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act
of 2008. This important legislation would make significant strides in
the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is
the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health
issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief
because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this
important legislation.
Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays
estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic
impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone
causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this
country. In the United States 40 million people suffer from arthritis,
more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain,
more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have
jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of
cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. And
half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe
pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a
problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation
approaches retirement and the population ages.
Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many
suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about
the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad
patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid
seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients
were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are
equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in
assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest
research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also
concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will
lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers.
But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals
suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to
improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would
call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase
awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers
to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A
number of years ago, my good friend Senator Hatch helped establish a
Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a
coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that
consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and
education of health care professionals through new grant programs at
the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health
Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this
legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the
Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families,
and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of
treatment.
I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and
urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the
millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.
______

By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3390. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
to provide for the treatment of institutions of higher education as
voter registration agencies; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student
Voter Opportunity to Encourage Registration Act of 2008--the Student
VOTER Act.
The success of America's experiment in democracy lies in broad
participation and deep civic engagement. From the Reconstruction
Amendments, to women's suffrage, to the abolition of the poll tax, and
finally the ratification of the 26th amendment, we have witnessed a
steady but difficult march toward a more inclusive nation.
To realize the full potential of these great strides, the Student
VOTER Act provides a pathway to participation for America's youth.
The need for this bill is clear. Despite a small rise in youth voting
in the current Presidential election cycle, the larger trend is
unmistakable. Young voters--historically independent-minded--are far
less likely to cast a ballot than older voters. In the 2004
Presidential election, only 47 percent of 18 to 24-year-old citizens
voted, compared to 66 percent of citizens 25 and older. This marked the
eighth straight Presidential contest in which less than half of these
young Americans actually participated. In fact, the percentage of young
Americans who vote today is lower than it was in the first Presidential
election following the 26th amendment's ratification.
Several obstacles stand in the way of youth voting. Because so many
students are first-time voters, they often are unfamiliar with how to
register. In some States, first-time voters must register in person in
order to cast an absentee ballot. For students who attend college
outside of their home State or who do not have access to
transportation, these requirements can be cumbersome, confusing, and
insurmountable.
Of course, apathy contributes to the fact that young voters tend to
stay home on election day. But studies show that when an effort is made
to reach out to young voters, they will cast a ballot. If we fail to
reach out to the youth, we may lose a generation of civically minded
Americans.
Congress already tried to encourage youth voting with a provision in
the Higher Education Act of 1998, which requires colleges and
universities to make a ``good faith effort'' to register students to
vote. Many universities fulfill that obligation. For example, even
before orientation begins, Brown University in Providence provides its
students with voter registration materials not only for Rhode Island
but also for each student's home State.
Unfortunately, too many colleges and universities have failed to
follow Brown's lead. According to a 2004 Harvard University study, only
17 percent of colleges and universities nationwide fully comply with
the Higher Education Act. The health of our democracy suffers as a
result.
The Student VOTER Act offers a straightforward solution: it requires
colleges and universities that receive Federal funds to offer voter
registration services to students. The Student VOTER Act simply amends
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, popularly known as the
Motor Voter Act, to designate colleges and universities that receive
Federal funds as voter registration agencies.

[[Page 17731]]

That designation is fitting. Our institutions of higher education are
among the wealthiest in the world, and they lead the globe in producing
Nobel laureates and scientific breakthroughs. But colleges and
universities also have a special obligation to educate an active,
informed citizenry.
The act does not impose a heavy burden on colleges and universities.
We know this because the Student VOTER Act builds on the successful
model of the Motor Voter Act, which brought voter registration to DMV
offices across the country, adding 5 million voters--mainly
independents--to the rolls in the 8 months after its passage. While
some DMV offices simply mail completed registration forms to the
appropriate clerk or registrar, others now use efficient, easy-to-use
computer software to submit registrations electronically.
This means that the price tag of the Student VOTER Act to colleges
and universities is at most a 42-cent stamp for each student. I know
most of my fellow Senators would agree that this is not too high a
price to pay for a lifetime of civic engagement.
In reality, costs should be even lower. Colleges and universities can
provide voter registration services at student orientation or during
class registration using the same technology that DMV offices already
have implemented.
Like the Motor Voter Act, this bill should pass with broad bipartisan
support. It is a low-cost, commonsense solution to the very real
problem of low youth voter turnout. It represents a natural but modest
extension of the Higher Education Act and the Motor Voter Act without
changing or amending any other State or Federal voting regulations in
any way.
The bill may also serve to depoliticize voter registration efforts on
college campuses. Polls consistently show that young voters are less
likely to identify with a political party than older voters. Polls
generally show that more than 4 in 10 young voters identify as
independents, with roughly 3 in 10 young voters identifying with each
of the two major political parties. In a July 30, 2008 letter sent to
Congress in support of this bill, the U.S. Student Association
explained that under the present system, ``partisan student groups
often become the main voter registrants, which can alienate undecided
and independent voters. The Student VOTER Bill of 2008 seeks to
institutionalize the dissemination of voting procedure and register
more young people in a systematic and non-partisan capacity.''
In addition to the U.S. Student Association, this bill is supported
by U.S. PIRG and the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, SAVE.
In particular, I would like to recognize Matthew Segal, SAVE's founder
and a Chicago native, with whom my office worked closely to prepare
this bill.
I would also like to applaud the efforts of Representative Jan
Schakowsky, a Democrat, and Representative Steven LaTourette, a
Republican, who will introduce a companion bill today in the House of
Representatives. The Student VOTER Bill of 2008 is a bipartisan effort
that is an important step toward empowering our Nation's youth. I look
forward to working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues in
Congress to ensure its enactment into law.
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. 3390

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 ``Student Voter Opportunity To
Encourage Registration Act of 2008'' or the ``Student VOTER
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF UNIVERSITIES AS VOTER REGISTRATION
AGENCIES.

(a) In General.--Section 7(a) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) each institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001)) in the State that receives Federal funds.''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ``or, in the case of
an institution of higher education, with each registration of
a student for enrollment in a course of study'' after
``assistance,''.
(b) Amendment to Higher Education Act of 1965.--Section
487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1094(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (23).
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 3393. A bill to promote conservation and provide for sensible
development in Carson City, Nevada, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend Senator
Ensign to introduce the Carson City Vital Community Act of 2008.
The origins of this legislation can be found in Carson City's
collaborative master planning effort, ``Envision Carson City.'' In
2004, the elected officials in Carson City started a dialogue with
their citizens to determine how the city should grow and change over
the next 20 years. At the end of a 2-year public process, city leaders
had a clear message from their residents. The community wants to keep
growth compact, maintain the integrity of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and Forest Service lands surrounding the town, enhance open space
opportunities and maintain easy access to public lands. The Carson City
Vital Community Act of 2008 was developed in close partnership with
Carson City and other key stakeholders to help fulfill these goals.
Before I describe this legislation and its importance, it might be
helpful for me to explain that Carson City is both a city and a county.
It wasn't always this way. For over a hundred years the town of Carson
City was the county seat of Ormsby County. But in 1969 the county
dissolved and the government functions were consolidated into what we
now simply call Carson City.
Like all but one of our counties in Nevada, Carson City is mostly
Federal land. The town of Carson City is bounded on the west by Forest
Service lands that stretch to the shores of Lake Tahoe and by BLM lands
on the east. These open landscapes create a dramatic western backdrop
for Nevada's State capital but also mean that the Federal Government is
intimately involved in what would normally be local community
decisions.
This legislation makes much needed adjustments to the pattern of
Federal land ownership in Carson City. We have strived to make changes
that will improve the ability of the Federal land management agencies
to focus on their core goals. All too often, the BLM and the Forest
Service are distracted from proper forest and range management by urban
encroachment issues. We have a unique situation in Carson City where
the community has offered to take on the responsibilities of managing
the wildland-urban interface, while also offering to convey a major
inholding to the Forest Service for incorporation into the Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest. This is a major step in the right direction
and hopefully will serve as a model for other communities around the
west.
Our legislation also provides lands to the Washoe Tribe,
strengthening the Tribe's conservation and commercial efforts in Carson
City. Additionally, nearly 20,000 acres of BLM lands surrounding Carson
City will be permanently withdrawn from future develop to protect local
viewsheds and public access. All of these actions will move Carson City
one step closer to realizing the vision that it worked hard to develop
through a public process that has now spanned over four years.
Title I of this legislation aims to create a sensible land ownership
pattern in Carson City, aligned with the community's vision of keeping
growth compact and maintaining the integrity of the surrounding public
lands. It also addresses two serious concerns facing the community:
wildfires in the foothills of the Sierras and flooding along the Carson
River.

[[Page 17732]]

Under this title, roughly 2,200 acres of Carson City land will be
transferred to the Forest Service. This prime, forested land is far
removed from Carson City and is surrounded by state park lands and the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Incorporating this large inholding
into the Humboldt-Toiyabe will allow for improved management for
wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and other important uses. It
will also ensure that the land remains undeveloped and open for public
access.
This title also makes important adjustments to the pattern of city
and Federal lands on the west side of the town. Roughly 1,000 acres of
Forest Service land bordering urban areas will be conveyed to Carson
City as protected open space. This conveyance will let both Carson City
and the Forest Service do what they do best. Carson City can more
actively manage urban interface uses and the Forest Service can focus
on their core responsibilities of resource protection and forest
health.
Proper management of this buffer area between Carson City's
neighborhoods and businesses and the broader public lands is an issue
of great concern to the community. On July 14, 2004, thirty-one homes
and three businesses were destroyed or damaged in the Waterfall Fire
which spanned nearly 9,000 acres of public and private land. Through
our legislation, the Forest Service land that currently borders
neighborhoods will be conveyed to Carson City, allowing the city to
take a more prominent role in managing fuel loads in this critical
area.
There is a different threat on the east side of Carson Valley. The
Carson River has a long history of dramatic flooding. Over the last 150
years the river has flooded over 30 times, with half of those floods
causing extensive damage. Two 100-year flood events have struck just in
the last decade, one of which caused over $5 million in damage. In a
show of real vision and leadership, Carson City has started an
aggressive campaign to acquire land along the Carson River, recognizing
the value of protecting the natural function of the local floodplains.
Our legislation will enhance Carson City's efforts to acquire lands
in the river corridor by conveying the 3,500-acre Silver Saddle Ranch
and Prison Hill area from BLM to the city. Transferring these
properties to Carson City will help create a large regional park along
the Carson River, support the community's flood control efforts and
address the community's call for open space. The city has been a key
partner in the management of the Silver Saddle Ranch for over a decade.
Along with the Friends of Silver Saddle, Carson City has taken the lead
on the day-to-day management of the property, including providing law
enforcement patrols and caring for facilities.
It is important to note that when this land is conveyed to the city
it will come with conditions. The Federal Government will hold a
conservation easement on these parcels to ensure that the scenic and
natural qualities of the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill are
protected in perpetuity. The details of the conservation easement,
which will focus on protecting the river corridor and the important
wildlife habitat associated with the property, will be worked out by
BLM, Carson City and key stakeholders like Friends of Silver Saddle and
The Nature Conservancy.
In addition to supporting Carson City's forward-looking plans for the
Carson River and its floodplain, conveying the Silver Saddle and Prison
Hill area to Carson City also makes sense from a resource management
perspective. BLM's Carson City District Office manages over 5 million
acres of public land in western Nevada and eastern California. Their
strength is managing Nevada's wide open spaces--not urban interface.
Carson City, on the other hand, has far more resources to bring to bear
in managing the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill area. Carson City
has over 20 employees working on parks and open space, including two
park rangers. They also have contracts in place with some of Nevada's
most respected natural resource experts. The BLM will also keep a light
hand in the management of this property by virtue of the conservation
easement.
There is one unique provision related to the Silver Saddle Ranch and
Prison Hill conveyance that deserves special mention. A small section
of this land was once owned by Carson City. This 62-acre property,
known as the Bernhard parcel, was slated to be subdivided into 35 home
sites in 2001. The BLM and Carson City both recognized that the
acquisition of this land was a priority for the protection of the
Carson River corridor. Carson City responded quickly and acquired the
parcel for open space before it could be developed. Their purchase
price in 2001 was roughly $1 million. Later, in 2006, the BLM purchased
the Bernhard parcel from Carson City for fair market value, which by
that time had reached $2.5 million.
Under this legislation, we transfer the Bernhard parcel back to
Carson City as part of the Silver Saddle Ranch and Carson River Area.
We feel it is important that Carson City pay back 25 percent of the
$1.5 million profit they made on their transaction with the BLM. Why
just 25 percent? The 25 percent reflects the remaining value of the
land that is being conveyed back to Carson City after the conservation
easement is taken into account. In western Nevada, conservation
easements restricting development typically reduce property values by
anywhere from 75 percent to 90 percent. We have required Carson City to
come up with 25 percent, the most generous estimate of remaining value
for the Bernhard parcel. When received, these funds will be placed into
an endowment account for the BLM to use for the monitoring and
enforcement of the conservation easement on the Silver Saddle Ranch and
Prison Hill Area.
Our legislation also conveys roughly 1,700 acres of BLM land to
Carson City for recreation and public purposes and open space. These
are scattered parcels of BLM land in and around Carson City that would
be used for primarily for parks, but also for flood control structures,
municipal infrastructure like water tanks, and to give residents room
to roam. Carson City already controls roughly a third of these acres
through Recreation and Public Purpose Act leases. This bill would
quickly and efficiently transfer these lands to the city.
Another provision of Title I deals with 53 acres of land that Carson
City acquired from BLM years ago, under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act. The city now believes the land is better suited for
commercial development. Although Carson City already owns these lands,
by statute, if the city uses the land for something other than public
purposes, the land reverts back to the BLM. Our legislation would
remove the reversionary interest on these 50 acres so that Carson City
can sell the land at an appropriate time. If the City decides to sell
the land, we require that it be auctioned, with proceeds returning to
the Carson City special account which provides funding for federal
acquisition of sensitive lands and protection of noted cultural
resources.
One of the parcels where the federal interest would be released is
home to the Carson City Gun Club. Once on the edge of town, the
shooting range is now surrounded by commercial development and the
Eagle Valley Golf Course. Although our legislation would allow Carson
City to sell this land, we have asked for and received a commitment
that Carson City will not sell this property until the shooting
facility has been relocated to another, more appropriate location.
The first title of our legislation also transfers 50 acres of Forest
Service land to the BLM. The Forest Service is also authorized to
develop and implement, in partnership with Carson City, a plan for
managing its land in a way that minimizes the impact of flood events on
nearby residential areas.
Under Title II, 150 acres of federal lands would be made available
for sale through an open and competitive process. This includes the 50
acres transferred from the Forest Service to the BLM in Title 1. All of
the lands identified for sale in our legislation are isolated or
seriously impacted by nearby

[[Page 17733]]

commercial or residential development. Both agencies have concluded
that these parcels should be disposed of and that this action is
consistent with their respective management plans.
Similar to past Nevada land bills, this legislation directs the
Secretary of Interior to reinvest the proceeds of these limited land
sales back into important public projects. Ninety-five percent of the
proceeds will be used to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in
Carson City and to protect archaeological resources. The remaining five
percent of the proceeds will go to Nevada's general education program.
This title also permanently withdraws nearly 20,000 acres of BLM
lands in Carson City from land sales and mineral development. These
same lands, located north and east of Carson City are already
administratively withdrawn by the BLM. This bill would make the
withdrawal permanent, preserving foothill views, open space and access
to public lands, in line with ``Envision Carson City.''
Our bill also provides guidance that Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use on
BLM lands in Carson City should be restricted to existing roads and
trails until the BLM completes their travel management planning
process. The Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson City are a favorite
destination for local and visiting OHV enthusiasts. This provision will
better protect this area until routes can be designated.
Finally, the second title of the bill opens a new avenue for Carson
City to continue their conservation efforts along the Carson River. The
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) will be amended to
authorize funds for Carson City to acquire land for parks and trails
along the Carson River and to authorize conservation initiatives, also
along the Carson River. In addition, we make a small change to SNPLMA
which will only affect Washoe County. In the White Pine County bill of
2006 (P. L. 109-432), Washoe County was given access to SNPLMA through
2011 to acquire part of the Ballardini Ranch. The county has made good
progress towards this acquisition, but may not make the 2011 deadline.
We are pleased to extend the authorization to 2015.
Title III addresses the Washoe Tribe's pressing need for more land
for residential and commercial development. Tribal lands adjacent to
both of the colonies in Carson City, Stewart and Carson, would be
expanded by this legislation. Carson Colony tribal lands would grow by
over 280 acres. On this parcel, the lands located below the 5,200-foot
elevation contour would be available for residential or commercial
development. The lands above the 5,200-foot contour would only be
available for traditional tribal uses, like ceremonial gatherings,
hunting and plant collecting. Tribal lands at the Stewart Colony would
grow by only 5 acres, all of which would be available for commercial
and residential development.
In 2003, Senator Ensign and I passed legislation that conveyed 25
acres of Forest Service land at Skunk Harbor, on the shores of Lake
Tahoe, to the Washoe Tribe. Unfortunately, the parcel was not
accurately described in the legislation and consequently the land that
was conveyed did not fully reflect our commitment to the Tribe. This
bill includes a technical correction that will provide a long overdue
fix to the Washoe Indian Tribe Trust Land Conveyance (P. L. 108-67).
Lastly, this bill directs the Forest Service to develop a cooperative
agreement with the Washoe Tribe to ensure the Tribe's access across
Forest Service land for their traditional ``lifeway'' walk to Lake
Tahoe. For centuries the Washoe people have moved from the Pine Nut
Mountains east of Carson City in the fall to Lake Tahoe in the summer.
Our legislation ensures that they are able to continue this important
tradition.
This bill, is built on years of public input. We believe it is a
model piece of legislation and appreciate the support of our colleagues
in this effort. We look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman,
Ranking Member Domenici and the other distinguished members of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this bill forward during
the time we have remaining in this legislative session.
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. 3393

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Carson
City Vital Community Act of 2008''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--PUBLIC CONVEYANCES

Sec. 101. Conveyances of Federal land and City land.
Sec. 102. Transfer of administrative jurisdiction from the Forest
Service to the Bureau of Land Management.

TITLE II--LAND DISPOSAL

Sec. 201. Disposal of Carson City land.
Sec. 202. Disposition of proceeds.
Sec. 203. Withdrawal.
Sec. 204. Availability of funds.

TITLE III--TRANSFER OF LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE WASHOE TRIBE,
SKUNK HARBOR CONVEYANCE CORRECTION, FOREST SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND
ARTIFACT COLLECTION

Sec. 301. Transfer of land to be held in trust for Washoe Tribe.
Sec. 302. Correction of Skunk Harbor conveyance.
Sec. 303. Agreement with Forest Service.
Sec. 304. Artifact collection.

TITLE IV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means Carson City Consolidated
Municipality, Nevada.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Carson
City, Nevada Area'', dated July 17, 2008, and on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices
of--
(A) the Bureau of Land Management;
(B) the Forest Service; and
(C) the City.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
(A) with respect to land in the National Forest System, the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the
Forest Service; and
(B) with respect to other Federal land, the Secretary of
the Interior.
(4) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Washoe Tribe of
Nevada and California, which is a federally recognized Indian
tribe.

TITLE I--PUBLIC CONVEYANCES

SEC. 101. CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL LAND AND CITY LAND.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 202 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) and
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), if the City offers to convey
to the United States title to the non-Federal land described
in subsection (b)(1) that is acceptable to the Secretary of
Agriculture--
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture shall accept the offer;
and
(2) not later than 180 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Agriculture receives acceptable title to the
non-Federal land described in subsection (b)(1), the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior shall
convey to the City, subject to valid existing rights and for
no consideration, except as provided in subsection (c)(1),
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the Federal land or interest in land described in subsection
(b)(2).
(b) Description of Land.--
(1) Non-federal land.--The parcels of non-Federal land
referred to in subsection (a) are the approximately 2,260
acres of land administered by the City and identified on the
Map as ``To the U.S. Forest Service''.
(2) Federal land.--The parcels of Federal land referred to
in subsection (a)(2) are--
(A) the approximately 1,012 acres of Forest Service land
identified on the Map as ``To Carson City for Natural
Areas'';
(B) the approximately 3,526 acres of Bureau of Land
Management land identified on the Map as ``Silver Saddle
Ranch and Carson River Area'';
(C) the approximately 1,746 acres of Bureau of Land
Management land identified on the Map as ``To Carson City for
Parks and Public Purposes''; and
(D) the approximately 53 acres of City land in which the
Bureau of Land Management has a reversionary interest that is
identified on the Map as ``Reversionary Interest of United
States Released''.
(c) Conditions.--
(1) Consideration.--Before the conveyance of the 62-acre
Bernhard parcel to the City, the City shall deposit in the
special account

[[Page 17734]]

established by section 202(b)(1) an amount equal to 25
percent of the difference between--
(A) the amount for which the Bernhard parcel was purchased
by the City on July 18, 2001; and
(B) the amount for which the Bernhard parcel was purchased
by the Secretary on March 17, 2006.
(2) Conservation easement.--As a condition of the
conveyance of the parcels of land described in subsection
(b)(2)(B), the Secretary, in consultation with Carson City
and affected local interests, shall reserve a perpetual
conservation easement to the parcels to protect, preserve,
and enhance the conservation values of the parcels,
consistent with subsection (d)(2).
(3) Costs.--Any costs relating to the conveyance under
subsection (a), including any costs for surveys and other
administrative costs, shall be paid by the recipient of the
land being conveyed.
(d) Use of Land.--
(1) Natural areas.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2)(A) shall be
managed by the City to maintain undeveloped open space and to
preserve the natural characteristics of the parcel of land in
perpetuity.
(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the City
may--
(i) conduct projects on the parcel of land to reduce fuels;
(ii) construct and maintain trails, trailhead facilities,
and any infrastructure on the parcel of land that is required
for municipal water and flood management activities; and
(iii) maintain or reconstruct any improvements on the
parcel of land that are in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) Silver saddle ranch and carson river area.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2)(B) shall--
(i) be managed by the City to protect and enhance the
Carson River, the floodplain and surrounding upland, and
important wildlife habitat; and
(ii) be used for undeveloped open space, passive
recreation, customary agricultural practices, and wildlife
protection.
(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the City
may--
(i) construct and maintain trails and trailhead facilities
on the parcel of land;
(ii) conduct projects on the parcel of land to reduce
fuels;
(iii) maintain or reconstruct any improvements on the
parcel of land that are in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act; and
(iv) allow the use of motorized vehicles on designated
roads, trails, and areas in the south end of Prison Hill.
(3) Parks and public purposes.--The parcel of land
described in subsection (b)(2)(C) shall be managed by the
City for--
(A) undeveloped open space; or
(B) recreation or other public purposes in accordance with
the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation
and Public Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.).
(4) Reversionary interest.--
(A) Release.--The reversionary interest described in
subsection (b)(2)(D) shall terminate on the date of enactment
of this Act.
(B) Conveyance by city.--
(i) In general.--If the City sells, leases, or otherwise
conveys any portion of the land described in subsection
(b)(2)(D), the sale, lease, or conveyance of land shall be--

(I) through a competitive bidding process; and
(II) except as provided in clause (ii), for not less than
fair market value.

(ii) Conveyance to government or nonprofit.--A sale, lease,
or conveyance of land described in subsection (b)(2)(D) to
the Federal Government, a State government, a unit of local
government, or a nonprofit organization shall be for
consideration in an amount equal to the price established by
the Secretary of the Interior under section 2741.8 of title
43, Code of Federal Regulation (or successor regulations).
(iii) Disposition of proceeds.--The gross proceeds from the
sale, lease, or conveyance of land under clause (i) shall be
distributed in accordance with section 202(a).
(e) Reversion.--If a parcel of land conveyed under
subsection (a) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with
the uses described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of
subsection (d), the parcel of land shall, at the discretion
of the Secretary, revert to the United States.
(f) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
(1) In general.--On conveyance of the non-Federal land
under subsection (a) to the Secretary of Agriculture, the
non-Federal land shall--
(A) become part of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest;
and
(B) be administered in accordance with the laws (including
the regulations) and rules generally applicable to the
National Forest System.
(2) Management plan.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the City and other interested parties, may
develop and implement a management plan for National Forest
System land that ensures the protection and stabilization of
the National Forest System land to minimize the impacts of
flooding on the City.

SEC. 102. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION FROM THE
FOREST SERVICE TO THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT.

(a) Conveyance.--Notwithstanding the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.), administrative jurisdiction over the approximately 50
acres of Forest Service land identified on the Map as
``Parcel #1'' is transferred, from the Secretary of
Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) Costs.--Any costs relating to the transfer under
subsection (a), including any costs for surveys and other
administrative costs, shall be paid by the Secretary of the
Interior.
(c) Use of Land.--
(1) Right-of-way.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
grant to the City a right-of-way for the maintenance of flood
management facilities located on the land.
(2) Disposal.--The land referred to in subsection (a) shall
be disposed of in accordance with section 201.
(3) Disposition of proceeds.--The gross proceeds from the
disposal of land under paragraph (2) shall be distributed in
accordance with section 202(a).

TITLE II--LAND DISPOSAL

SEC. 201. DISPOSAL OF CARSON CITY LAND.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712, 1713), the Secretary of the Interior shall, in
accordance with that Act, this title, and other applicable
law, and subject to valid existing rights, conduct sales of
the parcels of Federal land described in subsection (b) to
qualified bidders.
(b) Description of Land.--The parcels of Federal land
referred to in subsection (a) are--
(1) the approximately 103 acres of Bureau of Land
Management land identified as ``Lands for Disposal'' on the
Map; and
(2) the approximately 50 acres of Bureau of Land Management
land identified as ``Parcel #1'' on the Map.
(c) Compliance With Local Planning and Zoning Laws.--Before
a sale of Federal land under subsection (a), the City shall
submit to the Secretary a certification that qualified
bidders have agreed to comply with--
(1) City zoning ordinances; and
(2) any master plan for the area approved by the City.
(d) Method of Sale; Consideration.--The sale of Federal
land under subsection (a) shall be--
(1) consistent with subsections (d) and (f) of section 203
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1713);
(2) unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, through a
competitive bidding process; and
(3) for not less than fair market value.
(e) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Federal land described in subsection (b) is withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of entry and appropriation under the public
land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
(f) Deadline for Sale.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, if
there is a qualified bidder for the land described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), the Secretary of
the Interior shall offer the land for sale to the qualified
bidder.
(2) Postponement; exclusion from sale.--
(A) Request by carson city for postponement or exclusion.--
At the request of the City, the Secretary shall postpone or
exclude from the sale under paragraph (1) all or a portion of
the land described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(b).
(B) Indefinite postponement.--Unless specifically requested
by the City, a postponement under subparagraph (A) shall not
be indefinite.

SEC. 202. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.

(a) In General.--Of the proceeds from the sale of land
under sections 101(d)(4)(B) and 201(a)--
(1) 5 percent shall be paid directly to the State for use
in the general education program of the State; and
(2) the remainder shall be deposited in a special account
in the Treasury of the United States, to be known as the
``Carson City Special Account'', and shall be available
without further appropriation to the Secretary until expended
to--
(A) reimburse costs incurred by the Bureau of Land
Management for preparing for the sale of the Federal land
described in section 201(b), including the costs of--
(i) surveys and appraisals; and
(ii) compliance with--

(I) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(II) sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713);

(B) reimburse costs incurred by the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service for preparing for, and carrying
out, the transfers

[[Page 17735]]

of land to be held in trust by the United States under
section 301;
(C) acquire land or an interest in environmentally
sensitive land; and
(D) conduct an inventory of, evaluate, and protect unique
archaeological resources (as defined in section 3 of the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C.
470bb)) of the City.
(b) Silver Saddle Endowment Account.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a special account, to be known as the
``Silver Saddle Endowment Account'', consisting of such
amounts are deposited under section 101(c)(1).
(2) Availability of amounts.--Amounts deposited in the
account established by paragraph (1) shall be available to
the Secretary, without further appropriation, for the
oversight and enforcement of the conservation easement
established under section 101(c)(2).
(c) Investment of Accounts.--
(1) In general.--Amounts deposited as principal in the
Carson City Special Account established by subsection (a)(2)
and the Silver Saddle Endowment Account established by
subsection (b)(1) shall earn interest in the amount
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of
the current average market yield on outstanding marketable
obligations of the United States of comparable maturities.
(2) Availability.--Any interest earned under paragraph (1)
shall be--
(A) added to the principal of the applicable account; and
(B) expended in accordance with subsection (a)(2) or
(b)(2), as applicable.

SEC. 203. WITHDRAWAL.

(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Federal land described in subsection (b) is permanently
withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of entry and appropriation under the public
land laws and mining laws;
(2) location and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral laws, geothermal leasing laws,
and mineral material laws.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 19,747 acres, which
is identified on the Map as ``Urban Interface Withdrawal''.
(c) Off-Highway Vehicle Management.--Until the date on
which the Secretary, in consultation with the State, the
City, and any other interested persons, completes a
transportation plan for Federal land in the City, the use of
motorized and mechanical vehicles on Federal land within the
City shall be limited to roads and trails in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act unless the use of the vehicles
is needed--
(1) for administrative purposes; or
(2) to respond to an emergency.

SEC. 204. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

Section 4(e) of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263; 112 Stat. 2346; 116 Stat.
2007; 117 Stat. 1317; 118 Stat. 2414; 120 Stat. 3045) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(A)(iv), by striking ``Clark, Lincoln,
and White Pine Counties and Washoe County (subject to
paragraph 4))'' and inserting ``Clark, Lincoln, and White
Pine Counties and Washoe County (subject to paragraph 4)) and
Carson City (subject to paragraph (5))'';
(2) in paragraph (3)(A)(v), by striking ``Clark, Lincoln,
and White Pine Counties'' and inserting ``Clark, Lincoln, and
White Pine Counties and Carson City (subject to paragraph
(5))'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``2011'' and inserting
``2015''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Limitation for carson city.--Carson City shall be
eligible to nominate for expenditure amounts to acquire land
or an interest in land for parks or natural areas and for
conservation initiatives--
``(A) adjacent to the Carson River; or
``(B) within the floodplain of the Carson River.''.

TITLE III--TRANSFER OF LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE WASHOE TRIBE,
SKUNK HARBOR CONVEYANCE CORRECTION, FOREST SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND
ARTIFACT COLLECTION

SEC. 301. TRANSFER OF LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR WASHOE
TRIBE.

(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
land described in subsection (b)--
(1) shall be held in trust by the United States for the
benefit and use of the Tribe; and
(2) shall be part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 293 acres, which is
identified on the Map as ``To Washoe Tribe''.
(c) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
complete a survey of the boundary lines to establish the
boundaries of the land taken into trust under subsection (a).
(d) Use of Land.--
(1) Gaming.--Land taken into trust under subsection (a)
shall not be eligible, or considered to have been taken into
trust, for class II gaming or class III gaming (as those
terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).
(2) Trust land for ceremonial use and conservation.--With
respect to the use of the land taken into trust under
subsection (a), the Tribe--
(A) shall limit the use of the land above the 5,200'
elevation contour to--
(i) traditional and customary uses; and
(ii) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Tribe;
and
(B) shall not permit any--
(i) permanent residential or recreational development on
the land; or
(ii) commercial use of the land, including commercial
development or gaming.
(3) Trust land for commercial and residential use.--With
respect to the use of the land identified as ``To Washoe
Tribe'' on the Map, the Tribe shall limit the use of the land
below the 5,200' elevation to--
(A) traditional and customary uses;
(B) stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Tribe;
and
(C)(i) residential or recreational development; or
(ii) commercial use.
(4) Thinning; landscape restoration.--With respect to the
land taken into trust under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Agriculture, in consultation and coordination with the Tribe,
may carry out any thinning and other landscape restoration
activities on the land that is beneficial to the Tribe and
the Forest Service.

SEC. 302. CORRECTION OF SKUNK HARBOR CONVEYANCE.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to amend
Public Law 108-67 (117 Stat. 880) to make a technical
correction relating to the land conveyance authorized under
that Act.
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 2 of Public Law 108-67
(117 Stat. 880) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Subject to'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Subject to'';
(2) in subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``the parcel'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``and to
approximately 23 acres of land identified as `Parcel #1' on
the map entitled `Skunk Harbor Conveyance Correction' and
dated June 24, 2008, the western boundary of which is the low
water line of Lake Tahoe at elevation 6,223.0 (Lake Tahoe
Datum).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall complete a survey of the boundary lines to establish
the boundaries of the trust land.
``(c) Public Access and Use.--Nothing in this Act prohibits
any approved general public access (through existing
easements or by boat) to, or use of, land remaining within
the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit after the conveyance of
the land to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the
Tribe, under subsection (a), including access to, and use of,
the beach and shoreline areas adjacent to the portion of land
conveyed under that subsection.''.
(c) Date of Trust Status.--The trust land described in
section 2(a) of Public Law 108-67 (117 Stat. 880) shall be
considered to be taken into trust as of August 1, 2003.
(d) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting on
behalf of and for the benefit of the Tribe, shall transfer to
the Secretary of Agriculture administrative jurisdiction over
the land identified as ``Parcel #2'' on the map entitled
``Skunk Harbor Conveyance Correction'' and dated June 24,
2008.

SEC. 303. AGREEMENT WITH FOREST SERVICE.

The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the
Tribe, shall develop and implement a cooperative agreement
that ensures regular access by members of the Tribe and other
people in the community of the Tribe across National Forest
System land from the City to Lake Tahoe for cultural and
religious purposes.

SEC. 304. ARTIFACT COLLECTION.

(a) Notice.--At least 180 days before conducting any ground
disturbing activities on the land identified as ``Parcel #2''
on the Map, the City shall notify the Tribe of the proposed
activities to provide the Tribe with adequate time to
inventory and collect any artifacts in the affected area.
(b) Authorized Activities.--On receipt of notice under
subsection (a), the Tribe may collect and possess any
artifacts relating to the Tribe in the land identified as
``Parcel #2'' on the Map.

TITLE IV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______

By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 3395. A bill to provide for marginal well production preservation
an enhancement; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a marginal well is defined as one which
produces 15 barrels or less of oil per day. Yet, according to the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, IOGCC,

[[Page 17736]]

these marginal wells contribute nearly 18 percent of the oil and 9
percent of the natural gas produced in America.
In fact, marginal wells produced more than 335 million barrels of oil
in 2006. That's equivalent to more than 60 percent as much as the
United States imports annually from Saudi Arabia or 67 percent as much
as the Nation imports annually from Venezuela. In my own State of
Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop
operations, that produce the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85
percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells.
In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, a producing
well provides both State and Federal taxes, pays royalties to land and
mineral owners, and keeps jobs and dollars on American soil and in
American pockets. A plugged well provides none of this. On the
contrary, the IOGCC reported that in 2006, plugged and abandoned
marginal wells resulted in the loss of $1.77 billion in economic
output, $369.2 million in earnings reductions, and 8,223 lost jobs.
These statistics testify to the importance of America's marginal well
production. With gasoline prices at record highs, Congress must ensure
that government policies do not discourage, and instead prolong and
enhance, production from these low volume wells.
That is why today I am glad to join with my fellow Oklahoman,
Congressman Dan Boren, to introduce the Marginal Well Production
Preservation and Enhancement Act. This bill will streamline and clarify
government regulations, prolong economic feasibility, and enhance
production volumes from marginal wells. Every onshore oil and gas well
in the Nation eventually declines into marginal production. The
Marginal Well Production Preservation and Enhancement Act ensures that
the Nation's policies recognize and reflect the economic importance of
marginal well production. It's good for America's small producers, as
well as America's consumers.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Casey):
S. 3396. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
grants or contracts for prescription drug education and outreach for
healthcare providers and their parents; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Independent
Drug Education and Outreach Act. Over the past year, the Committee on
Aging has been taking a close look at the relationship between the
pharmaceutical industry and our Nation's physicians. Not only does the
interaction between these two parties seem to be fraught with conflicts
of interest, but it is likely that the marketing methods employed by
drug companies--and the manner in which they educate doctors about
their products--have an impact on the rising costs of prescription
drugs in America.
When it comes to knowing what treatment options are available to
doctors, pharmaceutical sales reps are currently one of the most common
ways physicians learn about the latest drugs on the market. However,
these sales reps often seem to confuse educating with selling, and
evidence shows that doctors' prescribing patterns can be heavily
influenced by the sometimes biased information handed out by these
sales representatives.
The Independent Drug Education and Outreach Act offers an alternative
method of providing information to doctors. It's called academic
detailing, and we believe it can have a positive impact on both quality
and cost of healthcare nationwide. Academic detailing provides
physicians and other prescribers with an objective source of unbiased
information on all prescription drugs, based on scientific research
certified by HHS. The information is presented to doctors in their own
offices by trained clinicians and pharmacists. Academic detailing
ensures that physicians have access to the most comprehensive data
available on drug safety of the full array of pharmaceutical treatment
options, including low-cost generic alternatives.
The proposed legislation would provide two sets of grants. The first
grant program would create educational materials for doctors on the
safety, efficacy, and cost of prescription drugs, including generic
drugs and over-the-counter alternatives. A second set of up to ten
grants would be used to dispatch trained medical staff--such as
pharmacists, nurses, and other health care professionals--into
physicians' offices to distribute and discuss the independent
information. To ensure their neutrality, all grant recipients would be
prohibited from receiving financial support from drug manufacturers.
When doctors are better informed about the full range of drugs
available on the market, they are more likely to prescribe the most
effective treatment, as opposed to the latest brand-name blockbuster
drug. The result is also lower health care costs. A study in the New
England Journal of Medicine projected that for every dollar spent on
academic detailing, two dollars can be saved in drug costs, due in part
to the increased use of generic drugs. In this way, a Federal academic
detailing program will likely pay for itself, while saving the
government, consumers, and employers a considerable amount of money.
I would like to thank my cosponsors in the Senate, Majority Whip Dick
Durbin, HELP Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy, and Senator Bob Casey. I
would also like to thank Representatives Henry Waxman and Frank
Pallone, who are introducing a companion bill today in the House. We
stand together with the goal of providing doctors with unbiased
information on prescription drugs, and ensuring Americans receive the
quality health care they deserve.
Mr. DURBIN. Prescription drugs can restore health, prevent illness,
and extend lives. But deciding whether to prescribe a drug, and which
one, requires a careful balancing of potential benefits, risks, and
costs.
Prescribing should not be determined by how heavily a drug is
promoted by a pharmaceutical company. Sadly, this is largely what
happens today.
Our health care system does not generate objective, easy-to-access
information for doctors to guide them when it comes to prescribing
options.
New drugs are constantly entering the marketplace, but there's very
little objective information about what drug might be marginally safer
or more effective than existing drugs.
Even the most vigilant doctors would be challenged to monitor the
dozens of medical journals that could contain a helpful study comparing
the safety and effectiveness of drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry has taken advantage of this information
void.
It spends about $7 billion a year marketing to physicians and sends
over 90,000 sales representatives, called detailers, to pitch their
company's latest and most expensive drugs.
What the drug industry is doing is not education. It is promotion.
And there's a big difference between the two.
The drug company sales representatives are hired more for their
charisma than their scientific knowledge, and they provide doctors with
information skewed to portray their company's product in the most
favorable light.
The sales representatives arrive with free lunches and free drug
samples. Lucrative speaking and consulting fees are possible for
doctors who change their prescribing to the liking of a drug company.
The consequence of such a system is clear: an over-reliance on
prescribing the latest, most expensive drugs even when existing drugs
are as effective, as safe, or cost less.
The pain-reliever Vioxx provides a cautionary tale of what can happen
when marketing prowess trumps evidence-based medicine.
Heavy marketing quickly made Vioxx a blockbuster drug with $3 billion
a year in sales, despite a lack of evidence that it could provide any
greater pain relief for most patients than Advil and despite early
indications that it increased the risk of heart attacks. Many Americans
needlessly paid more and placed themselves at

[[Page 17737]]

risk because the benefits of Vioxx were oversold and the risks
minimized.
Another example is the marketing of calcium-channel blockers in
1990s. Heavy marketing increased the sales of the new patent-protected
calcium-channel blockers but decreased sales of other blood-pressure
drugs, such as thiazide diuretics and betablockers, that were cheaper
and often more effective.
A more recent example is the cholesterol drug Vytorin. The new drug
has been heavily marketed since it was introduced in 2004. But a study
released earlier this year did not find that Vytorin was any better at
limiting plaque buildup in the arteries than Zocor, an older
cholesterol drug that recently came out in a lower-priced generic form.
We have to find a better way to educate physicians about prescription
drug options and fill the void of medical information that the drug
industry is now taking advantage of.
Part of the solution is academic detailing, an idea first developed
by Jerry Avorn, a physician at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and
Women's Hospital in Boston.
Academic detailing programs use some of the marketing tools that the
drug industry has used so effectively, such as office visits to
physicians and easy-to-read materials, but employs them to promote
appropriate prescribing, based on an objective analysis of the medical
literature.
These programs--which send trained nurses and pharmacists, armed with
unbiased information, to doctors' office--have been shown to generate
$2 in savings for every $1 that it costs to implement them.
Pennsylvania's PACE program is the State's pharmacy assistance
program for low- and moderate-income seniors, and it runs the most
notable publicly funded academic detailing program.
The PACE academic detailing program has reduced costs associated with
the overuse of Nexium, an acid-reflux drug for which there are similar
lower-cost alternatives, and reduced the use of Cox-2 inhibitors such
as Vioxx.
Today, I am joining Senator Kohl and Senators Kennedy and Casey in
introducing legislation that would promote additional academic
detailing programs.
The Independent Drug Education and Outreach Act would provide funds
to medical schools, schools of pharmacies, and others for the
development of educational materials based on what unbiased, peer-
reviewed medical literature says about appropriate prescribing for a
particular condition.
The bill also would provide funds to ten governmental or non-profit
groups to train nurses and pharmacists and to send them to physician
offices to present and discuss this information directly with
physicians.
The bill includes protections against financial conflicts of interest
and calls on the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to review
the accuracy of the information provided to doctors.
The Independent Drug Education and Outreach Act would begin to fix
one of the glaring shortcomings of our current health care system: the
lack of a systematic way of disseminating information on the relative
benefits, risks, and costs of various treatment options directly to
doctors.
When it comes to prescription drugs, newer isn't necessarily better.
In many cases, they are not.
We can no longer afford to rely on drug company salespersons to be
doctors' primary source of information about new drugs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______

By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd,
Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, and Mr.
Whitehouse)):
S. 3398. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to liability under State and local requirements respecting
devices; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in
introducing the Medical Device Safety Act. This legislation reverses
the Supreme Court's erroneous decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. There,
the Court misread a statute designed to protect consumers by giving the
Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve medical devices
as preempting state tort claims when a medical device causes harm.
Riegel prevents consumers from receiving fair compensation for injuries
sustained, medical expenses incurred and lost wages, and it must be
reversed.
Congressional action should be unnecessary. When Congress passed the
Medical Device Amendments, or MDA, in 1976, it did so ``[t]o provide
for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human
use.'' In other words, Congress passed the MDA precisely to protect
consumers from dangerous medical devices. Toward that end, Congress
gave the FDA the authority to approve, prior to a product entering the
market, certain medical devices. For over 30 years the MDA has been in
effect, and over that period FDA regulation and tort liability have
complemented each other in protecting consumers.
Given the MDA's purpose, and the fact it has operated successfully
for 30 years, I was disheartened to find the Court twist the meaning of
the statute to strip from consumers all remedies when a medical device
fails. In contorted logic, the Court found that the FDA's requirements
in approving a medical device preempted state laws designed to ensure
that manufacturers marketed safe devices. In other words, the Court
believes that a company's responsibility to its patients ends when it
receives FDA approval. I strenuously disagree.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Congress intended that
under the MDA, consumers would lose their only avenue for receiving
compensation for injuries caused by negligent or inadequately labeled
devices. Not a single member or committee report articulated the view
that the statute would preempt state tort law.
Nevertheless, because of the Court's decision, it is imperative that
Congress act to ensure that those harmed by flawed medical devices can
seek compensation. The bill introduced today addresses the Court's
action by explicitly stating that actions for damages under state law
are preserved. Specifically, it amends section 521 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to state that the section shall not be construed
to modify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liability
of any person under the law of any State. And, the bill applies
retroactively to the date of the enactment of the MDA, consistent with
Congress's intent when it passed that act over 30 years ago.
Practically, that means that it applies to cases pending on the date of
enactment of this legislation or claims for injuries sustained prior to
enactment.
The harm from Riegel, unless Congress acts, cannot be more real. Take
Riegel itself. In 1996, Charles Riegel had an angioplasty performed on
his right coronary artery. During the procedure, Mr. Reigel's surgeon
used Medtronic's Evergreen Balloon Catheter. The catheter burst inside
Mr. Reigel's artery, causing him severe and permanent injuries and
disabilities.
Under our system of law, when someone is injured, he or she can
normally seek redress from the entity that caused him or her harm. Yet,
because of the Court's decision, Mr. Riegel and his wife will receive
no compensation for the defective design and inadequate warning.
It is not just Mr. Riegel. In 2002, Gary Despain was implanted with a
defective hearing aid Soundtec manufactured. While working as a welder,
he suffered damage to his right ear, apparently as a result of
interference between a magnet in his hearing device and some electronic
welding equipment being used in the plant. The device caused severe
ringing in his ear, but the labeling for the device failed to warn of
this potential risk. Mr. Despain had to have the device surgically
removed and he remains unemployed and disabled as a result of the
device.

[[Page 17738]]

Nevertheless, two weeks after the Court's Riegel decision, Mr.
Despain's lawsuit against Soundtec was dismissed and Mr. Despain has no
ability to seek remedies for his injuries.
The result of Riegel, therefore, is that in the event the FDA does an
inadequate job of inspecting and assuring the safety of medical
devices--and because tort actions are now precluded--then consumers are
left at extreme risk.
While FDA approval of medical devices, moreover, is important, it
cannot be the sole protection for consumers. FDA approval is simply
inadequate to replace the long-standing safety incentives and consumer
protections that state tort law provides.
As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension
Committee, which has oversight over FDA, I have worked hard to ensure
that the FDA performs its job. No matter how effective the FDA is,
however, the FDA simply cannot guarantee that no defective, dangerous
and deadly medical device will reach consumers. As the former Director
of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health acknowledged,
the FDA's ``system of approving devices isn't perfect, and that
unexpected problems [with approved devices] do arise.'' In 1993, a
House report identified a ``number of cases in which the FDA [had]
approved devices that proved unsafe in use.''
The fact is, the FDA conducts the approval process with minimal
resources and simply does not have adequate funds to genuinely ensure
that devices are safe or to properly and effectively reevaluate
approvals as new information becomes available.
Further, the FDA approval process is based on partial information. A
principal shortcoming is that the device's manufacturer compiles the
studies and data supporting an application, and the data is often
unreliable. And, the FDA does not conduct independent investigations
into a device's safety. A manufacturer, moreover, is not required to
submit information about development of the device, including
alternative designs, manufacturing methods and labeling possibilities
that the manufacturer considered, but rejected.
In 1993, an FDA committee found flaws in the design, conduct and
analysis of the clinical studies used to support applications that were
``sufficiently serious to impede the agency's ability to make the
necessary judgments about [device] safety and effectiveness.'' It
added, ``[o]ne of the main reasons [problems arise after approval] is
that the data upon which we base our safety and effectiveness decisions
isn't perfect.'' Likewise, in 1996, the Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services reported ``serious deficiencies
. . . in the clinical data submitted as part of pre-market
applications.''
FDA review, moreover, is a one-time event with no reevaluation and
very little FDA oversight once a device reaches doctors and patients.
In fact, even the best-designed and most reliable clinical studies by
their very nature cannot duplicate all aspects and hazards of everyday
use. Moreover, while manufacturers are supposed to report defects and
injuries, the FDA has admitted that there is ``severe underreporting''
of defects and injuries.
Given the FDA's limitations, it is crucial that an individual have a
right to seek redress. When defective medical devices reach the market,
whether or not approved by the FDA, patients are often injured. Those
injured are often left temporarily unable to work or to enjoy normal
lives, and in many cases never fully recover. State tort law provides
the only relief for patients injured by defective medical devices and
should not be foreclosed.
Not only does access to State court mean that a person injured can
receive fair compensation, but there are other advantages. Such suits
aid in exposing dangers and serve as a catalyst to address their
consequences. Through discovery, litigation can help uncover previously
unavailable information on adverse effects of products that might not
have been caught during the regulatory system. Litigants can demand
documents and information on product risks that might not have been
shared with the FDA. In this way, the public as a whole is alerted to
dangers in medical products.
Finally, providing the ability to sue when injured provides an
important incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care.
Additionally, threat of product liability suits creates continuing
incentives for product manufacturers to improve the safety of their
device, even after FDA approval.
The Court fundamentally misread Congress's intent in passing the
Medical Device Amendments in 1976, and Reigel represents yet another
victory by big business over consumers. Those injured, however, deserve
to have their day in court and are entitled to compensation when they
are injured by faulty medical devices, have medical expenses to pay and
lost wages, regardless of whether FDA approved a device or not. We must
reverse this erroneous decision and ensure that those who have suffered
serious injury at the hands of others receive justice.
______

By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Smith, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Cornyn, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3399. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the reduction in the rate of tax on qualified timber gain of
corporations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise today to
introduce the Timber Revitalization and Economic Enhancement Act II of
2008 with my good friend, Senator Smith of Oregon. I also want to say a
special thanks to our cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Murray, Dole,
Chambliss, Cornyn, Landrieu, Wicker and Vitter.
This legislation has commonly been referred to as the TREE Act. I
appreciate that Congress understood the importance of the TREE Act with
its inclusion and enactment in the Farm Bill earlier this year. But,
unfortunately, this tax policy is already set to expire in less than
one year. So today, my colleagues and I introduce the TREE Act II to
make this important forest policy permanent.
In my home State of Arkansas, the est products industry is a
foundation of our economy and culture. More than 50 percent of Arkansas
land is forested. Much of this is sustainably managed to create
products we use every day. In addition, there are jobs associated with
the growing of these forests and manufacture of these great products.
More than 32,000 Arkansas men and women work in our woods, at our
sawmills and in our paper mills. These are good jobs located in our
small rural towns.
However, these jobs and this industry continue to face many
challenges. The TREE Act II addresses one of these challenges. Just as
it is important to have diversity in our forests, it is also important
to maintain diversity in our forestry industry, and we must ensure that
all business forms have the necessary tools so they can be successful
in the global marketplace. Timber companies that are organized as
corporations continue to be under intensifying pressure to reorganize.
In that case, a corporation that owns substantial manufacturing
facilities would be forced to sell some of those facilities and to make
other structural changes in order to comply with the relevant tax rules
that it would newly become subject to. This would be likely to cause
disruptions in some of these communities and also would make it harder
for U.S. companies to compete internationally.
In Arkansas, like so many other States across our Nation, a strong
forest product industry is essential to having a strong economy. A
permanent solution to the TREE Act II is imperative for this industry
and supporting the jobs it provides. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to ensure this important tax
policy is made permanent.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 3405. A bill to prohibit secret modifications and revocations of
the law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.

[[Page 17739]]

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, the junior Senator from Rhode
Island, Senator Whitehouse, and I will introduce the Executive Order
Integrity Act of 2008. The bill prevents secret changes to published
Executive Orders by requiring the President to place a notice in the
Federal Register when he has modified or revoked a published Order.
Through this simple measure, the bill takes an important step toward
stemming the growth of secret law in the executive branch.
The principle behind this bill is straightforward. It is a basic
tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law.
Indeed, the notion of ``secret law'' has been described in court
opinions and law treatises as ``repugnant'' and ``an abomination.''
That is why the laws passed by Congress have historically been matters
of public record.
But the law that applies in this country includes more than just
statutes. It includes regulations, the controlling legal
interpretations of courts and the executive branch, and certain
Presidential directives. As we learned at a hearing of the Judiciary
Committee's Constitution Subcommittee that I chaired in April, some of
this body of executive and judicial law is increasingly being kept
secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well. The Bush
administration has concealed Department of Justice legal opinions,
interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and
even the agency rule that requires Americans to show identification at
airports.
The shroud of secrecy extends to Executive Orders and other
Presidential directives that carry the force of law. The Federal
Register Act requires the President to publish any Executive Orders
that have general applicability and legal effect. But through the
diligent efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse, we learned last
December that the Department of Justice has taken the position that a
President can ``waive'' or ``modify'' any Executive Order without any
notice to the public or Congress--simply by not following it. In other
words, even in cases where the President is required to make the law
public, the President can change the law in secret.
The Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that contains this position is
still classified, but Senator Whitehouse convinced the Department of
Justice to declassify certain statements in the memorandum. The Senator
from Rhode Island spoke on the floor last December, and many times
since then, about these statements. They include the statement that
``[w]henever [the President] wishes to depart from the terms of a
previous executive order,'' he may do so, because ``an executive order
cannot limit a President.'' And he doesn't have to change the executive
order, or give notice that he's violating it, because by ``depart[ing]
from the executive order,'' the President ``has instead modified or
waived it.''
Now, no one disputes that a President can withdraw or revise an
Executive Order at any time; that is every President's prerogative. But
abrogating a published Executive order without any public notice works
a secret change in the law. Worse, because the published Order stays on
the books, it actively misleads Congress and the public as to what the
law is.
This is not just a hypothetical problem dreamed up by the Office of
Legal Counsel. It has happened, and it could happen again. To list just
one example, the administration's warrantless wiretapping program not
only violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it was
inconsistent with several provisions of Executive Order 12333, the
longstanding executive order governing electronic surveillance and
other intelligence activities. Apparently, the administration believed
its actions constituted a tacit amendment of that Executive Order. And
who knows how many other Executive Orders have been secretly revoked or
amended by the conduct of this Administration.
The bill that Senator Whitehouse and I will introduce provides a
simple solution to this problem. If the President revokes, modifies,
waives, or suspends a published Executive Order or similar directive,
notice of this change in the law must be placed in the Federal Register
within 30 days. The notice must specify the Order or the provision that
has been affected; whether the change is a revocation, a modification,
a waiver, or a suspension; and the nature and circumstances of the
change. If information about the nature and circumstances of the change
is classified, it is exempt from the publication requirement, but the
information still must be provided to Congress so that we, as
legislators, know how the law has been changed.
That is what our bill does; now let me talk briefly about what our
bill does not do. First, it does not expand the existing legal
requirements, under the Federal Register Act, that determine which
Executive Orders must be published. To the extent the Federal Register
Act permits a certain amount of ``secret law'' in the form of
unpublished Executive Orders, our bill leaves that framework in place.
Second, our bill does not require public notice when the President
revokes or modifies an unpublished Executive Order--even if the
substance of the unpublished order is well-known to Congress and even
the American people. This bill is narrowly aimed at the situation in
which the American people have been given official notice of one
version of the law, but a different version is being implemented.
Third, the bill does not require the President to adhere to the terms
of an Executive Order. Many scholars have argued that a President must
adhere to a formally promulgated Executive Order unless or until the
Order is formally withdrawn or amended, just as the head of an agency
must adhere to the agency's regulations. I happen to agree. But this
bill does not take a position on OLC's assertion that any deviation
from the Executive Order by the President is a permissible amendment of
that Order. It simply requires public notice that the amendment has
occurred.
Fourth, the bill does not require the publication of classified
information about intelligence sources and methods or similar
information. The basic fact that the published law is no longer in
effect, however, cannot be classified. On rare occasions, national
security can justify elected officials keeping some information secret,
but it can never justify lying to the American people about what the
law is. Maintaining two different sets of laws, one public and one
secret, is just that--deceiving the American people about what law
applies to the government's conduct.
I commend Senator Whitehouse for his tireless work to bring this
issue to light, and I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to
support this modest effort to ensure the integrity of our published
laws.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3405

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 ``Executive Order Integrity
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. REVOCATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, WAIVERS, AND SUSPENSIONS
OF PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS AND EXECUTIVE
ORDERS.

Section 1505 of title 44, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Revocations, Modifications, Waivers, and Suspensions
of Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders.--
``(1) Notice required.--If the President, whether formally
or informally, and whether through express order, conduct, or
other means--
``(A) revokes, modifies, waives, or suspends any portion of
a Presidential proclamation, Executive Order, or other
Presidential directive that was published in the Federal
Register; or
``(B) authorizes the revocation, modification, waiver, or
suspension of any portion of such Presidential proclamation,
Executive Order, or other Presidential directive;

notice of such revocation, modification, waiver, or
suspension shall be published in the Federal Register within
30 days after the revocation, modification, waiver, or
suspension, in accordance with the terms under paragraph (2).

[[Page 17740]]

``(2) Content of notice.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph
(B), the notice required under paragraph (1) shall specify--
``(i) the Presidential proclamation, Executive Order, or
other Presidential directive, and any particular portion
thereof that is affected;
``(ii) for each affected directive or portion thereof,
whether that directive or portion thereof was revoked,
modified, waived, or suspended; and
``(iii) except where such information is classified, the
specific nature and circumstances of the revocation,
modification, waiver, or suspension.
``(B) Revised executive order.--Where the revocation,
modification, waiver, or suspension of a Presidential
proclamation, Executive Order, or other Presidential
directive is accomplished through the publication in the
Federal Register of a revised Presidential proclamation,
Executive Order, or other Presidential directive that
replaces or amends the one that was revoked, modified,
waived, or suspended, that revised Presidential proclamation,
Executive Order, or other Presidential directive shall
constitute notice for purposes of paragraph (1).
``(3) Classified information.--If the information specified
under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) is classified, such information
shall be provided to Congress, using the security procedures
established under section 501(d) of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413(d)), in the form of a classified annex
delivered to--
``(A) the majority and minority leader of the Senate;
``(B) the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader of
the House of Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives;
and
``(D) if the information pertains to national security
matters, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as either authorizing or prohibiting the
revocation, modification, waiver, or suspension of any
Presidential proclamation, Executive Order, or other
Presidential directive that was published in the Federal
Register through means other than a formal directive issued
by the President and published in the Federal Register.''.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Coleman, Mr.
Feingold, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Burr, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Warner, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Reed, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Casey, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Thune, Mr. Levin, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Tester, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 3406. A bill to restore the intent and protections of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; read the first time.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatch,
Obama, and McCain in introducing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This
bipartisan legislation will allow us to advance and fulfill the
original promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was
signed into law 18 years ago this month.
I am especially grateful to the distinguished senior Senator from
Utah, Senator Hatch, for his partnership and leadership in helping to
craft our bill here in the Senate and to Senator Kennedy for his
career-long leadership in fighting for the rights of people with
disabilities. Senator Kennedy has worked from the beginning to help
craft this bill.
This bill is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in the
other body by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Jim
Sensenbrenner. That bill passed by a 402-17 margin last month.
I am also grateful that, from the outset, these bills have been
conceived and crafted in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with
members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for all
Americans with disabilities.
Of course, passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act was also a
bipartisan effort. As chief sponsor in the Senate, I worked very
closely with Senator Bob Dole and others on both sides of the aisle. We
received invaluable support from President George Herbert Walker Bush
and key members of his administration, including White House Counsel
Boyden Gray, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Transportation
Secretary Sam Skinner.
The fact is that Americans of all walks of life take enormous pride
in the progress we have made since the ADA was passed 18 years ago.
Nobody wants to go backward.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was one of the landmark civil
rights laws of the 20th century--a long-overdue emancipation
proclamation for Americans with disabilities. Thanks to that law, we
have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for more
than 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers
to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities
can have equal opportunity in the workplace. And we have advanced the
four goals of the ADA--equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.
The reach--the triumph--of the ADA revolution struck home to me, some
time back, when I attended a Washington convention of several hundred
disability rights advocates, many with significant disabilities. They
arrived in Washington on trains and airplanes built to accommodate
people with mobility impairments. They came to the hotel on Metro and
in regular busses, all seamlessly accessible by wheelchair. They
navigated city streets equipped with curb cuts and ramps. The hotel
where the convention took place was equipped in countless ways to
accommodate people with disabilities. There was a sign language
interpreter on the dais so that people with hearing disabilities could
be full participants.
For those of us who do not have disabilities, these many changes are
all but invisible. But for individuals with disabilities, they are
transforming and liberating. So are provisions in the ADA outlawing
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the
workplace, and requiring employers to provide ``reasonable
accommodations.''
But despite this progress, we face a challenge. In recent years, the
courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual
with a disability.'' As a consequence, people with conditions that
common sense tells us are disabilities are being told by courts that
they are not in fact disabled, and are not eligible for the protections
of the law. In a ruling last year, the 11th Circuit Court even
concluded that a person with an intellectual disability was not
``disabled'' under the ADA.
When I explain to people what the Supreme Court has done, they are
shocked. Impairments that the Court says are not to be considered
disabilities under the law include amputation, intellectual
disabilities, epilepsy, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and multiple
sclerosis.
In three rulings in 1999--Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United
Parcel Service, and Albertson's v. Kirkingburg--the Court held that
corrective and mitigating measures must be considered in determining
whether an individual has a disability under the ADA.
In Sutton, the Supreme Court held that if a person is taking
corrective measures to mitigate a physical or mental impairment, the
effects of those measures must be taken into account when judging
whether a person is ``disabled.'' Corrective measures could include
anything from visual aids to a prosthesis. The Court went on to say
that the approach adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission--that persons are to be evaluated in their hypothetical
uncorrected state--was an impermissible interpretation of the ADA.
In Murphy, the Court applied the same analysis to medication used to
treat hypertension, and concluded that an employee who was fired
because he

[[Page 17741]]

had hypertension was not protected under the ADA, because medication
alleviated some of his symptoms.
In Kirkingburg, the Supreme Court went further and declared that
mitigating measures to be included in the determination of whether
someone is disabled included not only artificial aids such as devices
and medications, but also subconscious measures an individual may use
to compensate for his or her impairment. Kirkingburg was an individual
who was blind in one eye, and the court found that he was not
``disabled'' under the ADA.
Moreover, in another Supreme Court case, Toyota v. Williams 2002, the
Court held that there must be a ``demanding standard for qualifying as
disabled.'' This too, has resulted in a much more restrictive
requirement than Congress intended. It has had the effect of excluding
countless individuals with disabilities from the protections of the
law.
Together, these Supreme Court cases have created a supreme absurdity:
The more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more
likely it is for a court to find that they are no longer sufficiently
disabled to be protected by the ADA. And if these individuals are no
longer protected under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable
accommodation at work can be denied. Or they can be fired--without
recourse.
Think about it this way: Imagine that you are an individual with a
disability who has a job. Due to your disability, you take some
medication or maybe you use an assistive device. The use of the
medication or the assistive device allows you to be qualified to do
your job. It's a job that you really love. At some point, you need to
request a reasonable accommodation from your employer--maybe, if you
have diabetes, it is 10 minutes a day to take your insulin and check
your blood levels.
Or perhaps you use a prosthesis. Your employer says no, they don't
want to give you an accommodation. Eventually you get fired as a
result. When you go to court, your employer argues that you aren't
really a person with a disability so you aren't entitled to the
protections of the ADA. Then, under these Supreme Court cases, the
employer prevails by convincing the court that because of the
mitigating measure--the prosthesis--you can't meet the test of being
``disabled'' under the law.
So what are you supposed to do in these cases? If you don't take the
medication or use the assistive device, then you are not qualified to
do the job. On the other hand, if you stop taking the medication, or
stop using your prosthesis, you will be considered a person with a
disability under the ADA, but you will be unable to do your job.
What would you do? This is the Catch 22 situation that, today,
confronts countless people with disabilities. This is clearly not what
I intended, or what Congress intended, when we passed the ADA in 1990.
It boggles the mind that any court would rule that, for instance,
multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy, is not a disability covered
by the ADA. But that is where we are today. And that is why we are
introducing this bill today.
This Senate bill builds on the success of the House bill. However, it
seeks to broaden the definition of disability in a way that maximizes
bipartisan consensus and minimizes unintended consequences.
Our bill leaves the ADA's familiar disability definition language
intact: A person with a disability is one who has a physical or mental
impairment that ``substantially limits'' one or more of the major life
activities of the individual. It does not substitute the term
``materially restricts'' as in the House bill. Instead, the bill takes
several specific and general steps that, individually and in
combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and
application of the definition.
This bill will overturn the basis for the reasoning in the Supreme
Court decisions--the Sutton trilogy and the Toyota case--that have been
so problematic for so many people with very real disabilities.
This bill fixes the ``mitigating measures'' problem by clearly
stating that mitigating measures--like the medication or assistive
devices I talked about earlier--are not to be considered in determining
whether someone is entitled to the protections of the ADA.
This bill will make it easier for people with disabilities to be
covered by the ADA because it effectively expands the definition of
disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new
category of major bodily functions. This latter point is important for
those with immune disorders, or cancer, or kidney disease, or liver
disease, because they no longer need to show what specific activity
they are limited in, in order to meet the statutory definition of
disability.
This bill rejects the current EEOC regulation which says that
``substantially limits'' means ``significantly restricted'' as too high
a standard. We indicate Congress's expectation that the regulation be
rewritten in a less stringent way, and we provide the authority to do
so.
This bill revives the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition of
disability, and makes it easier for those with physical or mental
impairments to be able to seek relief if they have been subjected to an
adverse action because of their disability.
This bill has a broad construction provision which instructs the
courts and the agencies that the definition of disability is to be
interpreted broadly, to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA.
Mr. President, 18 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act
passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, with the
introduction of this bill, we are building a strong bicameral,
bipartisan majority to support the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
Let me say, again, that I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with
which we are approaching this legislation. We have an opportunity to
come together and make an important difference for millions of
Americans with disabilities.
This bill also enjoys strong support out in the country. It is
supported by most national disability organizations, as well as the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers,
the Society for Human Resource Management, and the Human Resources
Policy Association.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to pass this bill, and to advance and fulfill the original
promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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. 3406

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 ``ADA Amendments Act of
2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities'' and
provide broad coverage;
(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical
and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right
to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that
people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently
precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated
attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and
institutional barriers;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of
disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently
with how courts had applied the definition of a handicapped
individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that
expectation has not been fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United
Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases
have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be
afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many
individuals whom Congress intended to protect;
(5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184
(2002) further narrowed the broad scope of protection
intended to be afforded by the ADA;
(6) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts
have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a
range of substantially limiting impairments are not people
with disabilities;

[[Page 17742]]

(7) in particular, the Supreme Court, in the case of Toyota
Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184
(2002), interpreted the term ``substantially limits'' to
require a greater degree of limitation than was intended by
Congress; and
(8) Congress finds that the current Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ADA regulations defining the term
``substantially limits'' as ``significantly restricted'' are
inconsistent with congressional intent, by expressing too
high a standard.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to carry out the ADA's objectives of providing ``a
clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent,
enforceable standards addressing discrimination'' by
reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under
the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme
Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471
(1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity is to be
determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of
mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v.
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to
coverage under the third prong of the definition of
disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme
Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S.
273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of
the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973;
(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court
in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams,
534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ``substantially'' and
``major'' in the definition of disability under the ADA
``need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding
standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that to be
substantially limited in performing a major life activity
under the ADA ``an individual must have an impairment that
prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing
activities that are of central importance to most people's
daily lives'';
(5) to convey congressional intent that the standard
created by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184
(2002) for ``substantially limits'', and applied by lower
courts in numerous decisions, has created an inappropriately
high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under
the ADA, to convey that it is the intent of Congress that the
primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA
should be whether entities covered under the ADA have
complied with their obligations, and to convey that the
question of whether an individual's impairment is a
disability under the ADA should not demand extensive
analysis; and
(6) to express Congress' expectation that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission will revise that portion of
its current regulations that defines the term ``substantially
limits'' as ``significantly restricted'' to be consistent
with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.

SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a
person's right to fully participate in all aspects of
society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities
have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination;
others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as
having a disability also have been subjected to
discrimination;'';
(2) by striking paragraph (7); and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively.

SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Definition of Disability.--Section 3 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.

``As used in this Act:
``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' means, with
respect to an individual--
``(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
``(B) a record of such an impairment; or
``(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as
described in paragraph (3)).
``(2) Major life activities.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), major
life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for
oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking,
breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking,
communicating, and working.
``(B) Major bodily functions.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a
major bodily function, including but not limited to,
functions of the immune system, normal cell growth,
digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory,
circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
``(3) Regarded as having such an impairment.--For purposes
of paragraph (1)(C):
``(A) An individual meets the requirement of `being
regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual
establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action
prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived
physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment
limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that
are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an
impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or
less.
``(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of
disability.--The definition of `disability' in paragraph (1)
shall be construed in accordance with the following:
``(A) The definition of disability in this Act shall be
construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under
this Act, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of
this Act.
``(B) The term `substantially limits' shall be interpreted
consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.
``(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major
life activity need not limit other major life activities in
order to be considered a disability.
``(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a
disability if it would substantially limit a major life
activity when active.
``(E)(i) The determination of whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity shall be made
without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating
measures such as--
``(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or
appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary
eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs
and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other
implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen
therapy equipment and supplies;
``(II) use of assistive technology;
``(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or
services; or
``(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological
modifications.
``(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures
of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered
in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a
major life activity.
``(iii) As used in this subparagraph--

``(I) the term `ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses'
means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity
or eliminate refractive error; and
``(II) the term `low-vision devices' means devices that
magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) is further amended by
adding after section 3 the following:

``SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

``As used in this Act:
``(1) Auxiliary aids and services.--The term `auxiliary
aids and services' includes--
``(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods of
making aurally delivered materials available to individuals
with hearing impairments;
``(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective
methods of making visually delivered materials available to
individuals with visual impairments;
``(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices;
and
``(D) other similar services and actions.
``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(c) Amendment to the Table of Contents.--The table of
contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 3 and inserting the following items:

``Sec. 3. Definition of disability.
``Sec. 4. Additional definitions.''.

SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

(a) On the Basis of Disability.--Section 102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with a disability
because of the disability of such individual'' and inserting
``on the basis of disability''; and
(2) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting
``discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of
disability''.
(b) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to
Uncorrected Vision.--Section 103 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113) is amended by
redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and
(e), respectively, and inserting after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to
Uncorrected Vision.--Notwithstanding section 3(4)(E)(ii), a
covered entity

[[Page 17743]]

shall not use qualification standards, employment tests, or
other selection criteria based on an individual's uncorrected
vision unless the standard, test, or other selection
criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-
related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 101(8) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``with a
disability''; and
(B) by striking ``with a disability'' after ``individual''
both places it appears.
(2) Section 104(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12114(a)) is amended by striking ``the
term `qualified individual with a disability' shall'' and
inserting ``a qualified individual with a disability shall''.

SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12201 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:
``(e) Benefits Under State Worker's Compensation Laws.--
Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining
eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation
laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
``(f) Fundamental Alteration.--Nothing in this Act alters
the provision of section 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), specifying that
reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or
procedures shall be required, unless an entity can
demonstrate that making such modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures, including academic requirements in
postsecondary education, would fundamentally alter the nature
of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations involved.
``(g) Claims of No Disability.--Nothing in this Act shall
provide the basis for a claim by an individual without a
disability that the individual was subject to discrimination
because of the individual's lack of disability.
``(h) Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications.--A
covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II,
and any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a
place of public accommodation under title III, need not
provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable
modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an
individual who meets the definition of disability in section
3(1) solely under subparagraph (C) of such section.'';
(2) by redesignating section 506 through 514 as sections
507 through 515, respectively, and adding after section 505
the following:

``SEC. 506. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY
AUTHORITY.

``The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and
the Secretary of Transportation under this Act includes the
authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions
of disability in section 3 (including rules of construction)
and the definitions in section 4, consistent with the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.''; and
(3) in section 511 (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) (42
U.S.C. 12211), in subsection (c), by striking ``511(b)(3)''
and inserting ``512(b)(3)''.
(b) The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by
redesignating the items relating to sections 506 through 514
as the items relating to sections 507 through 515,
respectively, and by inserting after the item relating to
section 505 the following new item:

``Sec. 506. Rule of construction regarding regulatory authority.''.

SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``a physical'' and all
that follows through ``major life activities'', and inserting
``the meaning given it in section 3 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)''; and
(2) in paragraph (20)(B), by striking ``any person who''
and all that follows through the period at the end, and
inserting ``any person who has a disability as defined in
section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12102).''.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become
effective on January 1, 2009.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today, as I did 18 years
ago, and stand beside my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to
introduce legislation advancing opportunities for our disabled fellow
citizens. Our commitment to that cause never ends. We must always
remain open to learn from experience, to observe and evaluate how laws
we put on the books work in practice, and to be ready to do our part
with appropriate legislation. We are doing our part today by
introducing the ADA Amendments Act.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is perhaps the most comprehensive
piece of civil rights legislation we have ever enacted. It prohibits
discrimination based on present, past, or perceived disabilities. It
affirmatively requires accommodations in the workplace and
modifications and assistance to ensure that persons with disabilities
can access and enjoy places of public accommodation. That combination
of the negative prohibition and the affirmative obligation makes the
ADA truly unique and able to make such a positive contribution to the
lives of so many across our great Nation.
This legislation responds to Supreme Court decisions that have had
the effect of narrowing the ADA's definition of disability and thereby
restricting its coverage. Its goal is to once again broaden the
definition of disability in a way that maximizes bipartisan consensus
and minimizes unintended consequences. I am sure that my friend from
Iowa, Senator Harkin, joins me in thanking so many people and
organizations who have been part of this process, offering countless
suggestions and ideas and input about how to achieve this goal.
This effort has been neither simple nor easy. Because the ADA is such
a comprehensive statute, virtually any change we make can have effects
in areas beyond where a problem might have occurred. In addition,
Members on both sides of the aisle, with liberal or conservative
perspectives, equally want to help the disabled but have very different
views about how to do it.
And so the bill we introduce today is really the third phase in a
process that began more than a year ago with introduction of the ADA
Restoration Act and continued with passage last month of the House ADA
Amendments Act. I am glad to say that it enjoys the support of the
broad coalitions of disability and business groups that have provided
valuable input and analysis along the way. It also takes steps to
address concerns expressed by the education community. While the
problems this legislation addresses arose in the employment arena, the
solution this legislation represents will certainly impact the
education arena.
Finally, let me say that like the original ADA, this bill is the
result of negotiation and compromise on all sides. That is the nature
of the legislative process and the more important the goal, the greater
the effort to continue the process until we reach a good result. We
have done that here and I hope and trust that when this legislation
passes here and in the other body that the margin of the votes will
reflect the breadth of the consensus behind this new effort to advance
opportunities for the disabled to participate in all that this great
country has to offer.
______

By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.
inhofe):
S. 3407. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize
commanders of wounded warrior battalions to accept charitable gifts on
behalf of the wounded members of the Armed Forces assigned to such
battalions; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, in the years since the War on Terror began,
we have seen the creation of new Wounded Warrior Battalions and Warrior
Transition Battalions in the Marines and the Army. These units were
built from the ground up with one purpose in mind: to ensure that
seriously wounded service members receive the medical care and benefits
that they have earned. The service personnel who command and administer
these units are some of the most competent and dedicated professionals
in our armed forces, and they deserve our praise.
These professionals have done much to improve the quality of care
that is given to our Nation's wounded service members, but many of the
young men and women who find themselves assigned to a Wounded Warrior
Battalion still face a tough journey on their road to recovery.
Thankfully, the challenges that these men and women face rarely go
unnoticed in their communities. Over the past several years we have
heard countless stories of private citizens, church congregations and
other community groups stepping forward to

[[Page 17744]]

donate their time, money and other charitable gifts to our wounded
service personnel. It is not uncommon to hear about donations of
$10,000 or more being offered to help provide additional resources to
help our wounded recover.
Unfortunately, the military's gift-acceptance rules have not been
updated to take into account the generosity of the American people. For
example, if a North Carolinian wished to provide a gift of just over
$12,000 to the Wounded Warrior Battalion at Camp Lejeune, the
acceptance paperwork for this donation would spend months working its
way through a complicated bureaucracy before finally arriving on the
desk of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Our taxpayers and our
wounded veterans are not being served very well when gifts of such a
small dollar amount must be approved at the very highest levels of
command.
That is why I am introducing the Friends of Wounded Warriors Act.
This legislation will streamline the gift-acceptance process by
empowering the commanders of Wounded Warrior Battalions and similar
units with the authority to accept charitable gifts of up to $100,000
for the benefit of the members of their unit. This will enable these
commanders to cut through the red tape that is currently the cause of
needless delay in getting extra resources to our wounded service men
and women. I hope you will join me in making a commitment to ensure
that out-dated processes for accepting gifts do not stand in the way of
the generosity of concerned citizens and communities seeking to
contribute to the care of our wounded and ill service members.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 3408. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to
provide for the conduct of comparative effectiveness research and to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a Comparative
Effectiveness Research Trust Fund, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 2006, America spent more than $2
trillion on health care. By any standard, $2 trillion is an enormous
figure. Health care accounts for 16 percent of our Nation's economy.
That means that for every $100 in goods and services produced and
consumed in America in 2006, $16 were for health care. And the health
care share of the economy is expected to reach 20 percent in just 10
years.
These projections are cause for concern. If so much of our Nation's
resources are devoted to heath care, we need to ask ourselves what we
are--or are not--getting for it.
The answer is that we are getting a mixed bag of goods. Some patients
receive medical treatments that work well. Some patients receive
treatments that don't work well. In many cases, doctors and patients
don't have enough reliable evidence to know whether treatments work or
don't.
Of the $2 trillion spent on health in 2006, only \1/10\ of 1 percent
was spent to assess what works and what doesn't. At the Federal level,
only $15 million was directly appropriated to compare the effectiveness
of health interventions and services. People who purchase other goods--
anything from cars to computers--use information to compare the value
of the different products before they purchase. Physicians and patients
deserve better. We should devote more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of
health spending to study how well health goods and services actually
work.
Rapid innovation has led to an ever-changing array of new and
sometimes expensive technologies. The age of personalized medicine and
genetic engineering will provide even more choices for patients and
their physicians. Indeed, patients and physicians can face great
difficulty in choosing among treatment options.
But much of the information about those options is biased. Much
information about those options is of poor quality. And for many
treatments, there are large gaps in what is known to be most effective.
With a paucity of sound evidence, clinical guidelines and treatment
protocols can vary widely. If there has ever been a need for better
information--on what works, for which patients, under which
circumstances--it is in this age of rapid innovation of technology.
Several august bodies--including the Institute of Medicine, the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and the Congressional Budget
Office--have called on Congress to create a national entity charged
with conducting research to determine what works in health care.
Today, I am proud to introduce the Comparative Effectiveness Research
Act of 2008. I am joined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee,
Senator Conrad. He and I share a deep concern about rising health care
costs. And we share a deep commitment to finding ways to address it.
This bill does what the experts suggest. It would create a new entity
responsible for generating better information on the effectiveness of
health care treatments.
Specifically, the bill would create a nonprofit corporation
responsible for setting national priorities for comparative
effectiveness research. The corporation, which would be called the
Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, would be a
private entity. But it would be governed by a public-private sector
Board of Governors. It would not be an agency of the Federal
Government.
In addition to setting national priorities, the Institute would
provide for the conduct of research studies that answer the most
pressing questions about what works in health care. The Institute would
have the authority to contract with experienced Federal agencies, such
as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, and the
National Institutes for Health, or NIH, or with private researchers if
appropriate, for the conduct of the actual research. The Institute
would also be charged with disseminating the findings of the research
in ways that patients and providers can understand.
The Institute would be required to assess the full spectrum of health
interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical
procedures, medical services, and other therapies. This type of
research is often called ``comparative effectiveness research,''
because it evaluates and compares the clinical effect of alternative
medical treatments. This type of research provides better quality
evidence concerning the best treatment, prevention, and management of
the health conditions. Most importantly, this type of research helps
patients, providers, and payers of health care to make more informed
decisions.
While many experts have called for creation of a new entity, they do
not specify how the entity should be structured. This bill would create
a private, nonprofit institute rather than a new entity within the
executive branch or legislative. Keeping it private would remove the
potential for political influence on the development of national
research priorities. Comparative effectiveness research will be more
credible, and more useful, if it is done independently of political
influence and with broad stakeholder input.
This bill includes stringent requirements for public input,
transparency of process and findings, and integrity of the research.
For example, the Institute would be required to publish its rules,
proceedings, and reports on a public Internet site. Its meetings would
be open to the public. It would be required to provide public comment
periods at key stages, in addition to open forums to solicit and obtain
public input on the Institute's activities.
This bill would also require accountability and government oversight
of finances and the mission. The Institute would be subject to annual
financial audits. And the Comptroller General would perform periodic
audits of the activities of the Institute to ensure that the Institute
would meet its statutory mission and would do so in a fair, open, and
credible way.
Finally, this bill would provide a stable source of funding for the
Institute. For the first 3 years, general revenues would be used to
start up the Institute. In the 4th year, funding would move to

[[Page 17745]]

an all-payer system--from both public and private sources. Annual
contributions would be made from the Medicare Trust Funds, from
revenues generated by a fee on private health insurance policies, and
from general revenues. The work of the new Institute would benefit
Americans who receive health care through the public and private
sources. Therefore, public and private sources should contribute to
this type of research. The private insurance fee would be $1 per
insured person per year. Funding from Medicare would also be $1 per
beneficiary per year.
All sources of funding for the Institute would sunset after 10 years.
That way, Congress could review a report from the Comptroller General
on the value of the research to the public and private insurance
sectors. Total funding for the first year would be $5 million, and
funding would increase to $300 million a year by the year 2013.
It is high time that America invested more than a fraction of a
percent to generate knowledge about what works in health care, to
improve the efficiency and the quality of our health care system, and
to give patients and doctors better information to make treatment
decisions. It is high time that we built a foundation of evidence for
the trillions of dollars spent on health in America each year.
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. 3408

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 ``Comparative Effectiveness
Research Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--Title XI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new part:

``Part D--Comparative Effectiveness Research

``comparative effectiveness research

``Sec. 1181. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Board.--The term `Board' means the Board of Governors
established under subsection (f).
``(2) Comparative clinical effectiveness research.--
``(A) In general.--The term `comparative clinical
effectiveness research' means research evaluating and
comparing the clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of
2 or more medical treatments, services, and items described
in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Medical treatments, services, and items described.--
The medical treatments, services, and items described in this
subparagraph are health care interventions, protocols for
treatment, procedures, medical devices, diagnostic tools,
pharmaceuticals (including drugs and biologicals), and any
other processes or items being used in the treatment and
diagnosis of, or prevention of illness or injury in,
patients.
``(3) Comparative effectiveness research.--The term
`comparative effectiveness research' means research
evaluating and comparing the implications and outcomes of 2
or more health care strategies to address a particular
medical condition.
``(4) Conflicts of interest.--The term `conflicts of
interest' means associations, including financial and
personal, that may be reasonably assumed to have the
potential to bias an individual's decisions in matters
related to the Institute or the conduct of activities under
this section.
``(5) Institute.--The term `Institute' means the `Health
Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute'
established under subsection (b)(1).
``(b) Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research
Institute.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is authorized to be established
a nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``Health Care
Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute'' which is
neither an agency nor establishment of the United States
Government.
``(2) Application of provisions.--The Institute shall be
subject to the provisions of this section, and, to the extent
consistent with this section, to the District of Columbia
Nonprofit Corporation Act.
``(3) Funding of comparative effectiveness research.--For
fiscal year 2009 and each subsequent fiscal year, amounts in
the Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (referred
to in this section as the `CERTF') under section 9511 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be available, without
further appropriation, to the Institute to carry out this
section.
``(c) Purpose.--The purpose of the Institute is to improve
health care delivered to individuals in the United States by
advancing the quality and thoroughness of evidence concerning
the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health
conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented,
diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically through research
and evidence synthesis, and the dissemination of research
findings with respect to the relative outcomes,
effectiveness, and appropriateness of the medical treatments,
services, and items described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
``(d) Duties.--
``(1) Identifying research priorities and establishing
research project agenda.--
``(A) Identifying research priorities.--The Institute shall
identify national priorities for comparative clinical
effectiveness research, taking into account factors,
including--
``(i) disease incidence, prevalence, and burden in the
United States;
``(ii) evidence gaps in terms of clinical outcomes;
``(iii) practice variations, including variations in
delivery and outcomes by geography, treatment site, provider
type, and patient subgroup;
``(iv) the potential for new evidence concerning certain
categories of health care services or treatments to improve
patient health and well-being, and the quality of care; and
``(v) the effect or potential for an effect on health
expenditures associated with a health condition or the use of
a particular medical treatment, service, or item.
``(B) Establishing research project agenda.--
``(i) In general.--The Institute shall establish and update
a research project agenda to address the priorities
identified under subparagraph (A), taking into consideration
the types of research that might address each priority and
the relative value (determined based on the cost of
conducting such research compared to the potential usefulness
of the information produced by such research) associated with
such different types of research, and such other factors as
the Institute determines appropriate.
``(ii) Consideration of need to conduct a systematic
review.--In establishing and updating the research project
agenda under clause (i), the Institute shall consider the
need to conduct a systematic review of existing research
before providing for the conduct of new research under
paragraph (2)(A).
``(2) Carrying out research project agenda.--
``(A) Comparative clinical effectiveness research.--In
carrying out the research project agenda established under
paragraph (1)(B), the Institute shall provide for the conduct
of appropriate research and the synthesis of evidence, in
accordance with the methodological standards adopted under
paragraph (9), using methods, including the following:
``(i) Systematic reviews and assessments of existing
research and evidence.
``(ii) Clinical research, such as randomized controlled
trials and observational studies.
``(iii) Any other methodologies recommended by the
methodology committee established under paragraph (6) that
are adopted by the Board under paragraph (9).
``(B)(i) Contracts with federal agencies and
instrumentalities.--The Institute shall give preference to
agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal Government that
have experience in conducting comparative clinical
effectiveness research, such as the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, when entering into contracts for the
management and conduct of research in accordance with the
research project agenda established under paragraph (1)(B),
to the extent that such contracts are authorized under the
governing statutes of such agencies and instrumentalities.
``(ii) Contracts with other entities.--The Institute may
enter into contracts with appropriate private sector research
or study-conducting entities for the conduct of research
described in clause (i).
``(iii) Conditions for contracts.--A contract entered into
under this subparagraph shall require that the agency,
instrumentality, or other entity--
``(I) abide by the transparency and conflicts of interest
requirements that apply to the Institute with respect to the
research managed or conducted under such contract;
``(II) comply with the methodological standards adopted
under paragraph (9) with respect to such research; and
``(III) take into consideration public comments on the
study design that are transmitted by the Institute to the
agency, instrumentality, or other entity under subsection
(i)(1)(B) during the finalization of the study design and
transmit responses to such comments to the Institute, which
will publish such comments, responses, and finalized study
design in accordance with subsection (i)(3)(A)(iii) prior to
the conduct of such research.
``(iv) Coverage of copayments or coinsurance.--A contract
entered into under this subparagraph may allow for the
coverage of copayments or co-insurance, or allow for other
appropriate measures, to the extent that such coverage or
other measures are necessary to preserve the validity of a
research project, such as in the case where the research
project must be blinded.

[[Page 17746]]

``(C) Review and update of evidence.--The Institute shall
review and update evidence on a periodic basis, in order to
take into account new research and evolving evidence as they
become available, as appropriate.
``(D) Taking into account potential differences.--Research
shall--
``(i) be designed, as appropriate, to take into account the
potential for differences in the effectiveness of health care
treatments, services, and items as used with various
subpopulations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, women,
different age groups, and individuals with different
comorbidities; and
``(ii) seek to include members of such subpopulations as
subjects in the research as feasible and appropriate.
``(3) Study and report on feasibility of conducting
research in-house.--
``(A) Study.--The Institute shall conduct a study on the
feasibility of conducting research in-house.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Institute shall submit a
report to Congress containing the results of the study
conducted under subparagraph (A).
``(4) Data collection.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, with appropriate
safeguards for privacy, make available to the Institute such
data collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services under the programs under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI
as the Institute may require to carry out this section. The
Institute may also request and, if such request is granted,
obtain data from Federal, State, or private entities.
``(B) Use of data.--The Institute shall only use data
provided to the Institute under subparagraph (A) in
accordance with laws and regulations governing the release
and use of such data, including applicable confidentiality
and privacy standards.
``(5) Appointing advisory panels.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute may appoint permanent or
ad hoc advisory panels as determined appropriate by the
Institute to assist in the establishment and carrying out of
the research project agenda under paragraphs (1) and (2),
respectively. Panels may advise or guide the Institute in
matters such as identifying gaps in and updating medical
evidence and identifying research priorities and potential
study designs in order to ensure that the information
produced from such research is clinically relevant to
decisions made by clinicians and patients at the point of
care and may provide advice throughout the conduct of
research.
``(B) Composition.--An advisory panel appointed under
subparagraph (A) shall include representatives of clinicians
and patients and may include experts in scientific and health
services research, health services delivery, and the
manufacture of health items who have experience in the
relevant topic, project, or category for which the panel is
established.
``(6) Establishing methodology committee.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute shall establish a standing
methodology committee to carry out the functions described in
subparagraph (C).
``(B) Appointment and composition.--Members shall be
appointed to the methodology committee established under
subparagraph (A) by the Comptroller General of the United
States. Members appointed to the methodology committee shall
be experts in their scientific field, such as health services
research, clinical research, comparative effectiveness
research, biostatistics, and research methodologies.
Stakeholders with such expertise may be appointed to the
methodology committee.
``(C) Functions.--Subject to subparagraph (D), the
methodology committee shall work to develop and improve the
science of comparative effectiveness research by undertaking
the following activities:
``(i) Not later than 1 year after the date on which the
members of the methodology committee are appointed under
subparagraph (B), developing and periodically updating
methodological standards regarding outcomes measures, risk
adjustment, statistical protocols, evaluation of evidence,
conduct of research, and other aspects of research and
assessment to be used when conducting research on comparative
clinical effectiveness (and procedures for the use of such
standards) in order to help ensure accurate and effective
comparisons. Such standards shall also include methods by
which new information, data, or advances in technology are
considered and incorporated into ongoing research projects by
the Institute, as appropriate. In developing and updating
methodological standards under this clause, the methodology
committee shall ensure that such standards are scientifically
based.
``(ii) Not later than 5 years after such date, examining
the following:

``(I) Methods by which various aspects of the health care
delivery system (such as benefit design and performance, and
health services organization, management, and delivery) could
be assessed and compared for their relative effectiveness,
benefits, risks, advantages, and disadvantages in a
scientifically valid and standardized way.
``(II) Methods by which cost-effectiveness and value could
be assessed in a scientifically valid and standardized way.

``(D) Consultation and conduct of examinations.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), in undertaking
the activities described in subparagraph (C), the methodology
committee shall--

``(I) consult or contract with 1 or more of the entities
described in clause (ii); and
``(II) consult with stakeholders and other entities
knowledgeable in relevant fields, as appropriate.

``(ii) Entities described.--The following entities are
described in this clause:

``(I) The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
``(II) The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
``(III) The National Institutes of Health.

``(iii) Conduct of examinations.--The methodology committee
shall contract with the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies for the conduct of the examinations described in
subclauses (I) and (II) of subparagraph (C)(ii).
``(E) Reports.--The methodology committee shall submit
reports to the Board on the committee's performance of the
functions described in subparagraph (C). Reports submitted
under the preceding sentence with respect to the functions
described in clause (i) of such subparagraph shall contain
recommendations--
``(i) for the Institute to adopt methodological standards
developed and updated by the methodology committee under such
subparagraph; and
``(ii) for such other action as the methodology committee
determines is necessary to comply with such methodological
standards.
``(7) Providing for a peer-review process.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute shall ensure that there is
a process for peer review of the research conducted under
this section. Under such process--
``(i) evidence from research conducted under this section
shall be reviewed to assess scientific integrity and
adherence to methodological standards adopted under paragraph
(9); and
``(ii) a list of the names of individuals contributing to
any peer-review process during the preceding year or years
shall be made public and included in annual reports in
accordance with paragraph (11)(D).
``(B) Composition.--Such peer-review process shall have
been designed in a manner so as to avoid bias and conflicts
of interest on the part of the reviewers and shall be
composed of experts in the scientific field relevant to the
research under review.
``(C) Use of existing processes.--In the case where the
Institute enters into a contract or other agreement with
another entity for the conduct or management of research
under this section, the Institute may utilize the peer-review
process of such entity if such process meets the requirements
under subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(8) Dissemination of research findings.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute shall disseminate research
findings to clinicians, patients, and the general public in
accordance with the dissemination protocols and strategies
adopted under paragraph (9). Research findings disseminated--
``(i) shall convey findings of research so that they are
comprehensible and useful to patients and providers in making
health care decisions;
``(ii) shall discuss findings and other considerations
specific to certain subpopulations, risk factors, and
comorbidities, as appropriate;
``(iii) shall include considerations such as limitations of
research and what further research may be needed, as
appropriate;
``(iv) shall not include practice guidelines or policy
recommendations; and
``(v) shall not include any data the dissemination of which
would violate the privacy of research participants or violate
any confidentiality agreements made with respect to the use
of data under this section.
``(B) Dissemination protocols and strategies.--The
Institute shall develop protocols and strategies for the
appropriate dissemination of research findings in order to
ensure effective communication of such findings and the use
and incorporation of such findings into relevant activities
for the purpose of informing higher quality and more
effective and efficient decisions regarding medical
treatments, services, and items. In developing and adopting
such protocols and strategies, the Institute shall consult
with stakeholders concerning the types of dissemination that
will be most useful to the end users of the information and
may provide for the utilization of multiple formats for
conveying findings to different audiences.
``(C) Definition of research findings.--In this paragraph,
the term `research findings' means the results of a study,
appraisal, or assessment.
``(9) Adoption.--Subject to subsection (i)(1)(A)(i), the
Institute shall adopt the national priorities identified
under paragraph (1)(A), the research project agenda
established under paragraph (1)(B), the methodological
standards developed and updated by the methodology committee
under paragraph (6)(C)(i), any peer-review process provided
under paragraph (7), and dissemination

[[Page 17747]]

protocols and strategies developed under paragraph (8)(B) by
majority vote. In the case where the Institute does not adopt
such national priorities, research project agenda,
methodological standards, peer-review process, or
dissemination protocols and strategies in accordance with the
preceding sentence, the national priorities, research project
agenda, methodological standards, peer-review process, or
dissemination protocols and strategies shall be referred to
the appropriate staff or entity within the Institute (or, in
the case of the methodological standards, the methodology
committee) for further review.
``(10) Coordination of research and resources and building
capacity for research.--
``(A) Coordination of research and resources.--The
Institute shall coordinate research conducted, commissioned,
or otherwise funded under this section with comparative
clinical effectiveness and other relevant research and
related efforts conducted by public and private agencies and
organizations in order to ensure the most efficient use of
the Institute's resources and that research is not duplicated
unnecessarily.
``(B) Building capacity for research.--The Institute may
build capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness
research and other relevant research and related efforts
through appropriate activities, such as making payments, up
to 5 percent of the amounts appropriated or credited to the
CERTF under section 9511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 with respect to the fiscal year, to The Cochrane
Collaboration (or a successor organization) to support the
infrastructure of The Cochrane Collaboration (or a successor
organization) or to provide for sets of reviews related to a
particular topic or associated with a particular review
group.
``(C) Inclusion in annual reports.--The Institute shall
report on any coordination and capacity building conducted
under this paragraph in annual reports in accordance with
paragraph (11)(E).
``(11) Annual reports.--The Institute shall submit an
annual report to Congress and the President, and shall make
the annual report available to the public. Such report shall
contain--
``(A) a description of the activities conducted under this
section during the preceding year, including the use of
amounts appropriated or credited to the CERTF under section
9511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out
this section, research projects completed and underway, and a
summary of the findings of such projects;
``(B) the research project agenda and budget of the
Institute for the following year;
``(C) a description of research priorities identified under
paragraph (1)(A), dissemination protocols and strategies
developed by the Institute under paragraph (8)(B), and
methodological standards developed and updated by the
methodology committee under paragraph (6)(C)(i) that are
adopted under paragraph (9) during the preceding year;
``(D) the names of individuals contributing to any peer-
review process provided under paragraph (7) during the
preceding year or years, in a manner such that those
individuals cannot be identified with a particular research
project; and
``(E) a description of efforts by the Institute under
paragraph (10) to--
``(i) coordinate the research conducted, commissioned, or
otherwise funded under this section and the resources of the
Institute with research and related efforts conducted by
other private and public entities; and
``(ii) build capacity for comparative clinical
effectiveness research and other relevant research and
related efforts through appropriate activities.
``(F) any other relevant information (including information
on the membership of the Board, advisory panels appointed
under paragraph (5), the methodology committee established
under paragraph (6), and the executive staff of the
Institute, any conflicts of interest with respect to the
members of such Board, advisory panels, and methodology
committee, or with respect to any individuals selected for
employment as executive staff of the Institute, and any
bylaws adopted by the Board during the preceding year).
``(e) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Board
shall carry out the duties of the Institute.
``(2) Nondelegable duties.--The activities described in
subsections (b)(3)(D), (d)(1), and (d)(9) are nondelegable.
``(f) Board of Governors.--
``(1) In general.--The Institute shall have a Board of
Governors, which shall consist of the following members:
``(A) The Secretary of Health and Human Services (or the
Secretary's designee).
``(B) The Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (or the Director's designee).
``(C) The Director of the National Institutes of Health (or
the Director's designee).
``(D) 18 members appointed by the Comptroller General of
the United States not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this section, as follows:
``(i) 3 members representing patients and health care
consumers.
``(ii) 3 members representing practicing physicians,
including surgeons.
``(iii) 3 members representing agencies that administer
public programs, as follows:

``(I) 1 member representing the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services who has experience in administering the
program under title XVIII.
``(II) 1 member representing agencies that administer State
health programs (who may represent the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services and have experience in administering the
program under title XIX or the program under title XXI or be
a governor of a State).
``(III) 1 member representing agencies that administer
other Federal health programs (such as a health program of
the Department of Defense under chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code, the Federal employees health benefits
program under chapter 89 of title 5 of such Code, a health
program of the Department of Veterans Affairs under chapter
17 of title 38 of such Code, or a medical care program of the
Indian Health Service or of a tribal organization).

``(iv) 3 members representing private payers, of whom at
least 1 member shall represent health insurance issuers and
at least 1 member shall represent employers who self-insure
employee benefits.
``(v) 3 members representing pharmaceutical, device, and
technology manufacturers or developers.
``(vi) 1 member representing nonprofit organizations
involved in health services research.
``(vii) 1 member representing organizations that focus on
quality measurement and improvement or decision support.
``(viii) 1 member representing independent health services
researchers.
``(2) Qualifications.--
``(A) Diverse representation of perspectives.--The Board
shall represent a broad range of perspectives and
collectively have scientific expertise in clinical health
sciences research, including epidemiology, decisions
sciences, health economics, and statistics.
``(B) Conflicts of interest.--
``(i) In general.--In appointing members of the Board under
paragraph (1)(D), the Comptroller General of the United
States shall take into consideration any conflicts of
interest of potential appointees. Any conflicts of interest
of members appointed to the Board under paragraph (1) shall
be disclosed in accordance with subsection (i)(4)(B).
``(ii) Recusal.--A member of the Board shall be recused
from participating with respect to a particular research
project or other matter considered by the Board in carrying
out its research project agenda under subsection (d)(2) in
the case where the member (or an immediate family member of
such member) has a financial or personal interest directly
related to the research project or the matter that could
affect or be affected by such participation.
``(3) Terms.--
``(A) In general.--A member of the Board appointed under
paragraph (1)(D) shall be appointed for a term of 6 years,
except with respect to the members first appointed under such
paragraph--
``(i) 6 shall be appointed for a term of 6 years;
``(ii) 6 shall be appointed for a term of 4 years; and
``(iii) 6 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
``(B) Limitation.--No individual shall be appointed to the
Board under paragraph (1)(D) for more than 2 terms.
``(C) Expiration of term.--Any member of the Board whose
term has expired may serve until such member's successor has
taken office, or until the end of the calendar year in which
such member's term has expired, whichever is earlier.
``(D) Vacancies.--
``(i) In general.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
prior to the expiration of the term for which such member's
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the
remainder of such term.
``(ii) Vacancies not to affect power of board.--A vacancy
on the Board shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
``(4) Chairperson and vice-chairperson.--
``(A) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall designate a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of
the Board from among the members of the Board appointed under
paragraph (1)(D).
``(B) Term.--The members so designated shall serve as
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Board for a period of
3 years.
``(5) Compensation.--
``(A) In general.--A member of the Board shall be entitled
to compensation at the per diem equivalent of the rate
provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
``(B) Travel expenses.--While away from home or regular
place of business in the performance of duties for the Board,
each member of the Board may receive reasonable travel,
subsistence, and other necessary expenses.
``(6) Director and staff; experts and consultants.--The
Board may--
``(A) employ and fix the compensation of an executive
director and such other personnel as may be necessary to
carry out the duties of the Institute;

[[Page 17748]]

``(B) seek such assistance and support as may be required
in the performance of the duties of the Institute from
appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government;
``(C) enter into contracts or make other arrangements and
make such payments as may be necessary for performance of the
duties of the Institute;
``(D) provide travel, subsistence, and per diem
compensation for individuals performing the duties of the
Institute, including members of any advisory panel appointed
under subsection (d)(5), members of the methodology committee
established under subsection (d)(6), and individuals selected
to contribute to any peer-review process under subsection
(d)(7); and
``(E) prescribe such rules, regulations, and bylaws as the
Board determines necessary with respect to the internal
organization and operation of the Institute.
``(7) Meetings and hearings.--The Board shall meet and hold
hearings at the call of the Chairperson or a majority of its
members. In the case where the Board is meeting on matters
not related to personnel, Board meetings shall be open to the
public and advertised.
``(8) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting the duties of
the Institute, but a lesser number of members may meet and
hold hearings.
``(g) Financial Oversight.--
``(1) Contract for audit.--The Institute shall provide for
the conduct of financial audits of the Institute on an annual
basis by a private entity with expertise in conducting
financial audits.
``(2) Review of audit and report to congress.--The
Comptroller General of the United States shall--
``(A) review the results of the audits conducted under
paragraph (1); and
``(B) submit a report to Congress containing the results of
such audits and review.
``(h) Governmental Oversight.--
``(1) Review and reports.--
``(A) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall review the following:
``(i) Processes established by the Institute, including
those with respect to the identification of research
priorities under subsection (d)(1)(A) and the conduct of
research projects under this section. Such review shall
determine whether information produced by such research
projects--

``(I) is objective and credible;
``(II) is produced in a manner consistent with the
requirements under this section; and
``(III) is developed through a transparent process.

``(ii) The overall effect of the Institute and the
effectiveness of activities conducted under this section,
including an assessment of--

``(I) the utilization of the findings of research conducted
under this section by health care decision makers; and
``(II) the effect of the Institute and such activities on
innovation and on the health economy of the United States.

``(B) Reports.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, and not less frequently than every
5 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to Congress containing the
results of the review conducted under subparagraph (A),
together with recommendations for such legislation and
administrative action as the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
``(2) Funding assessment.--
``(A) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall assess the adequacy and use of funding for the
Institute and activities conducted under this section under
the CERTF under section 9511 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986. Such assessment shall include a determination as to
whether, based on the utilization of findings by public and
private payers, each of the following are appropriate sources
of funding for the Institute, including a determination of
whether such sources of funding should be continued or
adjusted:
``(i) The transfer of funds from the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 and the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841
to the CERTF under section 1182.
``(ii) The amounts appropriated under subparagraphs (A),
(B), (C), (D)(ii), and (E)(ii) of subsection (b)(1) of such
section 9511.
``(iii) Private sector contributions under subparagraphs
(D)(i) and (E)(i) of such subsection (b)(1).
``(B) Report.--Not later than 8 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit a report to Congress containing
the results of the assessment conducted under subparagraph
(A), together with recommendations for such legislation and
administrative action as the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
``(i) Ensuring Transparency, Credibility, and Access.--The
Institute shall establish procedures to ensure that the
following requirements for ensuring transparency,
credibility, and access are met:
``(1) Public comment periods.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute shall provide for a public
comment period of not less than 30 and not more than 60 days
at the following times:
``(i) Prior to the adoption of the national priorities
identified under subsection (d)(1)(A), the research project
agenda established under subsection (d)(1)(B), the
methodological standards developed and updated by the
methodology committee under subsection (d)(6)(C)(i), the
peer-review process generally provided under subsection
(d)(7), and dissemination protocols and strategies developed
by the Institute under subsection (d)(8)(B) in accordance
with subsection (d)(9).
``(ii) Prior to the finalization of individual study
designs.
``(B) Transmission of public comments on study design.--The
Institute shall transmit public comments submitted during the
public comment period described in subparagraph (A)(ii) to
the entity conducting research with respect to which the
individual study design is being finalized.
``(2) Additional forums.--The Institute shall, in addition
to the public comment periods described in paragraph (1)(A),
support forums to increase public awareness and obtain and
incorporate public feedback through media (such as an
Internet website) on the following:
``(A) The identification of research priorities and the
establishment of the research project agenda under
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, of subsection
(d)(1).
``(B) Research findings.
``(C) Any other duties, activities, or processes the
Institute determines appropriate.
``(3) Public availability.--The Institute shall make
available to the public and disclose through the official
public Internet website of the Institute, and through other
forums and media the Institute determines appropriate, the
following:
``(A) The process and methods for the conduct of research
under this section, including--
``(i) the identity of the entity conducting such research;
``(ii) any links the entity has to industry (including such
links that are not directly tied to the particular research
being conducted under this section);
``(iii) draft study designs (including research questions
and the finalized study design, together with public comments
on such study design and responses to such comments);
``(iv) research protocols (including measures taken,
methods of research, methods of analysis, research results,
and such other information as the Institute determines
appropriate);
``(v) the identity of investigators conducting such
research and any conflicts of interest of such investigators;
and
``(vi) any progress reports the Institute determines
appropriate.
``(B) Public comments submitted during each of the public
comment periods under paragraph (1)(A).
``(C) Bylaws, processes, and proceedings of the Institute,
to the extent practicable and as the Institute determines
appropriate.
``(D) Not later than 90 days after receipt by the Institute
of a relevant report or research findings, appropriate
information contained in such report or findings.
``(4) Conflicts of interest.--The Institute shall--
``(A) in appointing members to an advisory panel under
subsection (d)(5) and the methodology committee under
subsection (d)(6), and in selecting individuals to contribute
to any peer-review process under subsection (d)(7) and for
employment as executive staff of the Institute, take into
consideration any conflicts of interest of potential
appointees, participants, and staff; and
``(B) include a description of any such conflicts of
interest and conflicts of interest of Board members in the
annual report under subsection (d)(11), except that, in the
case of individuals contributing to any such peer review
process, such description shall be in a manner such that
those individuals cannot be identified with a particular
research project.
``(j) Rules.--
``(1) Gifts.--The Institute, or the Board and staff of the
Institute acting on behalf of the Institute, may not accept
gifts, bequeaths, or donations of services or property.
``(2) Establishment and prohibition on accepting outside
funding or contributions.--The Institute may not--
``(A) establish a corporation other than as provided under
this section; or
``(B) accept any funds or contributions other than as
provided under this part.
``(k) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) Coverage.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed--
``(A) to permit the Institute to mandate coverage,
reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private
payer; or
``(B) as preventing the Secretary from covering the routine
costs of clinical care received by an individual entitled to,
or enrolled for, benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI in
the case where such individual is participating in a clinical
trial and such costs would otherwise be covered under such
title with respect to the beneficiary.
``(2) Reports and findings.--None of the reports submitted
under this section or research findings disseminated by the
Institute shall be construed as mandates, guidelines,

[[Page 17749]]

or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment.

``trust fund transfers to comparative effectiveness research trust fund

``Sec. 1182. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide
for the transfer, from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund under section 1817 and the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841, in proportion (as
estimated by the Secretary) to the total expenditures during
such fiscal year that are made under title XVIII from the
respective trust fund, to the Comparative Effectiveness
Research Trust Fund (referred to in this section as the
`CERTF') under section 9511 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, the following:
``(1) For fiscal year 2012, an amount equal to 50 cents
multiplied by the average number of individuals entitled to
benefits under part A, or enrolled under part B, of title
XVIII during such fiscal year.
``(2) For each of fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018, an amount equal to $1 multiplied by the
average number of individuals entitled to benefits under part
A, or enrolled under part B, of title XVIII during such
fiscal year.
``(b) Adjustments for Increases in Health Care Spending.--
In the case of any fiscal year beginning after September 30,
2013, the dollar amount in effect under subsection (a)(2) for
such fiscal year shall be equal to the sum of such dollar
amount for the previous fiscal year (determined after the
application of this subsection), plus an amount equal to the
product of--
``(1) such dollar amount for the previous fiscal year,
multiplied by
``(2) the percentage increase in the projected per capita
amount of National Health Expenditures from the calendar year
in which the previous fiscal year ends to the calendar year
in which the fiscal year involved ends, as most recently
published by the Secretary before the beginning of the fiscal
year.''.
(b) Coordination With Provider Education and Technical
Assistance.--Section 1889(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395zz(a)) is amended by inserting ``and to enhance
the understanding of and utilization by providers of services
and suppliers of research findings disseminated by the Health
Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute established
under section 1181'' before the period at the end.
(c) Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund;
Financing for Trust Fund.--
(1) Establishment of trust fund.--
(A) In general.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to establishment of trust
funds) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 9511. COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH 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
`Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund' (hereafter in
this section referred to as the `CERTF'), consisting of such
amounts as may be appropriated or credited to such Trust Fund
as provided in this section and section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Fund.--
``(1) Appropriation.--There are hereby appropriated to the
Trust Fund the following:
``(A) For fiscal year 2009, $5,000,000.
``(B) For fiscal year 2010, $25,000,000.
``(C) For fiscal year 2011, $75,000,000.
``(D) For fiscal year 2012--
``(i) an amount equivalent to the net revenues received in
the Treasury from the fees imposed under subchapter B of
chapter 34 (relating to fees on health insurance and self-
insured plans) for such fiscal year; and
``(ii) $75,000,000.
``(E) For each of fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018--
``(i) an amount equivalent to the net revenues received in
the Treasury from the fees imposed under subchapter B of
chapter 34 (relating to fees on health insurance and self-
insured plans) for such fiscal year; and
``(ii) $75,000,000.
The amounts appropriated under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C),
(D)(ii), and (E)(ii) shall be transferred from the general
fund of the Treasury, from funds not otherwise appropriated.
``(2) Trust fund transfers.--In addition to the amounts
appropriated under paragraph (1), there shall be credited to
the CERTF the amounts transferred under section 1182 of the
Social Security Act.
``(3) Limitation on transfers to certf.--No amount may be
appropriated or transferred to the CERTF on and after the
date of any expenditure from the CERTF which is not an
expenditure permitted under this section. The determination
of whether an expenditure is so permitted shall be made
without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or
referenced in this chapter or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently
enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive
the application of this paragraph.
``(c) Trustee.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall be a trustee of the CERTF.
``(d) Expenditures From Fund.--Amounts in the CERTF are
available, without further appropriation, to the Health Care
Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute established by
section 2(a) of the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of
2008 for carrying out part D of title XI of the Social
Security Act (as in effect on the date of enactment of the
Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008).
``(e) Net Revenues.--For purposes of this section, the term
`net revenues' means the amount estimated by the Secretary of
the Treasury based on the excess of--
``(1) the fees received in the Treasury under subchapter B
of chapter 34, over
``(2) the decrease in the tax imposed by chapter 1
resulting from the fees imposed by such subchapter.
``(f) Termination.--No amounts shall be available for
expenditure from the CERTF after September 30, 2018, and any
amounts in such Trust Fund after such date shall be
transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter A of chapter 98 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 9511. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund.''.
(2) Financing for fund from fees on insured and self-
insured health plans.--
(A) General rule.--Chapter 34 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subchapter:

``Subchapter B--Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans

``Sec. 4375. Health insurance.
``Sec. 4376. Self-insured health plans.
``Sec. 4377. Definitions and special rules.

``SEC. 4375. HEALTH INSURANCE.

``(a) Imposition of Fee.--There is hereby imposed on each
specified health insurance policy for each policy year ending
after September 30, 2011, a fee equal to the product of $1
(50 cents in the case of policy years ending during fiscal
year 2012) multiplied by the average number of lives covered
under the policy.
``(b) Liability for Fee.--The fee imposed by subsection (a)
shall be paid by the issuer of the policy.
``(c) Specified Health Insurance Policy.--For purposes of
this section:
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the term `specified health insurance policy' means
any accident or health insurance policy (including a policy
under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals
residing in the United States.
``(2) Exemption for certain policies.--The term `specified
health insurance policy' does not include any insurance if
substantially all of its coverage is of excepted benefits
described in section 9832(c).
``(3) Treatment of prepaid health coverage arrangements.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any arrangement described
in subparagraph (B)--
``(i) such arrangement shall be treated as a specified
health insurance policy, and
``(ii) the person referred to in such subparagraph shall be
treated as the issuer.
``(B) Description of arrangements.--An arrangement is
described in this subparagraph if under such arrangement
fixed payments or premiums are received as consideration for
any person's agreement to provide or arrange for the
provision of accident or health coverage to residents of the
United States, regardless of how such coverage is provided or
arranged to be provided.
``(d) Adjustments for Increases in Health Care Spending.--
In the case of any policy year ending in any fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 2013, the dollar amount in
effect under subsection (a) for such policy year shall be
equal to the sum of such dollar amount for policy years
ending in the previous fiscal year (determined after the
application of this subsection), plus an amount equal to the
product of--
``(1) such dollar amount for policy years ending in the
previous fiscal year, multiplied by
``(2) the percentage increase in the projected per capita
amount of National Health Expenditures from the calendar year
in which the previous fiscal year ends to the calendar year
in which the fiscal year involved ends, as most recently
published by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
before the beginning of the fiscal year.
``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to policy
years ending after September 30, 2018.

``SEC. 4376. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

``(a) Imposition of Fee.--In the case of any applicable
self-insured health plan for each plan year ending after
September 30, 2011, there is hereby imposed a fee equal to $1
(50 cents in the case of plan years ending during fiscal year
2012) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under
the plan.
``(b) Liability for Fee.--
``(1) In general.--The fee imposed by subsection (a) shall
be paid by the plan sponsor.
``(2) Plan sponsor.--For purposes of paragraph (1) the term
`plan sponsor' means--
``(A) the employer in the case of a plan established or
maintained by a single employer,
``(B) the employee organization in the case of a plan
established or maintained by an employee organization,
``(C) in the case of--

[[Page 17750]]

``(i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more
employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more
employee organizations,
``(ii) a multiple employer welfare arrangement, or
``(iii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association
described in section 501(c)(9),
the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other
similar group of representatives of the parties who establish
or maintain the plan, or
``(D) the cooperative or association described in
subsection (c)(2)(F) in the case of a plan established or
maintained by such a cooperative or association.
``(c) Applicable Self-Insured Health Plan.--For purposes of
this section, the term `applicable self-insured health plan'
means any plan for providing accident or health coverage if--
``(1) any portion of such coverage is provided other than
through an insurance policy, and
``(2) such plan is established or maintained--
``(A) by one or more employers for the benefit of their
employees or former employees,
``(B) by one or more employee organizations for the benefit
of their members or former members,
``(C) jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more employee
organizations for the benefit of employees or former
employees,
``(D) by a voluntary employees' beneficiary association
described in section 501(c)(9),
``(E) by any organization described in section 501(c)(6),
or
``(F) in the case of a plan not described in the preceding
subparagraphs, by a multiple employer welfare arrangement (as
defined in section 3(40) of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974), a rural electric cooperative (as
defined in section 3(40)(B)(iv) of such Act), or a rural
telephone cooperative association (as defined in section
3(40)(B)(v) of such Act).
``(d) Adjustments for Increases in Health Care Spending.--
In the case of any plan year ending in any fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 2013, the dollar amount in
effect under subsection (a) for such plan year shall be equal
to the sum of such dollar amount for plan years ending in the
previous fiscal year (determined after the application of
this subsection), plus an amount equal to the product of--
``(1) such dollar amount for plan years ending in the
previous fiscal year, multiplied by
``(2) the percentage increase in the projected per capita
amount of National Health Expenditures from the calendar year
in which the previous fiscal year ends to the calendar year
in which the fiscal year involved ends, as most recently
published by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
before the beginning of the fiscal year.
``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to plan
years ending after September 30, 2018.

``SEC. 4377. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) Accident and health coverage.--The term `accident and
health coverage' means any coverage which, if provided by an
insurance policy, would cause such policy to be a specified
health insurance policy (as defined in section 4375(c)).
``(2) Insurance policy.--The term `insurance policy' means
any policy or other instrument whereby a contract of
insurance is issued, renewed, or extended.
``(3) United states.--The term `United States' includes any
possession of the United States.
``(b) Treatment of Governmental Entities.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(A) the term `person' includes any governmental entity,
and
``(B) notwithstanding any other law or rule of law,
governmental entities shall not be exempt from the fees
imposed by this subchapter except as provided in paragraph
(2).
``(2) Treatment of exempt governmental programs.--In the
case of an exempt governmental program, no fee shall be
imposed under section 4375 or section 4376 on any covered
life under such program.
``(3) Exempt governmental program defined.--For purposes of
this subchapter, the term `exempt governmental program'
means--
``(A) any insurance program established under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act,
``(B) the medical assistance program established by title
XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act,
``(C) any program established by Federal law for providing
medical care (other than through insurance policies) to
individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason
of such individuals being--
``(i) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or
``(ii) veterans, and
``(D) any program established by Federal law for providing
medical care (other than through insurance policies) to
members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
``(c) Treatment as Tax.--For purposes of subtitle F, the
fees imposed by this subchapter shall be treated as if they
were taxes.
``(d) No Cover Over to Possessions.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no amount collected under this
subchapter shall be covered over to any possession of the
United States.''.
(B) Clerical amendments.--
(i) Chapter 34 of such Code is amended by striking the
chapter heading and inserting the following:

``CHAPTER 34--TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES

``subchapter a. policies issued by foreign insurers

``subchapter b. insured and self-insured health plans

``Subchapter A--Policies Issued By Foreign Insurers''.

(ii) The table of chapters for subtitle D of such Code is
amended by striking the item relating to chapter 34 and
inserting the following new item:

``Chapter 34--Taxes on Certain Insurance Policies''.

SEC. 3. GAO REPORT ON NATIONAL COVERAGE DETERMINATIONS
PROCESS.

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to Congress on the process for making
national coverage determinations (as defined in section
1869(f)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ff(f)(1)(B)) under the Medicare program under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act. Such report shall include a
determination whether, in initiating and conducting such
process, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has
complied with applicable law and regulations, including
requirements for consultation with appropriate outside
experts, providing appropriate notice and comment
opportunities to the public, and making information and data
(other than proprietary data) considered in making such
determinations available to the public and to nonvoting
members of any advisory committees established to advise the
Secretary with respect to such determinations.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join my good friend and colleague,
Senator Baucus, in introducing the Comparative Effectiveness Research
Act of 2008. This proposal is the product of months of careful
deliberations regarding the best way to expand the quality and quantity
of evidence available to health consumers about the comparative
clinical effectiveness of health care services and treatments. We have
met with dozens of key stakeholders and thought leaders to discuss
various aspects of this legislation. I am proud of the result. This
legislation lays the groundwork for improving health care outcomes,
enhancing patient safety, and reducing overall health care costs in the
long-run.
As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I am acutely aware of the
long-term budget challenges facing our nation. Health care spending is
growing at an unsustainable rate. Although demographic changes
associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation contribute
to this spending growth, the most significant factor is growth in
health care costs in excess of per capita GDP growth. According to
Congressional Budget Office projections, by 2050, Medicare and Medicaid
spending alone will consume 12 percent of our Nation's gross domestic
product.
But excess growth in per capita health care costs is not just a
challenge for Federal health spending and the federal budget. If we
continue on the current trajectory, the private sector will also be
overwhelmed by rising health care costs. In fact, total health care
spending is projected to grow from about 16 percent of GDP in 2007--
which is far higher than in other industrialized countries--to more
than 37 percent of GDP in 2050.
Clearly, we need to address the underlying causes of rising health
care costs, not just in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, but in the
overall health care system. Simply cutting Medicare and Medicaid
without making other changes will do little to solve the larger problem
we face. As GAO Comptroller General David Walker pointed out in
testimony before the House Budget Committee, in 2005, ``[F]ederal
health spending trends should not be viewed in isolation from the
health care system as a whole . . . . Rather, in order to address the
long-term fiscal challenge, it will be necessary to find approaches
that deal with health care cost growth in the overall health care
system.''
A key problem we must confront is that our health care system does
not

[[Page 17751]]

deliver care as efficiently or effectively as it should. In fact, the
United States spends far more on health expenditures as a percent of
GDP than any other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development. For example, the United States spent 16 percent of GDP
on health expenditures in 2006, compared to 9 percent in Italy. And the
disparity is even starker today. Despite this additional health care
spending, health outcomes in the United States are no better than
health outcomes in the other OECD countries. In fact, by some measures,
they are worse.
We can and must find ways to deliver health care more efficiently,
reduce ineffective or unnecessary care, and get better health outcomes
without harming patients.
One solution is to generate better information about the relative
effectiveness of alternative health strategies--and encourage patients
and providers to use that information to make better choices about
their health. Many newer, more expensive health care services and
treatments are absorbed quickly into routine medical care--yet there is
little evidence that these services and treatments are any more
clinically effective than existing treatments and services.
The Federal Government currently funds some comparative effectiveness
research through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The
Effective Health Care Program has been a successful initiative, and we
commend AHRQ for its work, but comparative effectiveness research is
not the primary focus of any federal agency--nor is this federal
funding occurring on a large-scale. The Congressional Budget Office,
CBO, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the
Institute of Medicine, IOM, have all discussed the positive impact of
creating a new entity charged solely with conducting research on the
comparative effectiveness of health interventions, including
pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical procedures, diagnostic tools,
medical services and other therapies.
In its June 2007 report to Congress, MedPAC issued a unanimous
recommendation that ``Congress should charge an independent entity to
sponsor credible research on comparative effectiveness of health care
services and disseminate this information to patients, providers, and
public and private payers.''
And the Congressional Budget Office agrees. In a recent report,
entitled, ``Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical
Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role,'' CBO
Director Peter Orszag wrote that, ``generating better information about
the costs and benefits of different treatment options--through research
on the comparative effectiveness of those options--could help reduce
health care spending without adversely affecting health overall.''
The IOM also supports getting better information into the hands of
patients and providers. As part of its report, ``Learning What Works
Best: The Nation's Need for Evidence on Comparative Effectiveness in
Health Care,'' the Institute concluded that,
``[a] substantially increased capacity to conduct and evaluate research
on clinical effectiveness of interventions brings many potential
opportunities for improvement across a wide spectrum of healthcare
needs.''
This bill that Senator Baucus and I are introducing today represents
an important step in expanding comparative effectiveness research. The
bill would significantly expand the conduct of comparative clinical
effectiveness research to get better information into the hands of
patients and providers in the hopes of improving health outcomes and
reducing unnecessary or ineffective care.
The purpose of this bill is to provide health care providers and
patients with objective and credible evidence about which health care
treatments, services, and items are most clinically effective for
particular patient populations. The research conducted under our bill
would evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of two or more
health care interventions, treatment protocols, procedures, medical
devices, diagnostic tools, pharmaceuticals, and other processes or
items used in the treatment or diagnosis of patients. Access to better
evidence about what works best will help patients and health care
providers make better-informed decisions about how best to treat
particular diseases and conditions. Our hope is that the evidence
generated by this research could lead to savings in the overall health
care system over the long-term by allowing providers to avoid
treatments that may be clinically ineffective, while at the same time
improving health care outcomes.
Specifically, our bill creates a private, nonprofit corporation,
known as the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute,
which would be responsible for organizing and implementing a national
comparative effectiveness research agenda. In conducting the research,
the Institute would contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, the National Institutes of Health and other appropriate
public and private entities and could use a variety of research
methods, including clinical trials, observational studies and
systematic reviews of existing evidence.
Many thought leaders on this issue, such as the Medicare Payment
Advisory Committee, had concerns that a large entity within the Federal
Government would be vulnerable to political interference that could
hamper the Institute's credibility, and, therefore, limit the
usefulness of its research. As a result, we chose a model outside of
the Federal Government, but subject to government oversight.
In order to ensure that the information developed is credible and
unbiased, our bill establishes a 21-Member Board of Governors to
oversee the Institute's activities. Permanent board members would
include the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Directors of
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National
Institutes of Health, NIH. The remaining 18 board members would be
appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and would
include a balanced mix of patients, physicians, drug, device, and
technology manufacturers, public and private payers, academic
researchers, philanthropic organizations and quality improvement
entities.
To ensure further credibility, the Institute is also required to
appoint advisory panels of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders
that would assist in the development and carrying out of the research
agenda; establish a methodology committee that would help create
standards by which all research commissioned by the Institute must be
conducted; create a peer review process through which all research
findings must be assessed; and develop protocols to help translate and
disseminate the evidence in the most effective, user-friendly way.
Moreover, Senator Baucus and I want to ensure that the operations of
the Institute are transparent. Therefore, we built in a strong role for
public comment prior to all key decisions made by the Institute. For
example, the bill requires public comment periods prior to the approval
of the overall research agenda and the individual study designs. In
addition, the bill calls for periodic public forums to seek input,
requires that all proceedings of the Institute be made public and
available through annual reports, and requires that any conflicts of
interest be made public and that board members recuse themselves from
matters in which they have a financial or personal interest.
Because all health care users will benefit from this research, our
legislation funds the Institute with contributions from both public and
private payers. These contributions will include mandatory general
revenues from the Federal Government, amounts from the Medicare Trust
Funds equal to $1 per beneficiary annually, and amounts from a $1 fee
per-covered life assessed annually on insured and self-insured health
plans. Funding will ramp up over a series of years. By the fifth year,
we expect the Institute's total annual funding to exceed $300 million
per year and continue to grow thereafter.

[[Page 17752]]

The concept of an all-payer approach for comparative effectiveness
research has been embraced by a number of health care experts. For
example, on the subject of comparative effectiveness information in its
June 2008 report, MedPAC stated: ``The Commission supports funding from
federal and private sources as the research findings will benefit all
users--patients, providers, private health plans, and federal health
programs. The Commission also supports a dedicated funding mechanism to
help ensure the entity's independence and stability. Dedicated broadly
based financing would reduce the likelihood of outside influence and
would best ensure the entity's stability . . .''
To ensure accountability for these funds and to the Institute's
mission, our bill requires an annual financial audit of the Institute.
In addition, the bill requires GAO to report to Congress every five
years on the processes developed by the Institute and its overall
effectiveness, including how the research findings are used by health
care consumers and what impact the research is having on the health
economy. Finally, the bill requires a review after eight years of the
adequacy of the Institute's funding, which will include a review of the
appropriateness and adequacy of each funding source.
Let me take a moment to address some of the criticisms that might be
levied against this proposal. Some may say this Institute will impede
access to care and will deny coverage for high-cost health care
services. That is not the case. Our proposal explicitly prohibits the
Institute from making coverage decisions or setting practice
guidelines. It will be up to specialty societies and patient groups to
use the research findings as they see fit. Moreover, to the extent that
high-cost health care services or new technologies are studied by the
Institute and found to be clinically ineffective compared to other
services and technologies, such evidence will be made public to
consumers and providers so that they can make the best possible health
care decisions. Other critics may claim that this proposal will result
in one-size-fits-all approach to comparative clinical effectiveness
research. We recognize that different health care treatments may have
different levels of effectiveness for different subpopulations. That is
why our bill requires that the Institute's research be designed, as
appropriate, to take into account the potential differences in the
effectiveness of health care services as used with various
subpopulations, such as women, racial and ethnic minorities, different
age groups, and individuals with different comorbidities.
This bill is a balanced, carefully crafted proposal that has taken
into consideration the recommendations of a broad range of stakeholders
and thought-leaders. We welcome further discussion and suggested
improvements. But we refuse to allow this proposal to get bogged down
in political maneuvering or scare tactics. Our nation needs to ramp up
comparative effectiveness research immediately to improve health
outcomes and reduce ineffective and inefficient care.
Senator Baucus and I will work jointly to push for the expeditious
enactment of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join our effort
and cosponsor the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. There
is no time to waste.
______

By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Grassley)):
S. 3409. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
ensure the safety and quality of medical products and enhance the
authorities of the Food and Drug Administration, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Finance
Committee, I view my role as working to ensure the safety and well-
being of the more than 80 million Americans who are beneficiaries of
the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These programs spend a lot of
taxpayers' money on prescription drugs and medical devices, and that
money should be spent on drugs and devices that are safe and effective.
Over the last four years I have conducted extensive oversight of the
Food and Drug Administration. I have reviewed and questioned how the
FDA handles the pre-market review and post-market surveillance of
drugs, biologics, devices and veterinary medicines to assess whether or
not the agency is fulfilling its mission to protect the public health.
As a result of my oversight activities, I identified serious problems
at the FDA that included the quashing of scientific opinion within the
agency, delays in informing the public of emerging safety problems, too
cozy a relationship between the FDA and the industries it is supposed
to regulate, and a failure to be adequately transparent and accountable
to the public.
Last year, when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee were working on
FDA legislation, I encouraged them to take that opportunity to reform,
improve, and re-establish the FDA as the gold standard for drug safety.
I believed the FDA needed additional tools, resources, and authorities
to do its work.
The Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act
last September. While we did not fix a fundamental problem at the FDA
that's been shown through my investigations over the last few years,
the new legislation did provide additional tools in FDA's toolbox to
better protect the American people. It was a positive step toward
restoring the public's trust in the FDA.
Today, I am here to talk about another FDA bill. Last summer, I
started examining FDA's program for inspection of foreign
pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. I expressed concerns to the FDA
regarding, among other things, inspection funding, emerging exporters,
and weaknesses in the inspection process.
An increasing amount of the drugs and active pharmaceutical
ingredients (API) Americans use are being manufactured in foreign
countries. Yet, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in
November 2007, the Food and Drug Administration does not know how many
foreign establishments are subject to inspection and the agency
conducts relatively few inspections each year.
From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, the FDA conducted
fewer than 1,400 inspections of foreign pharmaceutical facilities,
often focused in countries with few reported quality concerns. In
China, the world's largest producer of active pharmaceutical
ingredients, and where export safety appears to be a growing problem,
only 11 inspections were conducted during FY 2007, compared to 14 in
Switzerland, 18 in Germany, and 24 in France, all countries with
advanced regulatory infrastructures. I was troubled by these numbers.
Then came the wake-up call in January of this year. FDA announced
that Baxter International Inc. temporarily suspended production of its
blood thinner heparin because of an increase in the reports of adverse
events that may be associated with its drug. It was discovered that the
active ingredient in heparin was contaminated and that the ingredient
was produced at a facility in the People's Republic of China. Soon more
recalls were announced. After several months, the FDA established a
link between the contaminant found in heparin and the serious adverse
events seen in patients that were given heparin. FDA's investigation of
the source of the contamination highlighted significant weaknesses in
oversight of the production and supply chain.
With limited inspection resources, the FDA is charged with ensuring
the safety and efficacy of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients
produced in nearly every corner of the globe. To make matters worse, as
the FDA's challenges multiply, its resources for foreign inspections
are shrinking. It is troubling that the FDA is grossly under-resourced
at a time when foreign production of drugs and active pharmaceutical
ingredients is growing at

[[Page 17753]]

record rates. Adding to the difficulty of this task, it appears that
many foreign pharmaceutical plants register with the FDA as a means to
bolster their own standing and with no intention of exporting products
to the United States market.
That is why I am introducing the Drug and Device Accountability Act
today with Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This legislation would augment FDA's resources through the collection
of registration and inspection fees. The bill also expands the agency's
authority for ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices,
including foreign manufactured drugs and devices, by expanding FDA's
authority to inspect foreign manufacturers and importers, allowing the
FDA to issue subpoenas, and allowing the FDA to detain a device or drug
when its inspectors have reason to believe the product is adulterated
or misbranded.
In addition, the bill includes a provision that expands on an
amendment I filed last spring to the Senate bill, S. 1082 Food and Drug
Administration Revitalization Act. That amendment provided for a
certification by drug manufacturers that the information submitted as
part of a new drug or supplemental application is accurate.
Under the Drug and Device Accountability Act, individuals responsible
for the submission of a drug or device application or a report related
to safety or effectiveness would have to certify that the application
or report is compliant with applicable regulations and not false or
misleading. Civil as well as criminal penalties could be imposed for
false or misleading certifications. I believe this is an important
provision, especially in light of the troubling findings presented in
the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. Based on a
review of documents from recent litigation involving the pain
medication Vioxx, the authors of those articles concluded that the
maker of Vioxx was not forthcoming in its communication with the Food
and Drug Administration about the mortality risks seen in clinical
trials of Vioxx conducted in patients with Alzheimer disease or
cognitive impairment.
Last year, Congress passed legislation that would strengthen FDA's
ability to act on emerging safety problems. Now we need legislation
that will enhance FDA's oversight of drugs and devices if the Agency is
to ensure that America's increasingly foreign-produced drug and device
supply is both safe and effective.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Inouye):
S. 3410. A bill to authorize a grant program to provide for expanded
access to mainstream financial institutions; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. President, as a member of the Banking Committee, I have
worked to improve the financial literacy of our country. My interest in
financial literacy dates back to when my fourth grade teacher required
me to have a piggy bank. We were made to understand how money saved, a
little at a time, can grow into a large amount--enough to buy things
that would have been impossible to obtain without savings. My
experience with a piggy bank taught me important lessons about money
management that have stayed with me throughout my life. More people
need to be taught these important lessons so that they are better able
to manage their resources.
Too many Americans lack basic financial literacy. Americans of all
ages and backgrounds face increasingly complex financial decisions as
members of the nation's workforce, managers of their families'
resources, and voting citizens. Many find these decisions confusing and
frustrating because they lack the tools necessary that would enable
them to make wise, personal choices about their finances.
Without a sufficient understanding of economics and personal finance,
individuals will not be able to appropriately manage their finances,
effectively evaluate credit opportunities, successfully invest for
long-term financial goals in an increasingly complex marketplace, or be
able to cope with difficult financial situations. Unfortunately, today
too many working families are struggling as they are confronted with
increases in energy and food costs or the loss of a job.
It is essential that we work toward improving education, consumer
protections, and empowering individuals and families through economic
and financial literacy in order to build stronger families, businesses,
and communities.
Today I am introducing the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial
Institutions Act of 2008. This bill provides economic empowerment and
educational opportunities for working families by helping bank the
unbanked. It will also encourage the use of mainstream financial
institutions for working families that need small loans. I thank my
cosponsors, Senators Schumer, Lieberman, and Inouye.
Millions of working families do not have a bank or credit union
account. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers
to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, and send remittances. Many of
the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford
to have their earnings diminished by reliance on these high-cost and
often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are
unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family
illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses.
My bill authorizes grants intended to help low- and moderate-income
unbanked individuals establish bank or credit union accounts. Providing
access to a bank or credit union account can empower families with
tremendous financial opportunities. An account at a bank or credit
union provides consumers with alternatives to rapid refund loans, check
cashing services, and lower cost remittances. In addition, bank and
credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services.
Low- and moderate-income individuals are often challenged with a
number of barriers that limit their ability to open up and or maintain
accounts. Regular checking accounts may be too costly for some
consumers unable to maintain minimum balances or unable to afford
monthly fees. Poor credit histories may also hinder their ability to
open accounts. By providing federal resources for product development,
administration, outreach, and financial education, banks and credit
unions will be better able to reach out and bank the unbanked.
The second grant program authorized by my legislation provides
consumers with a lower cost, short term alternative to payday loans.
Payday loans are cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or
borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing
financial accounts. Payday loans often have triple digit interest rates
that range from 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual
percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the
renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any
principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the
fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This
situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break.
There is a great need for working families to have access to
affordable small loans. My legislation would encourage banks and credit
unions to develop payday loan alternatives. Consumers who apply for
these loans would be provided with financial literacy and educational
opportunities. Loans extended to consumers under the grant would be
subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by the National
Credit Union Administration's, NCUA, Loan Interest Rates, currently
capped at an annual percentage rate of 18 percent. Several credit
unions have developed similar products. One example is the Windward
Community Federal Credit Union in Kailua, on the island of Oahu, which
has developed an affordable alternative to payday loans to help the
U.S. Marines and the other members that they serve. I am very proud of
the work done by the staff of

[[Page 17754]]

the Windward Community Federal Credit Union. This program was developed
with an NCUA grant. More working families need access to affordable
small loans. More needs to be done to encourage mainstream financial
service providers to develop affordable small loan products. My
legislation will help support the development of affordable credit
products at bank and credit unions. Working families would be better
off by going to their credit unions and banks, mainstream financial
services providers, than payday loan shops.
I will work to enact this legislation so vital to empowering our
citizens. In our current, modern, complex economy, not having a bank or
credit union account severely hinders the ability of families to
improve their financial condition or help them navigate difficult
financial circumstances. Instead of borrowing money from payday lenders
at outrageous fees, we need to encourage people to utilize their credit
unions and banks for affordable small loans. Banks and credit unions
have the ability to make the lives of working families better by
helping them save, invest, and borrow at affordable rates.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 3410

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 ``Improving Access to
Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Alaska native corporation.--The term ``Alaska Native
Corporation'' has the same meaning as the term ``Native
Corporation'' under section 3(m) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(m)).
(2) Community development financial institution.--The term
``community development financial institution'' has the same
meaning as in section 103(5) of the Community Development
Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C.
4702(5)).
(3) Federally insured depository institution.--The term
``federally insured depository institution'' means any
insured depository institution (as that term is defined in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813)) and any insured credit union (as that term is defined
in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1752)).
(4) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization''
means an organization--
(A) in which employees participate;
(B) which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work; and
(C) which is described in section 501(c)(5) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(5) Native hawaiian organization.--The term ``Native
Hawaiian organization'' means any organization that--
(A) serves and represents the interests of Native
Hawaiians; and
(B) has as a primary and stated purpose, the provision of
services to Native Hawaiians.
(6) Payday loan.--The term ``payday loan'' means any
transaction in which a small cash advance is made to a
consumer in exchange for--
(A) the personal check or share draft of the consumer, in
the amount of the advance plus a fee, where presentment or
negotiation of such check or share draft is deferred by
agreement of the parties until a designated future date; or
(B) the authorization of the consumer to debit the
transaction account or share draft account of the consumer,
in the amount of the advance plus a fee, where such account
will be debited on or after a designated future date.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(8) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization''
has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).

SEC. 3. EXPANDED ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary is authorized
to award grants, including multi-year grants, to eligible
entities to establish an account in a federally insured
depository institution for low- and moderate-income
individuals that currently do not have such an account.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section, if such an entity is--
(1) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) of such Code;
(2) a federally insured depository institution;
(3) an agency of a State or local government;
(4) a community development financial institution;
(5) an Indian tribal organization;
(6) an Alaska Native Corporation;
(7) a Native Hawaiian organization;
(8) a labor organization; or
(9) a partnership comprised of 1 or more of the entities
described in the preceding subparagraphs.
(c) Evaluation and Reports to Congress.--For each fiscal
year in which a grant is awarded under this section, the
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress containing a
description of the activities funded, amounts distributed,
and measurable results, as appropriate and available.

SEC. 4. LOW COST ALTERNATIVES TO PAYDAY LOANS.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary is authorized
to award demonstration project grants (including multi-year
grants) to eligible entities to provide low-cost, small loans
to consumers that will provide alternatives to more costly,
predatory payday loans.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such an entity is--
(1) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code;
(2) a federally insured depository institution;
(3) a community development financial institution; or
(4) a partnership comprised of 1 or more of the entities
described in paragraphs (1) through (3).
(c) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) Percentage rate.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible entity that is a federally insured depository
institution shall be subject to the annual percentage rate
promulgated by the National Credit Union Administration's
Loan Interest Rates under part 701 of title 12, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto), in connection
with a loan provided to a consumer pursuant to this section.
(2) Financial literacy and education opportunities.--Each
eligible entity awarded a grant under this section shall
offer financial literacy and education opportunities, such as
relevant counseling services or educational courses, to each
consumer provided with a loan pursuant to this section.
(d) Evaluation and Reports to Congress.--For each fiscal
year in which a grant is awarded under this section, the
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress containing a
description of the activities funded, amounts distributed,
and measurable results, as appropriate and available.

SEC. 5. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Applications.--A person desiring a grant under section
3 or 4 shall submit an application to the Secretary, in such
form and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
(b) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--A recipient of a
grant under section 3 or 4 may use not more than 6 percent of
the total amount of such grant in any fiscal year for the
administrative costs of carrying out the programs funded by
such grant in such fiscal year.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary,
such sums as are necessary to carry out the grant programs
authorized by this Act, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations to
implement and administer the grant programs authorized by
this Act.
____

National Association of

Federal Credit Unions,

Arlington, VA, July 29, 2008.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I am writing on behalf of the National
Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the only
national trade association that exclusively represents the
interests of our nation's Federal credit unions, to applaud
your leadership on working to get low- and moderate-income
unbanked individuals into mainstream financial institutions,
such as credit unions, and your continued commitment to
financial literacy as demonstrated in the Improving Access to
Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2008.
We believe it is important to help the unbanked set up
credit union accounts that will allow these individuals to
obtain the products and services that they need, such as
lower cost check cashing and remittance services, as well as
financial education to encourage savings and thank you for
your efforts to help this cause.
Unfortunately, payday lending has also increasingly become
a precarious problem for many Americans. People that find
themselves in sudden need of a financial boost and

[[Page 17755]]

individuals unfairly subjected to higher mortgage payments
with higher interest rates often rely on payday lenders to
help cover their bills. These types of loans can worsen their
current financial situation, making the consumer even more
dependent than before. Despite our greatest efforts to
prevent predatory lending in America, the evidence shows
these deceptive practices still occur. Predators continue to
target specific communities, such as low-income, minority,
elderly and, in recent findings, the men and women of the
United States military.
Luckily, credit unions continue to be part of the solution,
not the problem. Many credit unions offer alternative loan
programs that ensure the safety and financial reprieve that
their members need. These loan programs offer consumers small
unsecured loans with low interest rates and encourage
financial responsibility. We greatly appreciate your
continued support of these efforts.
NAFCU appreciates the opportunity to share our thoughts on
this legislation and strongly support your dedication to this
important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me or
NAFCU's Associate Director of Legislative Affairs, Amanda
Slater at 703-522-4770 with any questions that you may have.
Sincerely,
Fred R. Becker, Jr.,
President/CEO.
____

Hawaii Credit Union League,

Honolulu, HI, July 28, 2008.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: On behalf of the Hawaii Credit Union
League and its 93 affiliated credit unions representing
approximately 811,000 members, I am writing in support of the
proposed Improving Access to Mainstream Financial
Institutions Act. This bill, which is targeted to assist low-
and moderate-income unbanked individuals, would go a long way
toward helping underserved people achieve financial stability
and independence.
Today's volatile economic climate makes it difficult or
even unrealistic for people of modest means to borrow money
or open an account at an insured depository institution. This
measure would establish grant programs within the Department
of the Treasury to assist those who would otherwise be
unqualified for banking services. In addition, this measure
would provide financial literary education opportunities to
those applying for loans. Financial education is an
invaluable service that credit unions provide, and this
legislation would open more doors to this service.
Please accept our gratitude for introducing legislation to
help the unserved residents of our state and nation. Should
you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Dennis K. Tanimoto,
President.
____

Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement,
Honolulu, HI, July 24, 2008.
Re Unbanked and Payday Lending

Hon. Senator Daniel Akaka,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Aloha Senator Akaka: The Council for Native Hawaiian
Advancement is a nonprofit network of over 100 Native
Hawaiian organizations. Its mission is to enhance the
cultural, economic and community development of Native
Hawaiians. We achieve our mission through policy advocacy,
grant training, consultancy, leadership development and
connecting resources to challenges in our communities.
We believe in policies that promote asset building that
empowers low and moderate income families to increase
financial asset management, home ownership and small business
development.
Senator, there is a clear need for intermediary programming
that helps low and moderate income families to connect with
financial services, including deposit and savings accounts,
as well as loan alternatives to high cost payday lending
practices.
CNHA has developed asset building products that are moving
families to financial self sufficiency. For example, we
developed the Homestead Individual Development Accounts
(HIDA) that is assisting 30 families to open savings accounts
at First Hawaiian Bank, provides financial education and
helps low income families to save toward the down payment on
a home purchase on Hawaiian trust lands. We also developed
the Home Ownership Assistance Program (HOAP), a statewide
program of the State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands to expand the reach and delivery of financial literacy
counseling to thousands of families.
Currently, we are in the process of developing a dedicated
Earned Income Tax Credit program to assist families in filing
for this important tax credit to claim wages they have
earned.
We support Federal legislation that will promote further
connections between families and banking services,
particularly, the ``unbanked''. We also know that payday
lending continues to be a detriment to families on the lowest
end of the income scale and would support assistance to place
alternatives to these loans in the community development
marketplace.
Mahalo for your consideration. If we can provide additional
information, please contact me at any time at 808.596.8155 or
via email at robinhawaiiancouncil.org.
Sincerely,
Robin Puanani Danner,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
____

Hawai'i Alliance for Community-Based Economic
Development,
Honolulu, HI, July 30, 2008
Re Support for ``Improving Access to Mainstream Financial
Institutions Act of 2008''

Hon. Daniel Kahikina Akaka,
U.S. Senator for Hawai'i.
Aloha Senator Akaka: The Hawai'i Alliance for Community-
Based Economic Development (HACBED) is pleased to support the
bill titled, ``Improving Access to Mainstream Financial
Institutions Act of 2008.''
Hawai'i needs comprehensive public policies to help people
build assets. This should include a package of programs, tax
incentives, regulatory changes, and other mechanisms to help
people earn more, save more, protect hard earned assets,
start businesses and become homeowners.
Assets are essential for three reasons:
To have financial security against difficult times; to
create economic opportunities for oneself; and to leave a
legacy for future generations to have a better life.
This legislation would create the following two grant
programs within the Department of Treasury:
1. The first program would authorize grants intended to
help low- and moderate-income unbanked individuals to
establish bank or credit union accounts.
2. The second program would provide consumers with a lower
cost, short term alternative to payday loans as well as
financial education.
It is proven that ``banked'' households are better of
financially and more likely to build and own assets than
their ``unbanked'' counterparts. This bill will authorize
grants to assist millions of families to enter the financial
mainstream.
Programs that help low- and moderate-income unbanked
individuals to establish bank accounts provide families with
the opportunity to save and build their assets. Approximately
22 million U.S. households do not have a checking or savings
account. These households depend on various high-cost,
alternative financial service providers to meet their banking
needs, including check-cashing stores, payday lenders, title
lenders, rent-to-own stores, and tax preparers. Reliance on
these types of financial services undermines a family's
ability to survive as they can become trapped in a cycle of
debt due to high fees and interest rates. These families' put
nearly 13.3 billion dollars toward predatory lending scams
annually.
By improving our families' access to mainstream services,
we can enhance their financial security and success. Access
to savings and checking accounts can provide a foundation for
low- and moderate-families to begin accumulating assets. In
addition, families are more likely to save for assets such as
their children's college education, a home, retirement, and
business startup costs. By entering the financial mainstream
and having access to financial services, families are also
able to establish credit and increase their access to buying
power for the purchase of assets.
Payday loans and other financial services with high fees
and interest rates undermine families' ability to truly save
and build their assets. This bill will provide families with
an alternative to payday loans as well as the opportunity to
receive financial education.
Check cashing, or payday lending, is a short-term, high-
interest loan that has the potential to severely impact
consumers. Many consumers are often not aware of the annual
percentage rate associated with the fee structure of payday
loans causing millions of families to struggle to meet their
most basic needs to survive.
It is extremely important to protect hard working families
from financial services that are predatory in nature, and
stripping them of their hard earned income. Particularly
worrisome is the practice of targeting military families.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, active-duty
military personnel are three times more likely than civilians
to take out a payday loan and one in five active-duty
personnel are payday borrowers.
The loans provided to families under the grant in this bill
would be subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by
the National Credit Union Administration's (NCUA) Loan
Interest Rates, which is currently capped at an annual
percentage rate of 18 percent.
Several credit unions have developed similar products to
assist families. In Hawai'i, the Windward Community Federal
Credit Union has developed an affordable alternative to
payday loans to help the Marines and the other members that
they serve. This program was developed with an NCUA grant.
This bill will also provide financial education to families
that apply for the loans.

[[Page 17756]]

As the financial market expands and becomes more complex,
having a financial education is extremely important for every
family. More than ever, financial education can help families
navigate the maze of financial services that exist. Providing
families with a financial education allows them to have
choice and control over their finances so they are able to
save and build assets.
We urge the Senate's favorable consideration of this bill
that would give millions of low- and moderate-income families
the opportunity to successfully enter the financial world.
Mahalo nui loa,
Larissa Meinecke,
Public Policy Associate.
______

By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Brown, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 3413. A bill to achieve access to comprehensive primary health
care services for all Americans and to improve primary care delivery
through an expansion of the community health center and National Health
Service Corps programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today there is some good news and some
bad news. The bad news is that oil is at $123 a barrel and working
people are paying $4 for a gallon of gas, and this coming winter
residents of the Northeast could be paying over $5 for a gallon of
heating oil.
But, there is some good news. Today, the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Shell,
BP and ConocoPhillips are celebrating. They're feeling pretty good.
And, they have good reason to feel that way.
ExxonMobil reported today that it made over $11.68 billion in profits
over the 2nd quarter alone, breaking its own record for the largest
quarterly profit of any American company in the history of the world.
But, ExxonMobil is not alone. Shell's 2nd quarter profit jumped by 33
percent to $11.56 billion; and BP's 2nd quarter profit jumped by 28
percent.
As a matter of fact, since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been
in office, the five largest oil companies have made over $640 billion
in profits. This includes $212 billion for ExxonMobil; $157 billion for
Shell; $125 billion for BP; $80 billion for ChevronTexaco; and $66
billion for ConocoPhillips.
Believe it or not, the Big 5 oil companies made more profits during
the 2nd quarter, than they did during the entire year of 2002.
Now, with the exception of my Republican friends here in Congress,
there are very few people in this country who believe the oil companies
give one hoot about the well-being of the American people. Our
Republican friends are saying that if we just give these huge oil
companies more acres offshore to drill for oil, they will certainly do
the right thing, as they always have, for the American people. Let's
just trust those big oil companies because they are really staying up
day after day, night after night, worrying about the well-being of the
American people. That is what their full-page ads in the New York Times
and all their ads on television are telling us.
Well, it is good to see there are at least some people in America who
believe that. I don't, but apparently my Republican colleagues do.
Let me tell you, big oil companies are so concerned about Americans
paying high prices for gas and oil that this is what they are doing
with their profits:
In 2005, ExxonMobil gave its CEO, Lee Raymond, a $398 million
retirement package--one of the richest compensation packages in
corporate history. They weren't going out looking for new land to drill
on, they weren't building more refineries, and they weren't working on
energy efficiency. They gave their CEO a $398 million retirement
package.
In 2006, Occidental Petroleum, gave its CEO, Ray Irani, over $400
million in total compensation.
The situation is so absurd and the greed of the oil companies is so
outrageous that these companies are not only giving their executives
huge compensation packages during their life here on earth, but they
have also created a situation, if you can believe it, where these oil
companies have carved out huge corporate payments to the heirs of
senior executives if they die in office. I guess this is what happens
when you have more money than you know what to do with.
According to the Wall Street Journal, if the CEO of Occidental
Petroleum dies in office, his family will get $115 million. The family
of the CEO of Nabors Industries, another oil company, would receive
$288 million. This would be funny if it were not so pathetic in the
sense of the impact this type of spending has on the American people.
Not only are huge oil companies using their record-breaking profits
on big compensation benefits for their CEOs, but they are also spending
large sums of money buying back their own stock. In other words, when
they are making these very large profits, they are not going out
drilling for more oil, as our Republican friends are suggesting.
In fact, While Americans are struggling to pay for the skyrocketing
price of gasoline; big oil companies are having an entirely different
problem. For the past seven years, big oil companies are struggling to
figure out what they are going to do with all of their windfall
profits.
Let me quote from a headline taken from the front page of the Wall
Street Journal way back on July 30 of 2001, ``Pumping Money: Major Oil
Companies Struggle to Spend Huge Hoards of Cash.'' According to this
2001 article, ``Royal Dutch/Shell Group said it was pumping out $1.5
million in profit an hour and sitting on more than $11 billion in the
bank.'' That was in 2001. Since that time Shell's profits have more
than tripled.
On April 18, 2005, Fortune Magazine published an article with the
Headline ``Poor Little Rich Company,'' referring to ExxonMobil.
According to this article, ``ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, suddenly has a
new anxiety: how to spend the windfall wrought by $55 a barrel oil. By
the end of April [of 2005], Exxon will have a cash hoard of more than
$25 billion. . . . At a time when domestic energy production is
declining and drivers are paying a record $2.15 a gallon [remember,
this was in 2005], American consumers, not to mention politicians, are
likely to start focusing on whether Exxon is spending enough to find
oil and gas. While Exxon is returning more money to shareholders via
dividends and buying back more of its stock, its spending on drilling
and other development activities actually declined in 2004--even though
crude prices jumped by a third.'' That was when the price of oil was
$55 a barrel and gas was $2.15 a gallon. Today oil is over $123 a
barrel and gas is about $4 a gallon.
What is happening today? Big oil companies are spending even more on
stock buybacks and CEO compensation and less on trying to produce more
oil.
For example, ConocoPhillips recently announced that it plans to give
all of the $12 billion in profits it made last year back to
shareholders, paying more than $3 billion in dividends and spending the
rest to buy back shares of its own stock. To put this in perspective
the money that ConocoPhillips is spending on stock buybacks and
dividends is enough to reduce the price of gas by 9 cents a gallon
throughout the entire United States.
Now, I want my Republican friends to listen closely. They have been
saying over and over again that big oil desperately needs all of these
windfall profits to drill for more oil.
But, guess what? According to the CEO of ConocoPhillips, James Mulva,
``We like the discipline of the share repurchase. If we find that we
have more cash flow, it's not really going to be going toward capital
spending.'' In other words, ConocoPhillips won't use their windfall
profits to drill for more oil, or invest in renewable energy, or
explore for new sources of oil discoveries no matter how much their
profits rise.
Overall, since 2005, the five biggest oil companies have made $345
billion in profits and spent over $250 billion buying back stock and
paying dividends to shareholders.
Last year, ExxonMobil spent 850 percent more buying back its own
stock

[[Page 17757]]

than it did on capital expenditures in the United States.
The $38 billion in windfall profits that ExxonMobil gave back to
shareholders last year could have been used to reduce gas prices at the
pump throughout the United States by 27 cents a gallon for the entire
year.
Mr. President, let's not kid ourselves. One of the major reasons as
to why Americans are getting ripped-off at the gas pump has to do with
the tremendous power and influence that big oil companies have in the
Congress. As a matter of fact, since 1998, the oil and gas industry has
spent over $616 million on lobbying activities.
Who have they hired? Well, on April 8 of this year, The Hill reported
that Chevron hired former Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican;
former Senator John Breaux, a Democrat; their sons Chester Trent Lott,
Jr. and John Breaux, Jr.; and Trent Boyles, who was Lott's Chief of
Staff to lobby Congress on issues relating to trade, climate change,
and energy taxes.
ExxonMobil has hired former Senator Don Nickles, a Republican from
Oklahoma, who served in this body for 24 years, to lobby Congress on
behalf of their issues.
These are just a few of the hundreds of lobbyists that big oil and
gas companies have hired to influence Congress, many of them former
Senators, former Congressmen, and former Congressional staffers.
That is one of the reasons why, among many other reasons, this
Congress, in recent years, has decided to give some $18 billion in tax
breaks to oil companies despite their record-breaking profits.
In addition, since 1990 big oil companies have made over $213 million
in campaign contributions. And that is a simple fact.
Lo and behold, what we are hearing today--just coincidentally, no
doubt--is that the most important thing we can do in terms of the
energy crisis is to provide more land offshore for the oil companies to
drill at a time when they already have some 68 million acres of leased
land, which they are not drilling on today.
The American people want action, and there are some things we can
do--not in 15 or 20 years but that we can do right now.
First, we need to impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies
so that they would be prohibited from gouging consumers at the gas
pump.
Unfortunately, instead of taking away big oil's windfall profits and
giving it back to the American people, Republicans want to provide even
more tax breaks to big oil. In fact, Sen. McCain has a plan that would
give ExxonMobil a $1.5 billion tax break.
Now, we have heard Republicans give three reasons as to why they are
opposed to a windfall profits tax.
First, Republicans claim that the last time Congress enacted a
windfall profits tax in 1981 it had the effect of increasing our
dependence on foreign oil. Wrong. Mr. President, when Congress repealed
the windfall profits tax in 1988, the U.S. was importing 7.4 million
barrels of oil a day. Today, the U.S. is importing over 13.4 million
barrels of oil a day. We are far more dependent on foreign oil today
without a windfall profits tax than we were 20 years ago when we had a
windfall profits tax.
Secondly, my Republican friends tell us that the windfall profits tax
didn't work because Congress repealed it in 1988. That is also wrong.
While I would have structured it differently, the fact of the matter is
that from 1981 until 1988 when the windfall profits tax was repealed,
the price of oil fell from $35 a barrel to less than $15 a barrel. In
addition, gas prices at the pump fell from $1.35 a gallon to 90 cents a
gallon--a drop of 45 cents a gallon. And the Federal Government
collected over $80 billion in revenue.
The reason why the windfall profits tax was repealed was due to low
oil and gas prices, which makes perfect sense. If oil and gas prices
are low, big oil companies are not making windfall profits and there is
no need for a windfall profits tax. If gas prices at the pump were only
90 cents a gallon, I would be one of the first Senators to say we don't
need a windfall profits tax. But, they are not. They are over $4 a
gallon.
Finally, Republicans claim that big oil companies need to keep their
windfall profits so that they can increase production and build more
refineries. That particular argument is laughable.
Big oil companies have been making windfall profits for over seven
long years--and they are not using these profits to build more
refineries and they are not using it to expand production. Instead,
they are using this money to buy back their own stock, increase
dividends to their shareholders, and enrich their CEOs, as I have
explained earlier.
Not only do we need to impose a windfall profits tax on these
extremely powerful oil corporations, but we also have to address what I
perceive is a growing understanding that Wall Street investment banks,
such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and hedge fund
managers are driving up the price of oil in the unregulated energy
futures market. In other words, they are speculating on energy futures
and driving up prices.
There are estimates that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of
oil is attributable to unregulated speculation on oil futures. We have
heard from some leading energy economists, and we have heard from
people in the oil industry themselves who tell us that 25 to 50 percent
of the cost of a barrel of oil today is not due to supply and demand or
the cost of production but is due to manipulation of markets and
excessive speculation. In essence, Wall Street firms are making
billions as they artificially drive up oil prices by buying, holding,
and selling huge amounts of oil on dark unregulated markets.
Some of my Republican friends claim that the increase in the price of
oil has nothing to do with speculation, but it is interesting to me
that we have had executives of major oil companies--major oil
companies--who have come before Congress and who are saying, ``Why is
oil $125, $130, and $140 a barrel?'' Do you know what they say? The CEO
of Royal Dutch Shell testified before Congress and said: ``The oil
fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil
was selling for $60 a barrel.''
This is not some radical economist. It is not some left-winger. This
is a guy who is the head of Royal Dutch Shell.
The CEO of Marathon Oil recently said: ``$100 oil isn't justified by
the physical demand in the market.''
I know my Republican friends have a lot of respect for the oil
industry, a great competence in them. They love them and give them huge
tax breaks. So maybe they should listen to what some of these guys are
saying in terms of oil speculation.
For those who believe that excessive speculation is not causing oil
prices to climb higher, let me just say this. Over the past 7 years,
Enron; BP; and Amaranth were caught redhanded manipulating the price of
electricity; propane; and natural gas. Each time, supply and demand was
to blame and each time the pundits were proven wrong. Excessive
speculation; manipulation and greed were the cause. Enron employees are
in jail for manipulating the electricity market in 2001; BP was forced
to pay a $300 million fine for manipulating propane prices in 2004; and
the Amaranth hedge fund collapsed after manipulating natural gas prices
in 2006.
The Stop Excessive Speculation Act introduced by Majority Leader Reid
begins to seriously address this problem. We need to pass this bill as
soon as possible.
The bottom line is that it is time for the United States Senate to
say no to big oil companies and greedy hedge fund managers and yes to
the American people.

[[Page 17758]]

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 636--RECOGNIZING THE STRATEGIC SUCCESS OF THE TROOP
SURGE IN IRAQ AND EXPRESSING GRATITUDE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES WHO MADE THAT SUCCESS POSSIBLE

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. McCain, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Bond, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Thune, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Inhofe) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services:

S. Res. 636

Whereas, by the end of 2006, it had become clear that,
despite exceptional efforts and sacrifices on the part of the
United States Armed Forces in Iraq, the United States was
pursuing a failed strategy in Iraq;
Whereas, by the end of 2006, large-scale sectarian violence
was accelerating throughout Iraq, al Qaeda had established
significant safe havens there, militias sponsored by the
Government of Iran had seized effective control of large
swaths of Iraq, and the Government of Iraq was suffering from
political paralysis;
Whereas, by the end of 2006, insurgents and death squads
were killing more than 3,000 civilians in Iraq each month and
coalition forces were sustaining more than 1,200 attacks each
week;
Whereas, in December 2006, the Iraq Study Group warned that
``the United States is facing one of its most difficult and
significant international challenges in decades'' in Iraq and
that ``Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability,
and is critical to U.S. interests'';
Whereas, in December 2004, Osama bin Laden said the
following of the war in Iraq: ``The most important and
serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World
War. . . . The world's millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the
capital of the caliphate.'';
Whereas, on January 10, 2007, in an address to the Nation,
President George W. Bush acknowledged that the situation in
Iraq was ``unacceptable'' and announced his intention to put
in place a new strategy, subsequently known as ``the surge'';
Whereas President Bush nominated and the Senate confirmed
General David H. Petraeus as the Commander of Multi-National
Forces-Iraq, a position he assumed on February 10, 2007;
Whereas General Petraeus, upon assuming command, and in
partnership with Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the
Commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, and United States
Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, developed a comprehensive
civil-military counterinsurgency campaign plan to reverse
Iraq's slide into chaos, defeat the enemies of the United
States in Iraq, and, in partnership with the Iraqi Security
Forces and the Government of Iraq, reestablish security
across the country;
Whereas, under the previous strategy, the overwhelming
majority of United States combat forces were concentrated on
a small number of large forward operating bases and were not
assigned the mission of providing security for the people of
Iraq against insurgents, terrorists, and militia fighters, in
part because there were insufficient members of the United
States Armed Forces in Iraq to do so;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge,
approximately 5 additional United States Army brigades and 2
United States Marine Corps battalions were deployed to Iraq;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, members of
the United States Armed Forces were deployed out of large
forward operating bases onto small bases throughout Baghdad
and other key population centers, partnering with the Iraqi
Security Forces to provide security for the local population
against insurgents, terrorists, and militia fighters;
Whereas additional members of the United States Armed
Forces began moving into Iraq in January 2007 and reached
full strength in June 2007;
Whereas, as a consequence of the additional forces needed
in Iraq, in April 2007 the United States Army added 3 months
to the standard year-long tour for all active duty soldiers
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United States Marine Corps
added 3 months to the standard 6-month tour for all active
duty Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, members of
the United States Armed Forces began simultaneous and
successive offensive operations, in partnership with the
Iraqi Security Forces, of unprecedented breadth, continuity,
and sophistication, striking multiple enemy safe havens and
lines of communication at the same time;
Whereas, as an integral component of the surge, additional
members of the United States Armed Forces were deployed to
Anbar province to provide essential support to the nascent
tribal revolt against al Qaeda in that province;
Whereas those additional members of the United States Armed
Forces played a critical role in the success and spread of
anti-Qaeda Sunni tribal groups in Anbar province and
subsequently in other regions of Iraq;
Whereas, since the start of the surge in January 2007,
there have been marked and hopeful improvements in almost
every political, security, and economic indicator in Iraq;
Whereas, in 2007, General Petraeus described Iraq as ``the
central front of al Qaeda's global campaign'';
Whereas, in 2008, as a consequence of the success of the
surge, al Qaeda has been dealt what Director of Central
Intelligence Michael Hayden assesses as a ``near strategic
defeat'' in Iraq;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge,
militias backed by the Government of Iran have been routed
from major population centers in Iraq and no longer control
significant swaths of territory;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge,
sectarian violence in Iraq has fallen dramatically and has
been almost entirely eliminated;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge,
overall insurgent attacks have fallen by approximately 80
percent since June 2007 and are at their lowest level since
March 2004;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge,
United States casualties in Iraq have dropped dramatically
and United States combat deaths in Iraq in July 2008 were
lower than in any other month since the beginning of the war;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, the
Government of Iraq has made significant strides in advancing
sectarian reconciliation and achieving political progress,
including the passage of key benchmark legislation;
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge, the
Iraqi Security Forces have improved markedly and
approximately 70 percent of Iraqi combat battalions are now
leading operations in their areas; and
Whereas, as a consequence of the success of the surge,
General Petraeus concluded in 2008 that conditions on the
ground in Iraq could permit the additional brigades and
battalions dispatched to Iraq in 2007 as part of the surge to
be safely redeployed without replacement, and all such
brigades and battalions have been successfully withdrawn
without replacement: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commends and expresses its gratitude to the men and
women of the United States Armed Forces for the service,
sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop
surge in Iraq possible;
(2) commends and expresses its gratitude to General David
H. Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan
Crocker for the distinguished wartime leadership that made
the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible;
(3) recognizes the success of the troop surge in Iraq and
its strategic significance in advancing the vital national
interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and
the world, in particular as a strategic victory in a central
front of the war on terrorism; and
(4) recognizes that the hard-won gains achieved as a result
of the troop surge in Iraq are significant but not yet
permanent and that it is imperative that no action be taken
that jeopardizes those gains or dishonors the service and
sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed
Forces who made those gains possible.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 637--TO HONOR THE VISIONARY AND EXTRAORDINARY WORK OF
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY AND IBM ON THE ROADRUNNER SUPERCOMPUTER

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources:

S. Res. 637

Whereas on May 26, 2008, the Roadrunner supercomputer of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory broke a historic barrier
by being powerful enough to run at a petaflop,
1,000,000,000,000,000 calculations per second, making the
Roadrunner supercomputer the fastest computer in the world;
Whereas International Business Machines Corporation
(referred to in this resolution as ``IBM'') and Los Alamos
National Laboratory overcame the challenges of technological
innovation to achieve a petaflop ahead of schedule;
Whereas the Roadrunner supercomputer will enable the United
States to tackle new and more challenging problems;
Whereas the Roadrunner supercomputer will be primarily
devoted to national security in the United States and will be
used for ensuring the safety and reliability of the weapons
stockpile of the United States and for research in
astrophysics, materials science, energy research, medicine,
and biotechnology;

[[Page 17759]]

Whereas Cell-based supercomputer technology of IBM is the
most energy efficient in the world;
Whereas the new high-performance computing capabilities
enabled by hybrid Opteron-Cell machines of IBM in the
Roadrunner supercomputer of Los Alamos National Laboratory
enhance and improve United States competitiveness;
Whereas from maintaining employment records for millions of
people of the United States, to providing technology to help
the United States run the Ballistic Missile Early Warning
System, land on Mars, end the physical testing of atomic
weapons, and now help national security by ensuring the
safety of the nuclear weapons stockpile of the United States
and researching issues of critical importance such as human
genome science and climate change, the partnership of IBM
with the Federal Government and the dedication of that
partnership to solving critical problems that are seemingly
impossible have remained unrivaled and relentless for more
than 80 years;
Whereas the Roadrunner supercomputer is the most recent
achievement of long-standing science and technology
leadership of Los Alamos National Laboratory, from the
Manhattan Project to the role of the Laboratory today as a
premier national security science laboratory; and
Whereas, the Roadrunner supercomputer funding was initiated
with $35,000,000 in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103): Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate honors the visionary and
extraordinary work of Los Alamos National Laboratory and IBM
for--
(1) pushing the barriers of science and providing the
United States with historical high-performance computing
capabilities that will allow some of the most challenging
problems in science and engineering to be solved; and
(2) achieving the capability to make petaflop calculations,
which--
(A) is considered a crucial milestone internationally;
(B) is considered a sign of the competitiveness of the
United States in the critical new area of high-performance
computing capability; and
(C) will allow the United States to solve even bigger and
more complex problems from the safety of the nuclear
deterrent of the United States to human genome science and
climate change.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a
resolution to recognize the achievement of a major scientific milestone
by two great American institutions--Los Alamos National Laboratory and
IBM--to build the first supercomputer to break the ``petaflop'' barrier
in supercomputing. A petaflop is a million, billion calculations per
second. Think of that--a million, billion calculations in a second. If
every human being on the planet were given a calculator it would take
50 years to do what this supercomputer can do in a single day.
This supercomputer is called the ``Roadrunner'' and was developed
cooperatively by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and IBM--two
American institutions which have a long and prestigious history in
delivering major technological breakthroughs for the Nation.
The Roadrunner is the fastest computer in the world. It more than
doubles the previous record. We can be very proud this achievement for
American science and technology. It highlights the essential role our
national laboratories play in advancing the state of the art for high
performance computing--a vital component of our national security and
scientific leadership.
Every year, computing power increases at a pace set by America's
national laboratories. From developing advanced computing architectures
and algorithms, to creating effective means for storing and viewing the
enormous amounts of data generated by these machines, the laboratories
have made high performance computing a reality.
These applications go well beyond security and basic science. The
laboratories have worked hard to transition these capabilities to
academia and industry, simulating complex industrial processes and
their environmental impact, including global climate change.
Collaborations with the private sector have also driven down the
cost, so that now high performance does not mean high expense. This has
had an enormous impact, placing advanced computing within reach of an
ever wider circle of users.
These achievements did not happen by accident. They required
planning, commitment and follow through. Indeed, the Roadrunner began
as an earmark in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. Congress
must ensure that the world class simulation capabilities within the
complex are maintained and investments are made to drive future
innovation.
We must continue to raise the bar, giving our best and brightest new
goals to work toward, ensuring that America will retain its technical
leadership in advanced computing.
I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Los Alamos National
Laboratory and IBM for reaching yet another milestone in
supercomputing.
In particular, I want to commend the members of the Roadrunner team.
From Los Alamos: Sriram Swaninarayan, Paul Henning, Adolfy Hoisie,
Guy Dimonte, Darren Kerbyson, Brian Albright, Tim Germann, Ben Bergen,
Ken Koch, Manuel Vigil, Randal Rheinheimer, Parks Fields, John Cerutti.
From IBM: Nicholas Donofrio, Cornell Wright, William Zeitler, David
Turek, Don Grice, and Catherine Crawford.
Participants from academia included Steven Zuker of Yale University
and James DiCarlo from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Congratulations on a job well done.
Top 10 Fastest Supercomputers in the World (June 2008).
Name, Location, Speed (TFlop/s).
1. Roadrunner (IBM), Los Alamos, NM (NNSA), 1026.0.
2. Blue Gene/L (IBM), Livermore, CA (NNSA), 478.2.
3. Blue Gene/P (IBM), Argonne, IL (DOE), 450.3.
4. Ranger (Sun), Univ. of Texas, TX, 326.0.
5. Jaguar (Cray), Oak Ridge, TN (DOE), 205.0.
6. JUGENE (IBM), Juelich, Germany, 180.0.
7. Encanto (SGI), NMCAC, NM, 133.2.
8. EKA (HP), TATA SONS, India, 132.8.
9. Blue Gene/P (IBM), IDRIS, France, 112.5.
10. SGI Altix ICE (SGI), Total Exploration, France, 106.1.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 638--SUPPORTING LEGISLATION PROMOTING IMPROVED HEALTH
CARE AND ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Obama, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Cantwell,
Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions:

S. Res. 638

Whereas women are the health care decisionmakers for
themselves and their families;
Whereas women want affordable health care they can count on
throughout life transitions, such as starting a family, job
changes, part-time and full-time work, divorce, caring for an
elderly or sick family member, having a major disease, or
retiring;
Whereas women with good health coverage worry about keeping
their coverage and access to their providers;
Whereas women are more likely to seek essential preventive
and routine care than are men, are more likely to have a
chronic health condition, and are more likely to take a
prescription drug on a daily basis;
Whereas women pay 68 percent more than men for out-of-
pocket medical costs, due in large part to reproductive
health care needs;
Whereas more than half of underinsured women (53 percent)
and \2/3\ of uninsured women (68 percent) forego needed care,
and about half of the underinsured (45 percent) and uninsured
(51 percent) report difficulty paying medical bills;
Whereas, in 2004, 1 in 6 women with individual coverage
reported postponing or going without needed care because she
couldn't afford it;
Whereas high-deductible health plans are often targeted to
young women as an inexpensive health coverage option, but
fail to cover pregnancy-related care, the most expensive
health event most young families face and the leading reason
for hospital stays;
Whereas 75,000,000 adults (42 percent of the under-65
population) had either no insurance or inadequate insurance
in 2007, up from 35 percent in 2003;
Whereas 47,000,000 people, nearly 16 percent of the United
States population, are uninsured, including 17,000,000 adult
women ages

[[Page 17760]]

18 to 64 (18 percent) and 9,000,000 children (12 percent);
Whereas the Institute of Medicine estimated that lack of
health insurance coverage resulted in 18,000 excess deaths in
the United States in 2000 (a number which the Urban Institute
estimates grew to 22,000 by 2006) and that acquiring health
insurance reduces mortality rates for the uninsured by 10 to
15 percent;
Whereas uninsured women with breast cancer are 30 to 50
percent more likely to die from the disease, and uninsured
women are 3 times less likely to have had a Pap test in the
last 3 years, with a 60 percent greater risk of late-stage
cervical cancer;
Whereas 13 percent of all pregnant women are uninsured,
making them less likely to seek prenatal care in the 1st
trimester and to receive the optimal number of visits during
their pregnancies, and 31 percent more likely to experience
an adverse health outcome after giving birth;
Whereas the lack or inadequate use of prenatal care is
associated with pregnancy-related mortality rates 2 to 3
times higher and infant mortality rates 6 times higher than
that of women receiving early prenatal care, as well as
increased risk of low birthweight and preterm birth;
Whereas heart disease is the leading cause of death for
both women and men, but women are less likely to receive
lifestyle counseling, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures,
and cardiac rehabilitation and more likely to die or have a
2nd heart attack, demonstrating inequalities in access to
care;
Whereas health care disparities persist, leaving Hispanic
and Native American women and children 3 times more likely
and African Americans nearly twice as likely to be uninsured
as non-Hispanic Whites;
Whereas, in 2005, nearly 80 percent of the female
population infected with the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) was Black or Hispanic, and the incidence rates of HIV
and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) are
dramatically higher for Black and Hispanic women and
adolescents (60.2 and 15.8 per 100,000, respectively) than
for White women and adolescents (3.0 per 100,000);
Whereas women are less likely than men to be insured
through their jobs and more likely to be insured as a
dependent, making them more vulnerable to insurance loss in
the event of divorce or death of a spouse;
Whereas 64 percent of uninsured women are in families with
at least 1 adult working full-time;
Whereas health care costs are increasingly unaffordable for
working families and employers, with employer-sponsored
health insurance premiums increasing 87 percent since 2000;
Whereas America's 9,100,000 women-owned businesses employ
27,500,000 people, contribute $3,600,000,000 to the economy,
and face serious obstacles in obtaining affordable health
coverage for their employees;
Whereas the lack of affordable health coverage creates
barriers for women who want to change jobs or create their
own small businesses;
Whereas health care professionals and workers--a
significant portion of whom are women--have a stake in
achieving reform that allows them to provide the highest
quality care for their patients;
Whereas 56 percent of all caregivers are women;
Whereas the United States spends twice as much on health
care as the median industrialized nation, our health care
system ranks near the bottom on most measures of health
status among the 30 developed nations of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and 37th in
overall health performance among 191 nations; and
Whereas the National Institutes of Medicine (NIH) estimates
that the cost of achieving full insurance coverage in the
United States would be less than the loss in economic
productivity from existing coverage gaps: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate commits to pass, and urges the
President sign into law, within the next 18 months,
legislation that guarantees health care for all women and
health care for all people of the United States and that--
(1) recognizes the special role that women play as health
care consumers, caregivers, and providers;
(2) guarantees inclusion of health care benefits essential
to achieving and maintaining good health, including
comprehensive reproductive health, pregnancy-related, and
infant care;
(3) promotes primary and preventive care, including family
planning, contraceptive equity, and care continuity;
(4) provides a choice of public and private plans and
direct access to a choice of doctors and health providers
that ensures continuity of coverage and a delivery system
that meets the needs of women;
(5) eliminates health disparities in coverage, treatment,
and outcomes on the basis of gender, culture, race,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health status, and sexual
orientation;
(6) shares responsibility for financing among employers,
individuals, and the government while taking into account the
needs of small businesses;
(7) ensures that access to health care is affordable;
(8) enhances quality and patient safety;
(9) promotes administrative efficiency, reduces unnecessary
paperwork, and is easy for health care consumers and
providers to utilize; and
(10) ensures a sufficient supply of qualified providers
through expanded medical and public health education and
adequate reimbursement.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to issue a challenge on the
need to reform health care. The resolution I am introducing today with
my friend and colleague, Representative Jan Schakowsky, calls on
Congress to send a plan to the next President that will ensure high-
quality and affordable health care for women and for all. I also am
proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Obama, Klobuchar,
Cantwell, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murray, Clinton, Boxer, and Kennedy.
We spend twice as much on health care as any other industrialized
nation, yet we have an unacceptably high number of Americans without
health insurance--nearly 50 million. Millions more are also
underinsured and have less coverage than they need. We are blessed with
the best doctors, nurses, and other health providers in the world but
rank 43rd in the world in infant mortality.
We are all in this together. From working families to the uninsured,
from multinational corporations to small businesses, we all face
challenges in making sure Americans get the quality, affordable health
care they need, when they need it. Rising costs are crippling our
businesses and our economy. Health care costs make large businesses,
like Michigan's automakers, less competitive globally and threaten the
survival of small firms.
We must ensure that no child is denied doctor visits, no pregnant
woman has to choose between prenatal care and her rent, and no working
family pays high premiums every month only to find that the care they
most need isn't covered. And we need to end health care disparities
that affect women. For example, heart disease is a leading cause of
death for both women and men but women are less likely to receive
lifestyle counseling or other medical intervention and more likely to
die or have a second heart attack.
Women understand these hard choices and are calling on Congress to
find a solution. As mothers with young children, women with aging
parents, small business owners, health professionals and health care
consumers, women confront problems in our health care system every day.
We are pleased to have the support of numerous groups representing
physicians, women, and families, including the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Planned Parenthood, the National
Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and
Families.
There is much work to be done to change our health care system and it
is going to take everyone's best effort, working together, to achieve
it. America's families, businesses, and providers cannot wait any
longer. This resolution is a first step and a signal that we need to
roll up our sleeves and get to work.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 639--RECOGNIZING THE BENEFITS OF TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE UNITED STATES ROUTE 36 CORRIDOR TO COMMUNITIES,
INDIVIDUALS, AND BUSINESSES IN COLORADO

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works:

S. Res. 639

Whereas the Colorado communities of Westminster,
Louisville, Superior, Broomfield, Denver, and Boulder have
united in support of transportation improvement along the
United States Route 36 corridor (in this preamble referred to
as the ``U.S. 36 Corridor'');
Whereas communities in Denver, Adams, Broomfield,
Jefferson, and Boulder counties, which have experienced
unprecedented levels of growth since the early 1990s, are
connected by the U.S. 36 Corridor;
Whereas the area's rapid growth has outpaced its
transportation needs and is impeding the efficient movement
of people and goods;

[[Page 17761]]

Whereas the U.S. 36 Corridor exemplifies the congestion
challenges facing the fastest-growing sections of States in
the American West;
Whereas the U.S. 36 Corridor is a dynamic travel corridor
with bi-directional travel to and from the multiple
communities throughout the day;
Whereas addressing congestion along the U.S. 36 Corridor is
critical to the work and school commutes of thousands of
Coloradans between communities in the Denver metropolitan
area and Boulder;
Whereas the Colorado Department of Transportation and the
Regional Transportation District, in conjunction with the
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration, have been studying multimodal transportation
improvements between Denver and Boulder in the U.S. 36
Corridor environmental impact statement since 2003;
Whereas public comments received in the process of
developing the environmental impact statement sought a
transportation solution that further reduced the impacts on
the community and the environment, minimized project costs,
and improved mobility of people and goods;
Whereas the U.S. 36 Corridor project, as developed through
the environmental impact statement process, is a national
model for congestion mitigation measures, which may combine
tolling, public transit, technology, teleworking, and bikeway
options that can be quickly implemented and have an immediate
impact;
Whereas the U.S. 36 Corridor could become a premier
transportation corridor, complete with bus rapid transit,
high occupancy vehicle lanes, and safe bicycling lanes;
Whereas the U.S. 36 Corridor project represents a
thoughtful, comprehensive approach to congestion on the
Nation's roadways;
Whereas a record of decision will be issued in 2009, which
will permit construction to commence on the U.S. 36 Corridor
project;
Whereas the U.S. 36 Corridor project was among the highest
ranked congestion mitigation proposals submitted under the
Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership Agreement
Program; and
Whereas it is important that Congress find innovative ways
to fund regionally significant transportation projects,
especially projects that will improve air quality, expand
transportation choice, reduce congestion, and provide access
to bicycle and pedestrian facilities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commends the members of the Mayors and Commissioners
Coalition, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the
Regional Transportation District, and the businesses that
support 36 Commuting Solutions, a public-private nonprofit
organization, for their commitment, dedication, and efforts
to proceed with the United States Route 36 corridor project;
(2) recognizes the benefits for mobility, the environment,
and quality of life that would be gained by investing in
transportation improvements along the United States Route 36
corridor, throughout Colorado and elsewhere; and
(3) supports Federal transportation investments along
United States Route 36, throughout Colorado, and elsewhere
that reduce congestion, reduce carbon emissions, improve
mobility, improve access to transit for bicyclists and
pedestrians, reduce vehicle miles traveled, reduce dependence
on foreign oil, support mass transit, include intelligent
transportation systems, and implement travel demand
management strategies.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 640--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE AN INCREASED FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
PREVENTION OF DISEASES AND INJURIES FOR ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions:

S. Res. 640

Whereas the United States has the highest rate of
preventable deaths among 19 industrialized countries and lags
behind 28 other members of the United Nations in life
expectancy;
Whereas various research studies suggest that nearly 60
percent of premature deaths in the United States are
attributable to environmental conditions, social
circumstances, or behavioral choices that could be prevented;
Whereas more money is spent each year on health care in the
United States than in any other country in the world;
Whereas, of the more than $2,200,000,000,000 spent on
health care in the United States each year, less than 4 cents
out of every dollar are spent on improving public health and
preventing diseases and injuries;
Whereas chronic diseases are the leading cause of
preventable death and disability in the United States,
accounting for 7 out of every 10 deaths and killing more than
1,700,000 people in the United States each year;
Whereas those often preventable chronic diseases account
for approximately 75 percent of health care spending in the
United States each year, including more than 96 cents out of
every dollar spent under the Medicare program and more than
83 cents out of every dollar spent under the Medicaid
program;
Whereas those chronic diseases cost the United States an
additional $1,000,000,000,000 each year in lost productivity
and are a major contributing factor to the overall poor
health that is placing the Nation's economic security and
competitiveness in jeopardy;
Whereas the number of people with chronic diseases is
rapidly increasing, and it is estimated that by 2050 nearly
half of the population of the United States will suffer from
at least one chronic disease if action is not taken;
Whereas the use of clinically-based preventive services has
been demonstrated to prevent or result in early detection of
cancer and other diseases, save lives, and reduce overall
health care costs; and
Whereas research has shown that investing in community-
level interventions that promote and enable proper nutrition,
increased access to physical activity, and smoking cessation
programs can prevent or mitigate chronic diseases, improve
quality of life, increase economic productivity, and reduce
health care costs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes that, in order to reduce the disease burden
and health care costs associated with preventable diseases
and injuries, it is imperative that the United States
strengthen its public health system--
(A) to provide all people in the United States with the
information, resources, and environment necessary to make
healthier choices and live healthier lives; and
(B) to protect all people in the United States from health
threats beyond their control, such as bioterrorism, natural
disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, and environmental
hazards;
(2) commits to creating public health strategies to
eliminate health disparities and improve the health of all
people in the United States, regardless of race, ethnicity,
or socioeconomic status;
(3) supports the prioritizing of public policies focusing
on the prevention of disease and injury;
(4) calls for community-based programs to support healthy
lifestyles, including programs that promote proper nutrition
and increased access to physical activity;
(5) urges the expansion of clinical preventive activities,
including screenings and immunizations; and
(6) pledges to help significantly improve the health of all
people in the United States by supporting increased
investment in Federal public health programs.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution
promoting increased investment in preventive health and public health.
Our Nation's annual health expenditures have reached the astonishing
total of $2.2 trillion, or approximately $7,000 for each American. Our
health expenditures also represent 16 percent of the gross domestic
product. That's a higher percentage of GDP than any other nation as
well as a higher amount per capita.
But what are we getting for our health care dollars? Rankings from
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD,
consistently show the United States ranking far behind most other
industrialized countries in overall health status, in infant health as
measured by infant mortality rates, and in life expectancy.
And if we examine the distribution of expenditures, it becomes
apparent that we are dedicating the lion's share of resources to a few,
chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and hypertension. From 1987 to
2000, while our overall health care spending doubled, spending on
strokes nearly quadrupled and spending on hypertension rose from $8
billion to $23 billion a year. Chronic diseases are the leading cause
of preventable death and disability, and are responsible for more than
1.7 million deaths each year. They are particularly costly for
publicly-funded insurance programs, accounting for 96 cents of every
Medicare dollar and 83 cents of every Medicaid dollar. Project HOPE has
estimated that by the year 2050, nearly half the population of the
United States will develop at least one chronic disease if we do not
act.
But analyses also show that of the money spent on health care, fewer
than 4 cents of every dollar are dedicated to public health and
prevention. We need

[[Page 17762]]

to prioritize public health and preventive approaches if we are to have
a healthier America.
We already know that early detection can save lives, reduce costs,
and result in a more efficient health care system for all of us. One
prominent example is colorectal cancer screening. Colorectal cancer is
the number two cancer killer in the United States. This year, an
estimated 148,000 new cases will be diagnosed and more than 52,000
Americans will die from the disease.
The risk of colorectal cancer begins to increase after the age of 40
and rises sharply at the ages of 50 to 55, at which point the risk
doubles with each succeeding decade. Despite advances in surgical
techniques and adjuvant therapy, there has been only a modest
improvement in survival for patients who present with advanced cancers.
The good news is that colorectal cancer can be prevented, and is
highly treatable when discovered early. Most cases of the disease begin
as non-cancerous polyps which can be detected and removed during
routine screenings--preventing the development of colorectal cancer.
Screening tests also save lives even when they detect polyps that have
become cancerous by catching the disease in its earliest, most curable
stages. The cure rate is up to 93 percent when colorectal cancer is
discovered early.
We must also promote changes in lifestyles, community-based
interventions, to improve our health status. This means encouraging and
enabling proper nutrition, increasing our level of physical activity,
supporting smoking cessation programs for those who smoke now, and
educating youth about the dangers of smoking.
Trust for America's Health has just released a report entitled
``Prevention for a Healthier America.'' Among its conclusions is that
``an investment of $10 per person per year in community-based programs
to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking
and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion
annually every five years . . . a return of $5.60 for every $1. Of the
$16 billion, Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid could
save more than $1.9 billion, and private payers could save more than $9
billion.''
It is clear that to make a real difference in America's health
status, and to produce a far more efficient health care system, the
answer is to use our health care resources more wisely. That means
investing in the clinically-based and community-based interventions
that will prevent the serious, chronic illnesses that are draining our
health care resources now.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Clinton for joining
me in introducing this resolution. Her knowledge of and expertise in
health care are unparalleled, and I am very appreciative of her
support. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 641--CONGRATULATING THE FOCUS ON THE FAMILY RADIO
PROGRAM FOR ITS INDUCTION INTO THE NATIONAL RADIO HALL OF FAME

Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation.

S. Res. 641

Whereas the National Radio Hall of Fame & Museum was
created to commemorate significant figures in the world of
radio, a medium that has been integral to American society
since the early 20th century;
Whereas a key element of the mission of the National Radio
Hall of Fame & Museum is to recognize and showcase
contemporary talent from diverse radio programming formats;
Whereas, each November since 1992, significant radio
figures have been honored for their excellence in the field
of radio by being inducted into the National Radio Hall of
Fame;
Whereas James C. Dobson, Ph.D., is founder and chairman of
Focus on the Family;
Whereas the Focus on the Family radio program first aired
in 1977 and now is heard through more than 3,000 radio
outlets in North America and in 27 languages in over 160
other countries;
Whereas the Focus on the Family radio program has
benefitted the lives of families and individuals across the
United States and around the world;
Whereas the Focus on the Family radio program has been
named as a 2008 inductee to the National Radio Hall of Fame;
and
Whereas the Focus on the Family radio program is the first
faith-based radio program to receive this honor: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate congratulates the Focus on the
Family radio program, its staff, and its founder and
chairman, James Dobson, for their excellence in radio
programming and the program's worthy induction into the
National Radio Hall of Fame.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 642--TO AUTHORIZE THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS BY THE
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND
SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 642

Whereas, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
conducted an investigation into tax haven financial
institutions, their formation and administration of offshore
entities and accounts for use by U.S. clients, and the impact
of those activities on tax compliance in the United States;
Whereas, the Subcommittee has received a number of requests
from law enforcement and regulatory agencies for access to
records of the Subcommittee's investigation;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion
of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote
the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the
Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, acting
jointly, are authorized to provide to law enforcement
officials, regulatory agencies, and other entities or
individuals duly authorized by federal, state, or foreign
governments, records of the Subcommittee's investigation into
tax haven financial institutions, their formation and
administration of offshore entities and accounts for use by
U.S. clients, and the impact of those activities on tax
compliance in the United States.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 5258. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3268, to amend the Commodity
Exchange Act, to prevent excessive price speculation with
respect to energy commodities, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 5258. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3268, to amend the Commodity Exchange Act, to
prevent excessive price speculation with respect to energy commodities,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

On page 43, after line 17, insert the following:

TITLE II--HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

SEC. 21. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Home Energy Assistance
Today Act''.

SEC. 22. LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

In addition to any amounts appropriated under any other
provision of Federal law, there is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal
year 2008--
(1) $1,265,000,000 (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) $1,265,000,000 (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)).

[[Page 17763]]

SEC. 23. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL
COMPANIES FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS, OR PRIMARY PRODUCTS
THEREOF.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following
new clause:
``(iv) in the case of any major integrated oil company (as
defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)), the production, refining,
processing, transportation, or distribution of oil, gas, or
any primary product thereof during any taxable year described
in section 167(h)(5)(B).''.
(b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has
the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in
effect before its repeal.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Committee on Armed Services

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ad hoc subcommittee on disaster recovery

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc
Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July
31, 2008, at 1 p.m. to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``Lessons
Learned: Ensuring the Delivery of Donated Goods to Survivors of
Catastrophes.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, July
31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environment and public works

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008 in room 406 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 2 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, July 31, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, July
31, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 31, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

special committee on aging

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, July 30, 2008 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen
106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy, and consumer rights

Mr. REID. 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, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Consolidation in The
Pennsylvania Health Insurance Industry: The Right Prescription?'' on
Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on federal financial management, government information,
federal services, and international security

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and
International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing
entitled, ``Offline and Off-budget: The Dismal State of Information
Technology Planning in the Federal Government.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal
workforce, and the district of columbia

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing
entitled, ``A Reliance on Smart Power--Reforming the Foreign Assistance
Bureaucracy.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that members of
my staff--Brian Chelcen and Peter Quaranto--be granted floor privileges
for the remainder of this Congress.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in Senator
Bingaman's office, Michele Mazzocco, be given floor privileges during
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, ask unanimous consent to extend
floor privileges to Ann Clough for the remainder of the consideration
of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

LIBYAN CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3370, introduced earlier
today by Senators Biden, Lugar, Lautenberg, Warner, Leahy, and Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3370) to resolve pending claims against Libya by
United States nationals, and for other purposes.

[[Page 17764]]

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, with the passage of the Libyan
Claims Resolution Act, the United States moves closer to a
comprehensive resolution of all outstanding claims by U.S. nationals
against Libya for its support for terrorism over several decades. These
claims include, most notably, the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie,
Scotland, which killed 270 innocent human beings in December 1988 and
the bombing of the LaBelle discotheque in Berlin in April 1986 in which
two American military personnel were killed and scores more injured.
There are many other pending claims involving attacks against Americans
that are attributable to Libya. These, too, will be resolved by this
legislation. Although less well known in the public's memory, they were
no less devastating to their victims and no less an affront to
humanity.
For several months now, the Bush administration has been negotiating
with the Government of Libya on a comprehensive settlement to
compensate American victims of Libyan terror. The State Department has
reported to us in recent days that an agreement has been reached but
has not yet been signed. I commend the fine effort of Assistant
Secretary of State David Welch and Deputy Legal Adviser Jonathan
Schwartz, who led the U.S. delegation in these very difficult
negotiations. Signature on the agreement awaits action by Congress, and
that is what we are doing today.
The agreement will provide full compensation to pay settlements
already reached in the Pan Am 103 and LaBelle cases and enough funds to
ensure that every American claimant in these cases involving Libyan
terrorism will receive financial compensation comparable to the Pan Am
103 and LaBelle settlements. No U.S. taxpayer money will be used to pay
these claims. The regime in Libya is notoriously unpredictable, so
there is a chance that the deal could fall apart. But there is reason
to believe that the Libyan leader, Colonel Qadhafi, has decided it is
in his interest to settle all of these cases, rather than let them
languish in court for years or decades, at the expense of progress in
the Libyan-American relationship. Should the government of Libya change
its position and fail to provide the complete funding, the victims will
retain their full rights to proceed with their legal challenges.
But before Libya is willing to sign the agreement, it wants legal
assurances that upon providing the full funding it will be immune from
further legal repercussions stemming from these cases. This
legislation, if signed into law by the President, provides such
assurances, allowing the deal to go forward. It authorizes the
Secretary of State to work with the Libyans to set up the funding
mechanism. It assures the Libyans that if and only if full compensation
has been paid to all American victims of Libyan terrorism, they will be
immune from further claims of this nature. And it assures the American
claimants that their lawsuits will not be extinguished unless the
funding promised by the agreement is provided.
If this bill is approved by the House, Congress will have joined with
the President to solve an issue of national and international
importance, while protecting the interests of its nationals who have
valid claims against Libya. Under the Constitution, there is no
question the executive and the legislative branches have the authority
to work together in this manner to settle claims so as to help the
hundreds of American claimants who will benefit from this initiative.
This cooperative effort--and the prompt bipartisan support for it--is
also a good example of how the two branches should work together to
advance our national interests.
I wish to be clear about what my support for this legislation means
and does not mean. It is clearly in the interest of the United States
to develop better relations with Libya. Libya is an important country
as a gateway between Europe and Africa, which shares a border with the
Darfur region of Sudan, and is a member of OPEC. Colonel Qadhafi
appears to have made a break with his past support for terrorism and
efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That is good news for
Libya, for the United States, and for the world.
It also is a powerful demonstration that diplomatic engagement,
backed up with sanctions and incentives, can change the behavior of
countries whose policies threaten our interests. There is a lesson in
here for more productive approaches we could have taken earlier with
other problematic countries. It is important for countries like Iran,
North Korea, and Syria that pursue malevolent policies to see that
there is a roadmap back into the international community if they modify
their behavior. In short, the model of normalization with Libya, if
applied to other cases, can prove that our goal is conduct change, not
regime change and can actually produce that change.
For these reasons, I support the nascent Libyan-American agreement to
comprehensively settle all outstanding American claims against Libyan
terrorism. Libya's renunciation of its weapons of mass destruction
programs and its previous support for terrorism is something all of us
should welcome. I support the carefully calibrated movement toward the
full normalization of bilateral relations.
But it should be underscored that this legislation does not exonerate
or excuse Libya for its despicable and cowardly support for terrorism.
I hope that the agreement can provide a modicum of justice and closure
for the victims of Libyan terrorism and their families. But it is small
consolation indeed and will not bring back the lives that have been
lost, nor undo the suffering endured by survivors.
Neither does today's legislation indicate a shift in my views of the
fundamental nature of the Qadhafi regime. Yes, Americans are interested
in Libya's external behavior. But we are also concerned about the human
rights conditions within Libya. Though his support for terrorists has
ended, Qadhafi's Libya remains a police state that brooks no political
opposition. Four decades after coming to power in a military coup,
Qadhafi continues to rule by personal fiat. He may have had a change of
mind about Libya's policies, but I doubt that it has been matched by a
change of heart.
It is critical that the Bush administration pursue a broader
engagement with the Libyan people and civil society. This relationship
must be about more than securing contracts for American oil companies.
We have learned the hard way that our vital interests can be threatened
by relationships that ignore the huge deficiencies in governance and
basic freedoms in many Middle Eastern countries and are based
exclusively on commercial and security interests. So I am disappointed
that this comprehensive claims settlement agreement is not accompanied
by a comprehensive plan to engage Libyan society. I urge the Bush
administration to put as much energy into developing such a plan as it
did in the negotiations for a claims settlement.
For more than 4 years, I have called for the release of Fathi
Eljahmi, a courageous Libyan democracy advocate with serious health
problems whose only crime was to speak truth to power. Though the
change in direction in Libyan foreign policy in the last few years is
as commendable as it is remarkable, Mr. Eljahmi's continuing captivity
is a reminder that basic fundamental freedoms such as rule of law and
the freedom of speech do not exist inside Libya. As I have made it
clear to Colonel Qadhafi, the future of the Libyan-American
relationship, at least as far as this Senator is concerned, will be
affected by the Libyan Government's treatment of Mr. Eljahmi. I urge
the Libyan Government to release him unconditionally and immediately,
and to end the harassment of his family.
Engagement does not mean that we surrender our values. Engagement
means we are in a stronger position to advance our values and to secure
real change. I urge the Bush administration to use this opportunity to
assert America's interests in a broader relationship that will put
Libya on a more sustainable, and more democratic, path.

[[Page 17765]]

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has
unanimously passed legislation that, in conjunction with an
international agreement being finalized between the United States and
Libya, will at long last provide full and fair compensation to those
United States nationals who have terrorism-related claims against
Libya. I commend Senator Frank Lautenberg, who has been working hard
for years to try to get justice for these victims of terror, as well as
the other cosponsors who have enabled this important legislation to win
Senate approval.
This legislation takes a critical step in securing the final payment
of settlement amounts already reached by the victims of the Pan Am 103
Lockerbie bombing and the LaBelle discotheque bombing, as well as fair
compensation for all other similar claims against Libya. It has wide
support among victims' rights groups, and it will be an important step
in restoring relations between the United States and Libya.
I urge the House to work quickly to pass this legislation so that we
can send this bill to the President's desk.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join with Senators Biden, Lugar,
Lautenberg, Warner, and Leahy today in submitting the Libya Claims
Resolution Act.
During last year's consideration of the Defense authorization bill, I
joined with Senator Lautenberg and 31 other cosponsors in unanimously
adding a provision which allowed victims of terrorism to seek redress
in U.S. courts against foreign states whose officials or agents commit
acts of terrorism, by establishing a private right of action under the
sovereign immunity exception for state sponsors of terrorism.
I supported the Lautenberg amendment to the Defense authorization
bill out of concern over Libya's backing out of a settlement agreement
with the victims and families of victims of the 1986 bombing of the La
Belle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany. On April 5, 1986, Libya directed
its agents to execute a terrorist attack in West Berlin for the sole
purpose of killing as many American military personnel as possible. The
La Belle Discotheque was known to be frequented by large numbers of
U.S. military personnel. The bombing of the discotheque occurred at a
time when 260 people, including U.S. military personnel, were present.
When the bomb detonated, two U.S. soldiers were killed and over 90 U.S.
soldiers were injured.
Since shortly after the National Defense Authorization Act was
enacted in January 2008, and in direct response to the Lautenberg
provision, the Libyans approached the State Department about securing a
comprehensive settlement of claims against Libya brought by American
victims of acts of terrorism.
Under the proposed international agreement the United States would
receive sufficient funding to pay the two large outstanding settlements
with Libya--the Pan Am 103 families' settlement and the La Belle
Discotheque settlement--as Congress has requested in previous
legislation. In addition, Libya would provide sufficient funds to
ensure fair compensation of the other pending claims for acts of
terrorism.
In return for this comprehensive claims settlement, the United States
will need to assure Libya that it will not face further terrorism-
related litigation in U.S. courts. This legislation, the Libya Claims
Resolution Act, will restore Libya's sovereign immunity--once the
United States has received the agreed funding.
With the enactment of this legislation, the international agreement
can be concluded quickly and the money channeled to American claimants.
According to the State Department, the Pan Am and La Belle claimants
should receive their settlements shortly after the agreement is signed,
ending years of waiting for just compensation form Libya.
I commend the State Department for its efforts to bring these claims
to a resolution.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be read three times and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3370) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 3370

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 ``Libyan Claims Resolution
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

SEC. 4. ENTITY TO ASSIST IN IMPLEMENTATION OF CLAIMS
AGREEMENT.

(I) held by an entity designated by the Secretary under
subsection (a)(1);
(II) transferred to the entity; or
(III) transferred from the entity.

SEC. 5. RECEIPT OF ADEQUATE FUNDS; IMMUNITIES OF LIBYA.

[[Page 17766]]

U.S.C. 1605A note), section 589 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1997 (28 U.S.C. 1605 note), and any other private right of
action relating to acts by a state sponsor of terrorism
arising under Federal, State, or foreign law shall not apply
with respect to claims against Libya, or any of its agencies,
instrumentalities, officials, employees, or agents in any
action in a Federal or State court; and
(C) any attachment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment,
or other judicial process brought against property of Libya,
or property of any agency, instrumentality, official,
employee, or agent of Libya, in connection with an action
that would be precluded by subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be
void.
(2) Certification.--A certification described in this
paragraph is a certification--
(A) by the Secretary to the appropriate congressional
committees; and
(B) stating that the United States Government has received
funds pursuant to the claims agreement that are sufficient to
ensure--
(i) payment of the settlements referred to in section
654(b) of division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2342); and
(ii) fair compensation of claims of nationals of the United
States for wrongful death or physical injury in cases pending
on the date of enactment of this Act against Libya arising
under section 1605A of title 28, United States Code
(including any action brought under section 1605(a)(7) of
title 28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1997 (28 U.S.C. 1605 note), that has been
given effect as if the action had originally been filed under
1605A(c) of title 28, United States Code, pursuant to section
1083(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 342; 28 U.S.C. 1605A
note)).
(b) Temporal Scope.--Subsection (a) shall apply only with
respect to any conduct or event occurring before June 30,
2006, regardless of whether, or the extent to which,
application of that subsection affects any action filed
before, on, or after that date.
(c) Authority of the Secretary.--The certification by the
Secretary referred to in subsection (a)(2) may not be
delegated, and shall not be subject to judicial review.

____________________

AUTHORIZING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 642 submitted earlier
today by Senators Reid and McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 642) to authorize the production of
records by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has
received requests from various law enforcement and regulatory agencies,
seeking access to records that the Subcommittee obtained during its
recent investigation into tax haven financial institutions, their
formation and administration of offshore entities and accounts for use
by U.S. clients, and the impact of those activities on tax compliance
in the United States.
This resolution would authorize the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, acting jointly,
to provide records, obtained by the Subcommittee in the course of its
investigation, in response to these requests and any similar requests
from government entities and officials with a legitimate need for the
records.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 642) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 642

Whereas, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
conducted an investigation into tax haven financial
institutions, their formation and administration of offshore
entities and accounts for use by U.S. clients, and the impact
of those activities on tax compliance in the United States;
Whereas, the Subcommittee has received a number of requests
from law enforcement and regulatory agencies for access to
records of the Subcommittee's investigation;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion
of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote
the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the
Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, acting
jointly, are authorized to provide to law enforcement
officials, regulatory agencies, and other entities or
individuals duly authorized by federal, state, or foreign
governments, records of the Subcommittee's investigation into
tax haven financial institutions, their formation and
administration of offshore entities and accounts for use by
U.S. clients, and the impact of those activities on tax
compliance in the United States.

____________________

MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 3406

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3406, introduced
earlier today by Senator Harkin, is at the desk, and I ask for its
first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title for
the first time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3406) to restore the intent and protections of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and
object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bill will be
read for the second time on the next legislative day.

____________________

APPOINTMENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,
pursuant to Public Law 110-181, appoints the following individual to
the Commission on Wartime Contracting: Robert J. Henke of Virginia.

____________________

ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 2008

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, Friday, August 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to
proceed to S. 3001, the Defense authorization bill, with Senators
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:20 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, August 1, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEBORAH HERSMAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING
DECEMBER 31, 2013. (REAPPOINTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SUNG Y. KIM, OF CALIFORNIA, A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF
CLASS ONE, FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR

[[Page 17767]]

DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE SIX
PARTY TALKS.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

ANTHONY W. RYAN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AN UNDER SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY, VICE ROBERT K. STEEL, RESIGNED.

THE JUDICIARY

JOHN J. THARP, JR., OF ILLINOIS, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, VICE
MARK R. FILIP, RESIGNED.
J. RICHARD BARRY, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, VICE
WILLIAM H. BARBOUR, JR., RETIRED.
THOMAS MARCELLE, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, VICE FREDERICK
J. SCULLIN, JR., RETIRED.

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

GINEEN BRESSO BEACH, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM
EXPIRING DECEMBER 12, 2009, VICE CAROLINE C. HUNTER,
RESIGNED.

[[Page 17768]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, in compliance with new ``earmark''
disclosure procedures adopted by the House Republican Conference, I
hereby provide the following information regarding a request for
funding I made of the House Appropriations Committee for inclusion in
H.R. 6599, the Military Construction--VA Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2009.
Specifically, the project will be included in Title 1, Military
Construction--Army.
H.R. 6599 includes $9.9 million for Phase 1 of the Ballistic
Evaluation Facility (66725) in the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense
Authorization Act. The entity to receive the funding for this project
is the United States Army, specifically the Armament Research
Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) located at Picatinny
Arsenal, Picatinny, New Jersey, 07806-5000.
The actual design and construction will be executed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The funding will be used for planning, design and construction of a
state-of-the-art Ballistic Experimentation Facility (BEF) for Large
Caliber Armaments at Picatinny Arsenal. This process will produce a
one-of-kind research and testing facility which will reduce Army's
operational overhead and maintenance costs and improve safety for Army
employees. The use of U.S. taxpayer funding is justified because this
construction will provide near-term and long-range benefits to the
joint warfighter--Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force.
As this funding will be provided to the United States Army, the
requirement of matching funds is not applicable.

____________________

IN HONOR OF ALEX MISTRI

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Alex Mistri, a former
U.S. House of Representatives staffer who left the legislative branch
to serve with honor and distinction as President Bush's Special
Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.
I have known many White House legislative liaisons in my 22 years as
a U.S. Representative. Of all those who have served the four presidents
I have worked with, Alex Mistri stands out as the most professional,
dedicated and skilled.
Alex recently left the White House to work for the State Department
at our embassy in Baghdad. He is joined there by his wife, Amy McKennis
Mistri. I have no doubt Alex will be an asset to both our government
and the Iraqi people.
Alex began his service as Special Assistant for Legislative Affairs
to the President in February 2005. As one of the President's principal
liaisons to the House, Alex's primary responsibility was to develop,
coordinate and execute White House strategy on legislative issues. Alex
specialized in issues related to national security, homeland security,
international affairs and tax policy. As a senior member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Foreign Affairs, I
developed a very strong and productive working relationship with Alex.
Part of Alex's effectiveness, no doubt, arose from his familiarity
with congressional procedures. Prior to his service in the White House,
Alex served as chief of staff for Congressman Bill Shuster. In that
role, Alex was the congressman's chief political and legislative
advisor with daily responsibility for the management of the office.
From the mid-'90s until taking his position as Congressman Shuster's
chief of staff, Alex worked as legislative director to Congressman
Robin Hayes, legislative assistant to Senator Lauch Faircloth, and
press aide to Senator Alfonse D'Amato.
Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in thanking Alex for many
years of laudable service to the House, Senate and administration, and
in wishing him great success in Iraq.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO JOAN LEE

______

HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Joan Lee, a
dear friend, tireless volunteer and community leader who recently
passed away. Joan served as the Convener for the Sacramento Gray
Panthers and was an admired advocate for seniors and people with
disabilities. As her family and friends gather to honor and remember
her wonderful life, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting one
of Sacramento's most well-respected figures.
Joan was a prominent leader in the Sacramento Region, and her death
leaves a tremendous void in leadership in the fight for the rights of
seniors, people with disabilities and those with mental health needs.
Joan's determined and effective advocacy was evident through her early
work with the Gray Panthers of California, where she was widely
recognized as a thoughtful policy advocate. Later, along with other
leaders, Joan helped form and convene the local Sacramento Gray
Panthers chapter, which now meets regularly at the Hart Senior Center.
Through her advocacy at the local, State and national levels, Joan
became an important ambassador between diverse groups and helped devise
strategies for healthcare reform. Joan was a stalwart for progressive
causes, and her passion and commitment to these issues resonated in her
advocacy. While in her mid-50's, Joan returned to college and earned a
degree in Gerontology. She then used her knowledge to fight for the
rights of older adults on many fronts, including creating an innovative
long term care program in Northern California and successfully
advocating for medical schools to have required courses in gerontology.
At the Federal level, Joan often stood next to me and my late husband
Congressman Bob Matsui in the fight against cuts to Medicare. She also
was an articulate voice during the implementation of the Medicare Part
D prescription drug program, offering insights on how to improve the
program. Joan was an active member of the OuRx coalition, which links
low income seniors with prescription drug discount plans. Furthermore,
she never wavered in the fight to preserve the integrity of the Social
Security program.
At the State Capitol, Joan became someone who was known in the
corridors of power. She served on many policymaking groups, including
the Olmstead Advisory Committee. The Committee was in charge of
implementing the landmark 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ``Olmstead Decision''
which requires States to take steps to avoid the unnecessary
institutionalization of seniors and people with disabilities. From
advocating for an accessible and affordable health care system to
ensuring Medicare is responsive to our Nation's seniors needs, Joan
always stood up for what is right.
Madam Speaker, as Joan Lee's husband Arnie Godmintz, her children
John, David and Cleo and her friends gather to honor her wonderful
legacy and countless contributions, I am honored to pay tribute to her.
I ask all my colleagues to pause and join me in paying respect to an
extraordinary loving woman, Joan Lee.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE WASHINGTON ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 161ST
INFANTRY BATTALION, 81ST BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM

______

HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS

of washington

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join with the
citizens of the Fifth Congressional District, State of

[[Page 17769]]

Washington in recognition of the 161st Infantry Battalion, 81st Brigade
Combat Team, Washington Army National Guard as it prepares for its
second one-year tour of duty in Iraq since its mobilization in 2003.
Soldiers of the 81st Brigade Combat Team will be responsible for convoy
security and force protection missions throughout Iraq, where they
previously deployed in 2004 and 2005.
From its inception, the mission of the National Guard has been the
defense of our Nation's borders. However, since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001 the defense of our borders has become an ``away
game'' as our military has taken the fight to the enemy. No less
involved has been the Army National Guard.
The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Army Lieutenant General H.
Steven Blum reported that at one point in the war on terror, National
Guard members made up almost half of the ground forces in Iraq and
since 9/11, more than 400,000 Guardsmen have been mobilized in support
of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
Every aspect of a military mission is critical to its success and
each one of these Guardsmen has committed time for pre-deployment
training, leaving family and business behind to prepare themselves for
a mission of historic and global significance.
We are grateful to these citizen soldiers and we thank them for their
selfless-service in peacetime and war, here in this Nation and
throughout the world. Their simple love of country and dedication to
liberty compels them to serve this great nation and so today we
recognize their commitment, sacrifice and courage in their willingness
to protect and defend our Nation in the Global War on Terrorism.
We are also grateful for the sacrifice of family members who also pay
a price for freedom. We may never be able to adequately thank our
soldiers and their families but we must always support them. It is with
a deep sense of pride, Madam Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me
in thanking the members of the 161st Infantry Battalion, 81st Brigade
Combat Team for their service.

____________________

HOUSE REPUBLICANS INTRODUCE ENERGY LEGISLATION

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, last week House
Republicans introduced the American Energy Act--an all-of-the-above
approach to reduce energy prices for hard-working Americans and their
families.
Our Nation is increasingly dependent on foreign oil. This endangers
our economy and our national security. The billions we send overseas to
buy foreign oil should be spent investing in American-made energy by
exploring for our own resources in an environmentally sound way.
We also need to expand our research into alternative, renewable
energy sources like biomass, hydrogen, wind, solar, and nuclear power
while encouraging American consumers to conserve. Our bill does all of
this.
I urge the House Democrat leadership to join with us before
adjournment to promote an American energy program. The American people
deserve this opportunity to have their voices heard.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11th.

____________________

MR. ALVIN G. RANDOLPH

______

HON. TED POE

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to honor the life of Mr.
Alvin G. Randolph who passed away June 23, 2008. Mr. Randolph was a
businessperson, a fine father, and served his community. He also played
a role in desegregating the Lamar State College of Technology in 1956,
giving a countless number of youth an equal opportunity for education
no matter their race.
Alvin was born in Orange, Texas, as the third of eleven children. He
graduated from high school in 1943 and enrolled in Prairie View College
shortly afterwards, where he worked as a repair person for room and
board. He put his education on hold to serve his country when he was
drafted into World War II as an officer candidate. After his service to
his country, he returned home and attended Jefferson Junior College
where he earned his real estate broker's license.
At the same time, there was a tremendous social revolution happening
in the United States. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the
landmark case Brown vs. Board of Education, naming separate educational
facilities inherently unequal and setting the stage for integration and
the Civil Rights Movement. This opened the doors to schools and
universities across the nation but there was still a segment of the
population that was set on keeping them closed.
As African-American students walked up to the doors of their new
universities, they were often greeted with protests and picket lines
and Lamar State College of Technology was no different. Nevertheless,
Alvin and 25 other black students enrolled and were accepted to Lamar's
campus of 5,455 students. They battled the almost riotous conditions
and paved the way to an equal education for a student of any race.
Randolph earned his business degree in 1958 and went on to study
property law at Texas Southern University. He worked as a real estate
broker, homebuilder, and life insurance underwriter. With his wife
Jerodine, they had five children. He was active in both the Northside
and Eleventh Street Churches of Christ and served on the Board of
Directors at the L.L. Melton YMCA. He passed away at the age of 80.
On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, I honor Mr.
Alvin Randolph for his courage in the face of tremendous adversity. He
helped make our world a better place to live, and I applaud his
unwavering service and dedication to the community. Alvin Randolph is a
true American hero.

____________________

HONORING MIKE RAMBO

______

HON. KENNY MARCHANT

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael Dean Rambo
of Colleyville, Texas. Michael was an outstanding husband, father, and
Scout Master for Troop 28. He educated and guided the youth of his
community for a number of years. Michael was always looking for the
opportunity to give back to the community in which he lived. He loved
his family and friends and they loved him.
Michael was a remarkable friend, neighbor, and public servant with
infinite talents and gifts which he shared with all who had the honor
to know him. He was an expert in ornithology, astronomy, computer
architecture, math, and photography.
Michael always had a childlike wonder and awe of the world around
him, an insatiable thirst for knowledge, and a relentless desire for
understanding. He was constantly observing everything that the world
had to offer. His example and enthusiasm made those around him want to
learn more, to do more, and be more.
Michael was always up for a challenge and was always willing to lend
a hand. He volunteered on the Longhorn Council for over fifteen years.
He was the Cubmaster for Pack 254 before taking the lead roll for Troop
28. Michael was the guiding light for Troop 28 for twelve years, and
under Rambo's leadership, Troop 28 earned Colleyville's first Service
Award. Michael once said, ``When I took over the Scoutmaster role, I
felt I was taking responsibility for a living breathing organism.
Among Michael's many other accomplishments, he earned Eagle Scout
honors at the age of thirteen. He earned a Select Student in Science
and Math Degree from Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches,
Texas. He went on to earn a master's degree in Computer Engineering at
the University of Texas at Arlington in Arlington, Texas. Michael was
also a three time recipient of The Presidents Volunteer Service Award
(2005, 2006, 2007), winner of the 2006 McKesson Corporation Neil Harlan
community service award.
His favorite people were his sons, Charles Patrick Rambo and Aaron
Michael Rambo, and his wife, Mary Margaret Jameson Rambo. Michael loved
to visit the Grand Canyon where he hiked, rafted, and photographed its
splendor on multiple occasions. His greatest desire was to travel in
space. On May 31, 2008, a photograph of Michael was carried in the
flight book of mission specialist Ronald J. Garan aboard the space
shuttle Discovery on mission STS-124.
Michael Rambo selflessly served the community, loved his family and
friends, and enjoyed life to the fullest. He was a role model of
superior citizenship who made a tremendous impact on countless lives.

[[Page 17770]]

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DETECTIVE GARY EDENHOFER

______

HON. BRIAN HIGGINS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to honor the
accomplishments of Detective Gary Edenhofer of the Cheektowaga Police
Department.
Detective Edenhofer began his law enforcement career as a patrol
officer on the midnight shift. He is now retiring as a detective after
31 years with the force.
Throughout his career Gary has worked on several high-profile cases
including robberies and homicides. The Western New York community is
greatly appreciative for the increased security Detective Edenhofer has
offered them.
Gary Edenhofer leaves behind a great legacy, as his career is marked
by several highlights. In 1989 he was recognized by the Town Board for
arresting suspects who had burglarized a gun store. He also received
commendations in 2005 for his work investigating the abduction of a man
left locked in a car trunk.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to honor Detective
Edenhofer's career with the Cheektowaga Police Department, and I ask
you to join me in wishing him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

____________________

FLIGHT 458

______

HON. TED POE

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, flying the friendly skies seems to be
increasingly out of reach for most travelers. I, like many other
Americans, am a frequent flyer and have been fortunate enough to have
always arrived at my destination safely. Because of the quick action of
pilots Captain David Skidmore, 1st Officer Michael Nelson Jr. and the
crew of Continental flight 458 on July 22, 2008 this statement still
holds true. Captain David Skidmore, has worked for Continental Airlines
for seven years and recently completed his Captain's training in
December of 2007. 1st Officer Michael Nelson Jr. has been with
Continental since May 2008.
When our plane suddenly lost altitude and cabin pressure on Tuesday
afternoon, the pilots regained control of the aircraft without
hesitation. As I, along with the 117 other people, including 6 other
members of Congress, aboard the D.C.-bound flight from Houston, TX put
on our oxygen masks we imagined the possibilities. While the plane took
a steep dissent at rapid speed, Captain David Skidmore and 1st Officer
Michael Nelson Jr. remained calm under the pressure.
Although faced with a possibly dire situation, the pilots were able
to safely make an emergency landing in New Orleans. We landed with the
fire trucks lining the runway--just like in the movies. From the time
when our flight began experiencing difficulties to when we were on the
ground 20 minutes later, the pilots and crew flawlessly executed their
emergency procedures. Continental Airlines made travel arrangements for
all 117 passengers and put us on three different flights to D.C. We
arrived in Washington about six hours later. The members of Congress
did miss votes however. Ironically, one bill was to upgrade aviation
safety. The bill passed unanimously without the missing seven members
of Congress. No doubt, if present I would have voted yes on this bill
H.R. 6493.
The pilot's combined experience, along with the flight crew's quick
action, is truly commendable. I am fortunate, as a passenger, to have
been in the care of such capable pilot's as Captain David Skidmore, and
1st Officer Michael Nelson Jr.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

HONORING THE REVITALIZATION OF YOUNGSVILLE (ROY) ORGANIZATION

______

HON. PHIL ENGLISH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize
the Revitalization of Youngsville (ROY) organization and their
extraordinary efforts to promote energy conservation in Warren County,
Pennsylvania.
In response to the rising food and energy costs, the members of ROY
started an innovative project in their community called ``Night Out/
Lights Out.'' Starting June 1st, members have been asking residents to
turn off all of their lights, televisions, computers and other
electrical appliances from 7 to 9 p.m. every Sunday during the summer
in an effort to cut electric costs and promote awareness of rising
electric and fuel prices. The secondary purpose of the event is to
encourage residents to go outside and socialize with their neighbors.
This simple, yet innovative solution to the looming energy crisis is
a great example of how every American can do his or her part to
conserve energy. In addition to helping local citizens reduce their
energy consumption, this program has revived a deep sense of community
among the residents of Youngsville.
Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating
the members of ROY on their successes thus far and encourage them to
continue their efforts to promote energy conservation and awareness.

____________________

THE BENEFITS OF PHYSICAL AND HEALTH EDUCATION FOR OUR NATION'S CHILDREN

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Miller
for his continued commitment to comprehensive education and ensuring
that all children have access to the resources that will help them
become healthy and productive adults. I would also like to thank my
friends Congressman Ron Kind and Congressman Zach Wamp for their
persistence in encouraging healthier lifestyles and choices for our
nation's youth.
The problem of childhood obesity is well-documented, and we are all
familiar with the statistics: 32 percent of the nation's children are
overweight, 16 percent are obese, and the Department of Health and
Human Services estimates that the figure will exceed 20 percent by
2010. ``Adult onset'' diabetes has become a misnomer: incidence of type
II has doubled in youth. As computers, cell phones, video game systems,
and other types of technology become more prevalent in America's homes,
children are redefining ``recreation'' away from physical activity and
toward sedentary activities.
Responses to this epidemic abound, and they need to be supported and
enhanced. Youth need more regular physical activity, parents must make
healthier decisions regarding family diet, exposure to technology must
be monitored and regulated, and nutrition education must be a component
of elementary and middle school curricula.
At the same time, however, I believe if we are to combat this problem
effectively we must also understand and address the causes of the
problem. One of the causes that particularly distresses me, and one
that receives relatively little attention, is the aggressive and
predatory marketing of food and beverages to children and adolescents.
In 2006 the Institute of Medicine reported that it is estimated that
more than $10 billion annually is spent marketing food and beverages to
youth; the vast majority of that money is spent marketing items with
marginal or no nutritive value. Do they get a bang for the buck? Food
and beverage sales to children and youth exceed $27 billion annually.
They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
While television remains the most popular medium for marketing, food
and beverage companies have been industrious, to say the least, in
creating new means to market their products and create branding
opportunities. Product placement in movies, video games, music videos,
and even news broadcasts ensure exposure to brands and products despite
best efforts to avoid commercials and print advertisements. Banner and
pop-up advertisements on the internet intrude on children's surfing
routinely, despite the best software protections. Sponsorship at school
sporting events, advertisements in school newspapers and in prepackaged
media, and snacks in vending machines ensure that children are exposed
to products and brands throughout the school day. We are fast
approaching the day, if we aren't there already, when children find
respite from food and beverage marketing only as they close their eyes
to sleep.
This is not harmless advertising. Food and beverage marketing uses
the best research available about brain development to ensure that
their products are exposed to minds not yet fully developed. Again the
Institute of Medicine reports that research tells us that humans
develop consumption motives and values at an early age. In other words,
developing brand allegiances early in life is profitable. The report
also tells us that children

[[Page 17771]]

have widely varied abilities to separate factual information from
persuasive content and those abilities develop at different ages. In
other words, it is easy to convince children that a product is healthy.
I firmly believe that if we are to help our children cultivate
healthier lifestyle habits and make better nutrition choices, we must
protect them from marketing practices whose primary function is to
encourage increased consumption of unhealthy products. Any policy
response to the youth obesity epidemic must include concrete ways to
regulate the exposure of children and adolescents to food and beverage
marketing.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was not present for the vote
on this resolution (H. Con. Res. 398), despite my best efforts to reach
the House floor in time to do so.
Had those efforts been successful, I would have voted ``no,'' because
I think we should not adjourn or recess this week until completing
action on legislation to revise our national energy policies--something
that has not yet occurred.
I left on an early flight out of Colorado this morning in an effort
to reach the House in time for that vote. My flight landed just as the
vote began.
As soon as I got in the car, I called the cloakroom to advise that I
was en route, and asked that the vote be held open until I arrived. I
was no more than 10 minutes from the Capitol, and I was aware the vote
was being held open already--as the first vote of the day, apparently
in an effort to give Members additional time to arrive and cast their
votes.
However, the vote was completed as I entered the Capitol. I regret
that my request that the vote be held open was not honored and that I
was not able to cast my vote even though I was only seconds short of
being able to do so.

____________________

HONORING THE CAREER AND SERVICE OF MARTHA FLORES

______

HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I humbly honor a dear friend and a
strong community activist, Martha Flores, who has done so much to
improve our South Florida area and who relentlessly promotes the cause
of human rights. Miami-Dade County has honored Martha by naming the
segment of 8th Street and SW 42 Ave after her. This is a testament to
her dedication and service to our community. After leaving her native
Cuba to escape Fidel Castro's communist regime, she established deep
roots in Miami. She has been the producer and host of a nightly radio
program, ``La Noche y Usted (The Night and You), which has earned the
greatest audience of all nightly Spanish talk shows in South Florida.
In recognition of her indelible impact on the community, Martha
Flores was the first woman enshrined in the ``Calle Ocho Walk of
Fame.'' Throughout her distinguished career, she has received many
accolades, but this has not deterred her from her main objective: to
humbly serve her community. One of her first radio shows, ``La Voz de
la Mujer (the Voice of a Woman),'' was the first Spanish radio program
that raised issues concerning the plight of Cuban exiles. She never
forgot her homeland and for nearly 50 years now she has been at the
forefront, while working alongside numerous community organizations, of
bringing to light the repression of Castro's Cuba.
Martha Flores has selflessly given of her time and resources to
volunteer for many humanitarian causes including the League Against
Cancer and League Against Blindness. In addition, she also helped St.
Jude Children's Research Hospital raise much needed funds. She has been
instrumental in bringing public attention and awareness to the needs of
the elderly and disabled adults through her radio program and
volunteerism. She will also be the first ever recipient of the Claude
Pepper Memorial Award in the Media category.
Martha has also made her radio show available to those who work on
behalf of a free and independent Cuba, the sacred land of her birth.
She sends a nightly message of hope and solidarity to her multitude of
fans, many from the oppressed island nation.
Once again, I would like to congratulate Martha Flores for her recent
honor as well as for all the service and activism she has undertaken.
South Florida is honored to have her and the example she has given all
of us.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF CHAD WATSON'S SERVICE TO THE U.S. MARINE CORPS

______

HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the service
and sacrifice of Cpl Chad Michael Watson who lost a leg in an
improvised explosive device attack. While on patrol in the Anbar
province in Iraq on November 29, 2006, Chad's vehicle came under attack
and he was severely wounded and later lost his right leg.
The son of Mike and Gina Watson, Chad was born in Mount Zion,
Illinois on February 8, 1983. He attended Mount Zion High School
graduating in 2004. Chad joined the Marine Corps May 17, 2004 and was
trained as an infantryman. Following his initial training he deployed
to Iraq with Charlie Company, 1st Infantry Battalion, and 24th Marines
where he served until his injury.
During the twenty months of recovery, Chad maintained a positive and
even uplifting attitude which reflected well among those fellow marines
and soldiers passing through the recovery process at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center. Mr. Albert Caswell of the U.S. Capitol Guide Service, a
friend of his, penned the following poem as a fitting tribute to Chad
for his sacrifice and unrelenting commitment to his long and enduring
recovery.

Breaking Chad. . .

Breaking Bad!
Breaking Chad! He's Good, but he's the good king of Bad. . .
A Marine's Marine, one Fine Fighting Machine! The kind of
son, you wish you had!
First in boot camp. . .
First in his class in military school . . . training with his
brothers in arms, as number one he'd rule. . .
Wherever hearts of courage roam, men like Chad have come home
with but their hearts of heroism full. . .
A Hero who went off to war. . .
Who lost a leg, but came back with so much more!
With his courage full, over our hearts he rules . . . as he
takes us all to school . . . is that not what heaven is
for?
Upon, battlefields of honor seen!
Running towards death, as he was strong . . . fast and lean .
. . a real bad fighting machine! Upon the scene!
The kind of guy you'd fight for and not ask why . . . ready
to die for you and his United States Marines!
For in our Country Tis of Thee. . .
There have been many heroes such as these who heard the call
. . . who did not pause, as did he!
Who are but rough & ready, while in the face of hell were
ever steady . . . for their colors did not run, you
see!
And now his new fight. . .
To rebuild his life, with his fine and future wife . . .
teaching us all what is right!
`Oh what a heck of a sight, bringing tears to eyes . . . as
he does not ask why . . . bringing to our world his
light!
SORRY!
Is a word, from him . . . you shall never hear! For he is man
of courage and convictions so very clear!
Which will teach us, which will reach us . . . into our souls
so beseech us here!
In our lives, and in our times. . .
What have we've so done, which so survives . . . which will
live on long after we have died?
For it's all about what we've said and done, and for whom
we've so bled. . . . Which tells the world, Who Am I!
For in That Moment of Truth. . .
How will you break? What is your truth? All in your actions
you take, as so lies the proof!
You may stand, or you may run! You may fade, or shine like
the morning sun! In heroic truth!
How will you break?
What steps will you take? What hearts will you break? While
all in your actions state. . .
God is Good, and God is Great . . . all in heroes as Chad he
creates!
Uraaaahh Jar head. . .
You have fought and you have bled . . . Breaking Bad . . .
all in what your fine heart has said!
What a hero is, and what you must have to break great and
break bad in the fight ahead . . .

[[Page 17772]]

____________________

CELEBRATING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES

______

HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, as a member of the
Congressional Black Caucus I would like to honor the 60th anniversary
of the integration of the United States Armed Forces, which began on
July 26, 1948. When talking about an issue that happened in the past,
we tend to think of it as something that happened overnight or that it
was easy. Integrating the military was not at all easy, but it was a
critical step to moving our nation forward in terms of civil rights.
President Harry S Truman initiated the effort to integrate the Armed
Forces at the request of many black civil rights leaders. Not too many
people expected the President to embrace integration within the
military. Truman was born in Missouri, and his opinion on the issue was
that of any average Missourian of his time. However, as he learned
about the atrocities that were being committed against blacks,
especially against those that had served in World War II, he became
much more committed to civil rights issues and integrating the
military. Indeed, President Truman outlined in his administration's
policies key civil rights efforts, including forming agencies to
address voting rights and fair employment. The most progressive of his
actions was the desegregation of the U.S. Armed Forces, which was
proposed by the President's Committee on Civil Rights.
Support, however, did not come readily from Congress which was
uninterested in civil rights issues. Indeed, the civil rights of
Truman's priorities drew widespread criticism from Southern Democrats.
Members of the military also were skeptical, with particular concern
about legislation that would end racism overnight rather than more
gradually. The argument offered by opponents was that, if blacks were
allowed to be integrated into the Armed Forces, many whites would not
want to join. Proponents of integration countered that the Federal
government must take a leadership role in integrating; if Congress did
not integrate Federal jobs, the private sector would definitely avoid
doing so. To achieve advances in civil rights, Truman appointed The
President's Committee on Civil Rights, which was charged to determine
how to strengthen and improve Federal, State, and local laws to
safeguard civil rights. The Committee identified multiple policies for
Congressional action; however, Truman asserted that civil rights in the
services fell under executive purview. On July 26, 1948, Truman signed
Executive Order 9981 which mandated equal treatment and opportunity for
black members in the Armed Forces. In the end, it was through the
commitment and persistence of various leaders that we have an
integrated military.
The world would be a different place today if such proposals were not
made against the status quo. The integration of the Armed Forces served
as an instrument of social change. As we see from the civil rights
movement, sometimes the best choices require going against the
majority. So, tip my hat to the many leaders who made the integration
of the military a reality, and I celebrate this integration on the
occasion of the 60th anniversary of its enactment.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE ``PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S SECRET RULE
ACT''

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, today I am
introducing a bill to stop the Department of Labor from proceeding with
a new proposed rule that would seriously undermine the ability of the
Federal Government to protect workers' health. The Department's
proposal is the product of a flawed, politicized process.
On July 7, 2008, the Department of Labor submitted a proposed
regulation entitled ``Requirements for DOL Agencies' Assessment of
Occupational Health Risks'' to the Office of Management and Budget,
OMB, for E.O. 12866 regulatory review.
This proposal is being made in contravention of a number of rules and
processes. No notice of this rule was published in the semi-annual
Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866. Furthermore,
unlike all other DOL regulatory submissions to OMB, the information
provided on the OMB Web site did not originally contain the rule's
abstract, legal authority, timetable, agency contact, and other
information required by the Executive Order. Although the intent is to
finalize this rule before the end of the Bush administration, this
submission violated the White House's own directive prohibiting
submission of new regulations to OMB after June 1 except in
``extraordinary circumstances.''
What are the ``extraordinary circumstances'' that are being used to
rush through this last minute, secret regulation on a subject as arcane
and technical as ``risk assessment?'' Assessing risk is the backbone of
any OSHA or MSHA standard that addresses hazards posed by chemicals or
other health hazards. Changing the assumptions underlying risk
assessment to those favored by industry can seriously erode the
effectiveness of all future OSHA or MSHA standards far beyond the life
of this administration.
The Department claims that this proposal was not published in the
most recent regulatory agenda because when the last regulatory agenda
was issued, they had not yet decided whether they would issue a
proposal. But the Washington Post has revealed that they have been
working on this regulation as far back as September 2007, when they
paid $349,000 to outside consultants to conduct a study of the risk-
assessment process.
The entire proposal appears to have been designed and originated by
political appointees at the Department of Labor, bypassing the real
experts at OSHA and MSHA. According to the Washington Post, when a
draft was finally shown to health scientists in MSHA and OSHA, they
objected to both the legality and substance of the proposal and
suggested that the proposal not be issued. The political appointees at
the Department went ahead anyway.
In the last 7\1/2\ years, the Department has only managed to issue
one health standard--and that was done under court order. It has failed
to meet its own deadlines on regulations to protect workers against the
health effects of silica, against the health effects of beryllium, or
against the serious health effects of diacetyl, which causes popcorn
lung.
Yet, suddenly, the Department of Labor has decided that further
weakening the ability of OSHA or MSHA to issue any future health
standards has become its highest priority.
No one is arguing that OSHA or MSHA do not need guidance for risk
assessment. But the Department of Labor already has such guidance. This
new regulation, however, which clearly has the potential to weaken
worker protections, will be codified, binding all future
administrations. Other agencies that have such guidance, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, note that ``because the science of
risk assessment continues to develop rapidly . . . risk assessments
will be modified to use different approaches if appropriate.''
The new Labor regulation, on the other hand, would add an entire
additional layer of review to the already overstressed regulatory
process by requiring notice and comments for all risk-related studies
before a proposal can be issued. This would be in addition to numerous
economic reviews, small business reviews, OMB reviews, public comments
and public hearings that are already required before a standard is
issued.
This Congress will not stand for further weakening of worker
protections, particularly when it's done secretly--as this
administration heads out of town. This bill would forbid the Department
of Labor from issuing, administering or enforcing any rule, regulation,
or requirement derived from the proposal submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget. The Department's proposal is the product of a
flawed, politicized process that has failed to properly consider the
views of experts or the consequences for workplace health.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

____________________

PILOT MOUNTAIN STATE PARK CELEBRATES 40TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. VIRGINIA FOXX

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 40th
anniversary of Pilot Mountain State Park in Surry County, North
Carolina.
Pilot Mountain rises above the North Carolina Piedmont to a height of
2,421 feet and has been a local landmark since the first settlers came
to the region. It's been said that climbers can see more than 3,000
square miles of beautiful North Carolina country from the peak when
skies are clear.

[[Page 17773]]

The mountain received the name Pilot Mountain in 1753 and the State
of North Carolina designated the mountain a State park in 1968. Before
becoming North Carolina's 14th State park, it was privately owned and
changed hands many times.
Pilot Mountain is a distinctive and beautiful piece of North
Carolina's natural heritage. Its peak, a bald crop of quartzite, stands
in stark contrast to the farmland and wooded areas that surround it.
According to local lore, the Saura Indian tribe employed the mountain
as a very intuitive guide to the outlying lands and it is their use of
the mountain that may have contributed to its eventual naming.
Today the Pilot Mountain State Park takes in more than 3,600 acres
and attracts more than 400,000 visitors a year. It is undoubtedly one
of North Carolina's greatest natural treasures and I join the county
and State in celebrating 40 years of conservation and public enjoyment
of this wonderful State park.

____________________

CONGRATULATING BUSKEN BAKERY

______

HON. JEAN SCHMIDT

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Busken
Bakery on their 80th birthday. Busken Bakery is truly an American
success story. From humble beginnings, Busken's has grown into a
Cincinnati institution through hard work, innovation, and a commitment
to the local community.
Joseph and Daisie Busken began their business in 1928, opening their
first bakery in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Cincinnati. Their goals
were modest. According to Busken's website, Joseph Busken was just
looking for a way to feed his family and keep them happy. During the
Great Depression, when other companies were failing, Busken's survived
by offering products that their customers loved.
Following World War II, Joseph's son, Joe, Jr., entered the family
baking business and began making his mark. Joe, Jr., streamlined
production and expanded business to local grocery stores. He introduced
the city's first 24-hour drive-in bakery and began offering dinner
rolls--something unheard of at that time. Some of Joe, Jr.'s other
touches are still in existence today, such as his recipe for double-
butter coffee cake. Today, Busken Bakery is still run by family
including: Page Busken, chairman of the board, Brian Busken, senior
vice-president, and Dan Busken, CEO. And, the family has continued to
change and innovate with the times. On a personal note, I must admit my
favorite Busken item is the Maysville chocolate brownie.
Madam Speaker, please join me in celebrating the rich history of
Busken's Bakery and wishing the entire Busken family continued success
in years to come.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES

______

HON. FRED UPTON

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
in honor of Residential Opportunities Incorporated of Kalamazoo,
Michigan, to commemorate their 30th anniversary.
Residential Opportunities was incorporated in December of 1977 to
address growing concerns regarding the lack of a standard of care for
developmentally disabled adults. Based on the principle of
normalization, Residential Opportunities began establishing group homes
in an effort to combine an independent living experience with a high
standard of care. Since that time, ROI has expanded their programs, and
this year alone has improved the quality of life for 648 people.
Today, Residential Opportunities operates Homestead Housing Service,
which helps find safe, affordable housing; Stone Cottage, a 24-hour
residential and support center for military veterans; and Home Health
Aide, which provides in-home support to developmentally disabled
children. In addition to these endeavors, ROI operates 21 group homes
that currently serve 148 of Southwest Michigan's most vulnerable
adults.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the staff and
caregivers of Residential Opportunities Incorporated, whose compassion,
dedication, and strength has brightened the lives of so many. I am
confident that the 30 years of good works provided by ROI is just the
tip of the iceberg, and we can expect many more years of exceptional
care and service to come.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. YUHUA WANG

______

HON. CORRINE BROWN

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to pay
tribute to Dr. Yuhua Wang, who has been recognized as a great artist
and sculptor.
Dr. Wang was born in China, and permanently resides in the United
States. Since 2000, she has worked as a visiting professor of oriental
arts in the College of Liberal Arts at Auburn University, where she has
received several commendation certificates for excellent work
performance.
In August 2008, Dr. Wang's book entitled World's Highest-Level Color
Paintings and Ink-Wash Paintings will be published and distributed
worldwide by International Arts Publishing. Dr. Wang has meticulously
and delicately applied fine-brushwork and oil colors on hand-sculpted
coral and cobblestones which have become treasures of the world.
In the history of Chinese art, her lotus flower paintings are
unsurpassed and are extremely valuable. In addition to being proficient
in Chinese paintings, she is a highly talented sculptor whose themes
are nature's mountains, rocks and plants. Dr. Wang's skills in the
creation of colors, paintings and sculptures have reached the acme of
perfection in their exquisiteness, elegance and beauty.
Dr. Wang, who takes great pleasure in helping others, is a selfless
person whose moral character is noble, which is evidenced by the
numerous awards and honors she has received. She has made great
contributions to the development of cultural exchange between the East
and West. Through her practice of Buddhism; Professor Wang benefits
humanity and all living beings.
Madam Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to
Dr. Yuhua Wang, an outstanding artist and scholar, who has chosen to
make her home here in the United States because she has heartfelt love
for its people.

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO LEW AND AMY KIRSCHNER

______

HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I am please to congratulate my
constituents, Lew and Amy Kirschner, on the occasion of their 50th
wedding anniversary. Mr. and Mrs. Kirschner are venerated members of
our community, and I am proud to recognize their commitment to each
other.
Amy and Lew Kirschner are a remarkable couple, who have dedicated
themselves to each other and to the greater good of their community. In
each endeavor they undertake, their remarkable sense of purpose and
loyalty shines through. Over the years they have invested much of their
time in serving their community in various manners. Lew's work on the
boards of many area organizations and Amy's dedication to a variety of
community based organizations has kept them at the heart of all of the
most pressing issues facing our city. Their advice and firm support
have been invaluable.
Lew and Amy have truly achieved a tremendous accomplishment in being
able to look back and celebrate fifty-years of shared love, personal
growth and hard work, knowing that they have remained steadfast in
their commitment to one another, their family and their community.
Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with
Lew and Amy for more than thirty years. They have been good friends and
outstanding citizens. I am pleased to be able to recognize and
congratulate them on this momentous occasion.

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS TO UNITED SPACE SCHOOL PROGRAM

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on August 5 the Foundation for International
Space Education (FISE) will host United Space School

[[Page 17774]]

Day at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston,
Texas. The United Space School Day is a summer science camp/health
careers promotion activity coordinated by the East Texas Area Health
Education Center (AHEC). The United Space School Day's activities will
focus on the education pathways appropriate for students interested in
careers in life sciences, aerospace medicine, and bioastronautics.
United Space School Day is just one part of FISE's United Space
School program. The United Space School program, established in 1994,
is the major way FISE carries out its mission of providing space-based
academic instruction to pre-collegiate students from across America and
around the world who are interested in science, engineering,
technology, or mathematics careers. The United Space School gives these
students the opportunity to learn from some of the space industry's
leading experts. Participants in the programs follow a curriculum
specially designed to provide appropriate training and development by
instructors qualified and knowledgeable in the proper disciplines.
As the students visit the various educational venues and participate
in the space-related learning initiatives, they are exposed to myriad
examples of space-related careers as well as careers in industries that
support the space programs. United Space School students also benefit
from daily one-on-one interaction with leading aerospace professionals
from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the
Johnson Space Center (JSC), and the supporting aerospace community.
United Space School participants are also given a unique ``hands on''
learning experience through the development of a Manned Mission to Mars
Project. United Space School's organization, schedule, and curriculum
are designed to provide the structure, knowledge, resources, mentoring,
and appropriate settings to complete the Manned Mission to Mars
project.
Madam Speaker, FISE's United Space School program is doing invaluable
work in preparing the next generation of scientists and aerospace
engineers. I would not be surprised if future breakthroughs in space
technology came from alumni of the United Space School program. It is
therefore my pleasure to extend my congratulations to the United Space
School program on the occasion of the United Space School Day. I also
extend my thanks to NASA, the Johnson Space Center, the University of
Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, East Texas AHEC, and all the
volunteers who help make the United Space School program possible.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Robert E. Latta.
Bill Number: HR. 6599: Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs
Appropriations Act.
Account: Department of Defense; Army National Guard.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ohio National Guard.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2825 West Dublin Granville Road,
Columbus, Ohio 43235.
Description of Request: Provide $2 million in P-341 (unspecified
minor military construction) funds pursuant to Title 10 US Code 2805,
to construct a new 80-bed barracks at the Ohio National Guard's Camp
Perry Training Site, Port Clinton, OH. The request will increase the
readiness of our servicemen and women in the Ohio National Guard and
help them better prepare for the challenges they face both at home and
abroad.

____________________

PERSONAL EMPLANATION

______

HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on
the following legislative measure on July 15, 2008. If I were present
for the roll call vote, I would have voted Yea on the following:
Roll No. 491, July 15, 2008: On Passage, Objections of the President
Not Withstanding: H.R. 6331, To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare
Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and mental health
services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain
access to care in rural areas, including pharmacy access, and for other
purposes.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MARK COVERT

______

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mark Covert who,
on July 23rd, marked the 40th anniversary of an unparalleled running
streak. Covert, a running coach and former elite athlete, has run at
least one mile every day since July 23rd 1968. Overall, he has run
140,045 miles--and counting--since the streak began. The United States
Running Streak Association lists Mark Covert as the current U.S. leader
for the longest continuous streak.
Although he currently lives in Lancaster, California, where he
coaches the Antelope Valley College cross country and track teams,
Covert's streak is actually a significant part of Oregon history. One
of the most important ``daily runs'' of the streak came in 1972, when
Covert ran in the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials at the University of
Oregon, in Eugene. Even though he just missed making the team, he still
made history by being the first athlete to cross a finish line wearing
an unusual pair of shoes with rubber soles that were made on a waffle
iron.
These so-called ``moon shoes'' were invented in the kitchen of an
enterprising entrepreneur named Bill Bowerman. Bowerman, along with his
partner Phil Knight, based an entire company and, indeed, an entire
fitness movement, on these revolutionary shoes. The company, of course,
is Nike, and Covert was one of the first employees in the early 1970s.
He has stayed true to the legacy by running 117,028 miles in Nikes over
the years.
The partnership continued at this year's Olympic Track and Field
Trials--held, once again, at the University of Oregon's historic
Hayward Field--where Nike sold T-shirts honoring two different
athletes--legendary Oregon runner Steve Prefontaine and, you guessed
it, Mark Covert.
As an important part of the U.S. running movement in its early years,
Mark Covert's place in history was already secure. Now, through his
current unmatched running streak, he continues to inspire and motivate
thousands of runners around the country and around the world. I'd like
to thank him for his commitment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF JOEY QUINTO

______

HON. HILDA L. SOLIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements
of Joey Quinto, publisher of the California Journal for Filipino
Americans.
Mr. Quinto was born and educated in the Philippines, where he
received a Bachelor of Science in Marketing from San Beda College in
Manila, Philippines. He also graduated from the Minority Business
Executive Programs of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth in
Hanover, New Hampshire. Mr. Quinto now resides with his wife Carlyn and
daughter Carlette in Palos Verdes, California.
Mr. Quinto's contributions to the advancement of the API community
are many. He began his professional career in California in 1984 as a
mortgage banker. As a publisher, his weekly newspaper advances the
interests of the API community and appropriately addresses local,
consumer and business news, and community events. He is also a member
of several community organizations. These include the Los Angeles
Minority Business Opportunity Committee and The Greenlining Coalition.
His contributions have been widely recognized. Mr. Quinto is the
recipient of the Award for Excellence in Journalism during the Fourth
Annual Asian Pacific Islander Heritage Awards in celebration of the
Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month. This award recognizes
prominent APIs that have excelled in bringing pertinent news to the API
community. He previously was listed among the Star Suppliers of the
Year of the Southern California Regional Purchasing Council in 1999,
received the Minority Media Award from the U.S. Small Business
Administration in 1997, and has also earned a leadership award from the
Filipino American Chamber of Commerce based in Los Angeles.

[[Page 17775]]

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in
congratulating Joey Quinto for his years of service to the API
community. Through his tireless work effort he has demonstrated that
the American dream is possible.

____________________

SUPPORTING NATIONAL INTERNET SAFETY MONTH

______

HON. BART STUPAK

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1260, a
resolution in support of the goals and ideals of ``National Internet
Safety Month''. This is an issue I have personally been working on for
a number of years through the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
Through the Subcommittee's investigation, we've been able to
influence significant changes in the industry, including better
filtering and reporting efforts among Internet Service Providers,
social networking sites, and other content providers.
We have also discovered a number of alarming statistics, for example:
One in five children report receiving a sexual solicitation over the
Internet, more than 3.5 million pornographic images of American
children are in circulation on the Internet, and the sale of these
images over the Internet represents a billion dollar industry.
The anonymity provided by the Internet to those that seek to exploit
and harm children and the lightning pace data is transmitted provides a
Congress with significant policy challenges.
While we've made some progress in the last few years, I feel that
we've only begun to address the scope of this problem.
By recognizing National Internet Safety Month, we remind ourselves
how important it is for Congress to remain committed and vigilant to
ensure that the Internet is a safe place for children.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. SANDER M. LEVIN

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I was also unavoidably absent yesterday
during rollcall votes 534, 535 and 536. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 534 to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to conduct a pilot program using mobile biometric
identification tools to identify terrorists and other individuals who
pose risks to border security; ``yea'' on rollcall 535 to require each
federal agency to include a telephone number in its collection of
information in order to assist people with filling out government
forms; and ``yea'' on rollcall 536 to establish an ombudsman within the
Department of Veterans Affairs.

____________________

IN HONOR OF YASH PAUL SOI

______

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Yash Paul Soi, a
devoted leader who has worked tirelessly to advance and promote Indian
culture. Mr. Soi has been an exemplary spokesman and ambassador for the
causes of India and its people in the United States.
Mr. Soi has committed himself to supporting the Asian-Indian
community through the advancement of Indian cultural activities. He has
been recognized as an Indian cultural icon and his Indian music radio
program has been vastly influential. His work in bringing Indian issues
to the media forefront presented him with the opportunity to interview
Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, President Jimmy Carter, and many
other distinguished world figures. Additionally, Mr. Soi has
contributed to American society through his work to bring Indian arts
to many of our Nation's most famous stages.
As a founder and former President of the Federation of Indian
Associations (FIA), Mr. Soi performed the essential role of
representing Indian groups in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Under his leadership the FIA has thrived and is now known for its
annual India Day Parade that goes down New York City's Madison Avenue,
the largest celebration of Indian Independence Day outside of India.
As a graduate of Utah State University and Columbia University, Mr.
Soi has brought his knowledge and experience to improving his
community, as well as the communities of many others. In 2002, he was
honored with an ``Outstanding Community Service Award'' for his
tireless service to the Indian-American community. He was also a beacon
of hope in the fight to bring democracy to the people of Guyana and
supported efforts which led to that nation's first free elections.
Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in
honoring Yash Paul Soi. His leadership and perseverance have improved
Indian-American understanding and will long serve as a shining example
of what can be accomplished by the determined human spirit.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican
Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following
information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding
earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599, Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Harold Rogers.
Bill Number: H.R. 6599.
Account: MILCON, Army National Guard.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Kentucky Department of Military
Affairs.
Address of Requesting Entity: Boone National Guard Center, 100
Minuteman Parkway, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
Description of Request: Provide directed funding of $7.836 million to
complete construction of the Readiness Center Phase 3--London Joint
Support Operations Center located in Laurel County, Kentucky. Of this
amount, $646,200 is scheduled for design cost and $208,000 is for
supervision, inspection, and overhead costs. This third and final phase
of construction will include administrative space, aircraft hangar
space, and paving for hangar aprons, taxiways, and aircraft parking.
Aircraft will include various fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, OH-
58s, UH-60s, and a C-130. The project is required to fully house the
Joint Support Operations equipment and personnel in one facility
located in the vicinity of operations. Currently the operation is
spread over several facilities approximately 100 miles apart. At the
conclusion of this project, the unit will be able to respond quicker
and in a much more efficient manner which will allow a greater return
on investment funds spent on the operation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CPL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ

______

HON. HENRY CUELLAR

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cpl. Miguel
Rodriguez on his retirement from the Texas Department of Public Safety,
where he served his State and country honorably for 28 years.
In his 28 years with the Department of Public Safety, Corporal
Rodriguez performed a multitude of tasks, such as serving as field
training officer in the induction of new officers to the Department,
training them on driving, firearms, and accident reconstruction. He
helped foster the training of Mexican highway patrolmen, served on
interview promotional board for troopers, and worked as chairman on
grievance board hearings. Corporal Rodriguez also served on security
staff for President George Bush, Sr., on his visit to the University of
Texas at Austin. His awards include the District Commander Award,
Region Commanders Award, Commanders Accommodations, and Quarter Century
Club.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to have had this time to recognize the
dedication and commitment of Cpl. Miguel Rodriguez to the State of
Texas, and to the United States of America upon his retirement from the
Texas Department of Public Safety.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE OF GEORGE R. SAMPLE, JR.

______

HON. PHIL ENGLISH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
and honor

[[Page 17776]]

the life of George R. Sample, Jr. of Corry, Pennsylvania.
Born and raised in Pennsylvania, Mr. Sample was the longtime
publisher of the Corry Journal and had worked there daily since he
graduated from college up until becoming ill a few months before he
passed away. This outstanding newspaperman got his start in journalism
serving as the managing editor of the Collegian newspaper at
Pennsylvania State University, where he completed his bachelor's degree
in 1946. Throughout his career he strived to make newspapers better.
In the 1960s, Mr. Sample was one of the founders of what would
eventually become the American Publishing Co., which was later sold to
Hollinger International. He served as vice chairman for Hollinger's
American Publishing Co. and was credited for making improvements to the
Chicago Sun-Times and the Jerusalem Post. He also created the family-
run Sample News Group, which owned two newspapers in Maine and five in
Pennsylvania.
In addition to being a well-respected local publisher, George Sample,
Jr. was very involved in other aspects of the Corry community. As
longtime chairman of the city's Golf Commission, he was known as the
driving force behind the North Hills Municipal Golf Course, Corry's
top-notch course that has become a vibrant attraction for the
community. Much of the course's growth and success can be attributed to
Mr. Sample's efforts.
The life of George Sample, Jr. serves as a role model for us all to
follow. He cared about his community and was always working to improve
the city.
Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating the
life of George Sample, Jr.

____________________

HONORING THE CITY OF FOREST PARK, GEORGIA ON ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. DAVID SCOTT

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
City of Forest Park for reaching their 100th Anniversary. Forest Park
began as Forest Station/Astor on just one square mile of land chartered
in 1908. This early community was mostly comprised of farming families,
but quickly grew as Forest Park became an important railroad stop close
to the bustling hub of Atlanta. Although the railroad gradually lost
its more prominent role in the area, the people of Forest Park worked
with the railroad and with their neighbors to find new opportunities
for themselves and for their community. Their perseverance and hard
work have paid off, helping to make Forest Park one of the largest
cities in Clayton County and an important center of commerce for
Georgia and the Southeast.
Today Forest Park is home to over 21,000 dedicated and productive
citizens. This diverse community deserves our commendation for setting
a positive example for Georgia and our great nation as a whole. I
praise Forest Park for its commitment to its citizens through an
outstanding police and fire department, school system, and overall
community atmosphere. I also applaud Forest Park for fostering strong
and affordable community recreation and leisure programs. These
activities serve to bring people of all backgrounds and experiences
together in friendship and collaboration. I am proud to see these
endeavors encouraging a healthy and dynamic environment for the
citizens of Forest Park and promoting positive community values
throughout the area.
Forest Park will be holding a centennial celebration for just this
purpose on August 14th, 15th, and 16th. This celebration will not only
serve as a time of fun and enjoyment, but will also educate the public
on the rich history of Forest Park. I also look forward to the
increased participation and partnership of the citizenry, public
institutions, and local businesses during this time and trust this
close connection will continue into the future as it has for the past
100 years. This commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Forest Park
is sure to be an enjoyable and fruitful enterprise for all involved.
I would further like to laud the dedicated efforts of Mayor Corine
Deyton, and City Council members Sparkle Adams, Debbie Youmans, Maudie
McCord, Donald Judson, and Linda Lord for their just and spirited
public service in the governing of the City of Forest Park.
Congratulations on reaching this 100 year milestone are also certainly
due to the citizens of Forest Park. Without their tenacity and resolve,
Forest Park would certainly not be the active and vibrant city that it
is today. I wish them well in continuing to enrich the lives of their
neighbors and in maintaining a beautiful and prosperous community for
the 100, 200, 300 years to come.
In closing, I wish the City of Forest Park a Happy 100th Birthday.
As the U.S. Representative to the 13th District of Georgia, I honor the
City of Forest Park, its leaders, and its inhabitants for reaching this
milestone and look forward to the continuation of its proud legacy.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SHANNON GOOD

______

HON. DIANA DeGETTE

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments
and distinguished public service of Shannon Good, my Legislative
Director and former Deputy Chief of Staff. Shannon is a trusted advisor
and friend. It saddens me to announce that she is leaving my office to
pursue her own endeavors. Her tenure has been defined not only by a
standard of professionalism that distinguishes exceptional legislative
directors, but by a deep and abiding commitment to fairness, high
ethical standards and the best interests of the 1st Congressional
District of Colorado and this Nation.
Shannon is a Denver native and graduated from East High School and
later graduated from Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts.
Shannon has been active in politics for years, volunteering on various
local and national campaigns, including mine. Prior to joining my
staff, she worked in the Washington, DC office of Governmental
Relations for Salomon Brothers where she tracked legislation for Wall
Street analysts.
Effective and committed legislative staff is essential to democratic
governance. Few people recognize the magnitude and consequence of their
contributions--- particularly of those intrepid staff members who
actually manage the legislative work we do. Shannon's keen intellect,
judgment and common sense have been invaluable to me in dealing not
only with the issues all of us face, but in guiding my legislative
agenda for the past nine years. She has contributed in no small measure
to much of the legislation that best serves this Nation. Her work on
legislation protecting our Nation's safety net hospitals, simplifying
the enrollment process and expanding presumptive eligibility for
children in Medicaid, expanding energy efficiency requirements to
improve our Nation's energy policy, expanding FDA and USDA authority to
ensure food safety and her invaluable work on the ``Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act'' are but a few of her most noteworthy contributions.
Shannon has been my point person for moving significant national
legislation through committee and the House. Numerous other staff
members from many offices have come to rely upon her for information
and guidance on a variety of issues. Shannon is one of the staff
experts in the House on women's reproductive health. Any time an issue
related to reproductive health has arisen, whether in major legislation
or buried in a motion to recommit or an amendment, many in Washington
have sought out Shannon's counsel. Furthermore, Shannon Good has
excelled in recognizing and cultivating the talents and skills of my
legislative team, both past and present, and she commands their respect
and admiration. My District Office staff admire not only her
exceptional capabilities, but her directness and understanding of the
issues and challenges local offices face.
Shannon is a valued member of my staff and her competence,
discernment and measure will be greatly missed. She has been an abiding
source of wisdom and prudent counsel. She has done the people's work
without pretension and burnished a reputation for decency and
professionalism. Shannon is a public servant in the finest sense and
her contributions are rich in consequence. My office and indeed, the
United States House of Representatives, are losing a valued resource
and friend. Please join me in commending Shannon Good, a distinguished
public servant and legislative professional. Her character, leadership
and dedication have done much to build a better future for all of us.

____________________

A TRIBUTE HONORING THE McLEOD-SANDSTROM WEDDING

______

HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my best
wishes to two young Americans who are starting their new

[[Page 17777]]

life together this weekend. On Saturday, August 2, 2008, Allison Claire
McLeod and Nathaniel Lee Sandstrom will be joined in matrimony
surrounded by their loving family and friends at Preston Hall in
Baltimore, Maryland.
Allie and Nate, as their family and friends call them, currently live
in Baltimore but were both born in the Midwest. In fact, they describe
themselves as, ``A balanced combination of Midwestern salt-of-the-earth
values and Columbia, MD-born neighborliness . . .''
Allie was born in Cleveland, Ohio on May 23, 1980. Her mother, Karen
Jean McLeod, is a retired elementary school teacher's assistant for the
Columbia School District in Maryland, and her father, Robert John
McLeod, is a meteorologist for the National Weather Service. When Allie
was three years old, her father's work transferred the McLeod family to
Columbia, MD. The family would relocate to Boise, Idaho for several
years before eventually returning to Columbia. Back in Maryland, Allie
attended Wilde Lake High School. At Wilde Lake, Allie participated on
the school's volleyball and lacrosse teams and was active in Students
for a Better World. After high school Allie went on to study at Towson
University in Maryland.
Nate was born in Appleton, Wisconsin on July 12, 1979. His mother,
Vicki Lynn Kessler, is a minister at St. Paul United Church of Christ
in Denver, Iowa, and his father, Kent Lee Sandstrom, is a professor at
the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). Nate's family relocated to
Waterloo, Iowa when his father began working at UNI. Nate attended
Cedar Falls High School and was active in baseball, band and the school
newspaper. He attended Iowa State University and UNI and then moved to
Maryland to complete his studies at Towson University.
It was at Towson University where the future bride and groom
eventually met. The two young students belonged to the same circle of
college friends, and after an initial period as good friends, the
couple started dating. Their relationship blossomed and Allie and Nate
became a couple. When Nate enrolled in graduate school at the
University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, the couple both relocated to
the Midwest. After two years in Illinois, the couple returned to
Maryland in 2006 and set up home in Baltimore.
The couple enjoys spending time with family and friends, camping, and
cheering on the Washington Redskins, among other activities. They were
engaged on May 23, 2007, and the newlywed couple will make their home
in the Federal Hill neighborhood of Baltimore. Their many friends say
Allie and Nate are very well suited for each other, and their families
already consider each of them a member of the family.
Allie and Nate will be joined in their wedding celebration in
Baltimore's historic neighborhood of Mount Vernon by guests from across
town and across the country. Family and friends are traveling from
California, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, New York, and South Carolina
among other states. Special participants in the wedding ceremony will
be Katharine Elizabeth McLeod, the bride's maid of honor; Philip
Sandstrom, the groom's best man; and the other members of the wedding
party: Tracey Bounds, Becca Dougherty, Kelly Neale, Lindsay Thomasson,
Mark Goldman, Andrew McLeod, Patrick Newstrom, and Matt Schaffer. When
they take their wedding vows, Allie and Nate will have the added honor
of having Nate's mother, the Reverend Kessler, perform the ceremony.
Madam Speaker, I offer my best wishes to the McLeod and Sandstrom
families, their friends and guests for a very happy and memorable
celebration. To Allie and Nate, I offer the sentiment and gifts which
George Bailey offered the Martini family as they moved into their new
home in the classic film, It's a Wonderful Life, ``Bread! That their
house may never know hunger. Salt! That life may always have flavor.
And wine! That joy and prosperity may reign forever.'' Lastly, I wish
that throughout their wonderful life together, Allie and Nate will
always have an abundance of what St. Paul wrote of in his letter to the
Corinthians, ``faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is
love.''

____________________

THANKING THE SKENTARIS FAMILY FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE HOUSE

______

HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY

of nevada

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say farewell to the
Skentaris Family, the operators of the food service in the Ford House
Office Building, and to thank them for their fifteen years of
outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives.
Jordan Skentaris, the patriarch of the family business, came to the
United States through Ellis Island from Greece on April 17, 1955.
Jordan began his food service career in New York City and eventually
settled in Fayetteville, North Carolina, where his family operated
restaurants for 30 years. In January 1993, Jordan, his lovely wife
Soula, and their wonderful children--daughter Artemis and son
Christopher--began their service to the House in the Ford House Office
Building. Their unwavering commitment to serve the needs of every
customer to the fullest extent possible no matter who they are--and
regardless of their political affiliation--has endeared them to
Members, House staff, Capitol Police and visitors. This was
particularly evident as the Skentaris family made sure their customers
and employees were taken care of during 9/11 and anthrax. Since the
Ford Building was closed for weeks following the anthrax attack, this
was no easy task, but they persevered and found a way to keep
continuity of service without missing a beat to the customers and
community they so value.
Many times we hear people say that Capitol Hill is a family. I would
like to say that the Skentaris family has not only been part of the
Capitol Hill family, they have become my family. Many of the customers
who pass through the cafeteria daily are greeted by name. Jordan,
Soula, Artemis and Christopher can be proud of the level of service
they provide to their customers each and every day.
On behalf of the entire House community, we bid a fond farewell to
the Skentaris family and extend our deepest appreciation for their
dedication and outstanding contributions to the U.S. House of
Representatives. We wish them much success in their future endeavor at
the Voice of America where I, my staff and hundreds of others will
follow them--not only for their delicious food, but for the warmth and
considerate service they provide to all who enter. They will be
sincerely missed.

____________________

THE DAILY 45: A HERO DIES TO SAVE OTHERS AS A GUNMAN ENTERS A CHURCH

______

HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice tells us that,
everyday, 45 people, on average, are fatally shot in the U.S. Last
weekend, the nation's attention was riveted by the shocking act of a
gunman who felt comfortable walking into a church, on Sunday, and
opening fire. This incident, at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian
Universalist Church, was especially horrific because of the loss of
life--two, to date--as well as the long-term scars it will leave on the
children who were participating in a choral presentation for their
families and friends.
As sometimes happens in these incidents, there was a hero involved
who martyred himself to protect others. Such was the case, this time,
as church members told police that 60-year-old Greg McKendry, without
blinking an eye, saw what was happening and, literally, placed his body
in the line of fire. I extend a heartfelt prayer to the church
community, Mr. McKendry's family and the other victims whose sense of
peace was violated.
Americans of conscience must come together to stop the senseless
death of ``The Daily 45.'' When will we say ``enough is enough, stop
the killing!''

____________________

IN HONOR OF CELEBRATING THE SERVICE OF MR. GREGORY M. DIAMOND

______

HON. DIANA DeGETTE

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gregory M.
Diamond, a dear friend and colleague who had served for over 10
distinguished years as my District Director in the First Congressional
District of Colorado.
Greg grew up in Denver as the son of Greek and Canadian immigrants.
Both of his parents worked extremely hard to establish themselves in
the United States instilling within Greg a tireless work ethic, an
acumen for equality, an exceptional attention to detail, and a sharp
mind for finance, politics, and sympathy for the human condition.

[[Page 17778]]

Greg's leadership abilities shined through early when he was elected
Head Boy at Denver East High School. Greg moved on to attend the
University of Denver earning a Bachelor of Arts in Political Economy
during the turbulent 1960's. This era of frustration with the Vietnam
War and society's status quo inspired Greg to become involved in the
University's anti-war and civil rights movements, imbedding a desire
for social justice and fairness and the pursuit of public policies to
benefit all people throughout his working life.
Greg earned a Masters of Science in Judicial Administration at the
University of Denver College of Law and worked for a few years in the
Wayne County Court System in Detroit, Michigan.
When his father became ill, Greg returned to Colorado to work in the
family restaurant in the Cherry Creek neighborhood of Denver. In 1988,
Greg became greatly inspired by the presidential campaign of Michael
Dukakis and joined the Colorado Coordinated Campaign. In addition to
sharing Greek heritage with Governor Dukakis, Greg admired his
practical yet inclusive style of governing and fiscal policies.
Dukakis' loss was a disappointing blow for Greg, but he had caught
the political bug. He moved on to manage a U.S. Senate primary, and
worked in senior capacities on various other presidential,
congressional, state, local and referenda campaigns, including the bond
election to build Denver International Airport, where he met his future
wife Faye, to whom he has been married for 16 years.
In 1991, Greg began his career in public policy, serving in former
Governor Roy Romer's cabinet in the Office of Energy Conservation, then
four years as the Deputy State Treasurer under former Colorado State
Treasurer Gail Schoettler. He finished up his years in the Governors
Office of Economic Development as a Science and Technology Advisor.
Greg is unique individual and a tower in Denver and Colorado politics
in a District with a multitude of strong political personalities. In a
city defined by a history of rough-and-tumble politics and a varied
electorate, with their own political desires, Greg has managed to fly
above the fray gaining the respect, admiration, and trust of the
diverse constituencies of the First Congressional District.
Greg has the enviable ability to actively listen to constituents
concerns and to frame their arguments and the political realities in
ways only a seasoned political mind and public policy analyst could.
Greg will long be remembered for his extensive briefings and memos for
District meetings which were exhaustively researched and supplied with
extensive supporting materials. In any meeting I attended with Greg, I
was confident I was well briefed and any issue or argument would be at
my fingertips. Greg is also an eloquent writer, penning many of our
offices tributes and speeches.
There is also no doubt Greg was extremely popular in Colorado
politics and in the broader Denver community. Any meeting or reception
I would attend with Greg, constituents, business, and political leaders
would joke with Greg and regale me bout some past shared experience.
Greg would always return the favor with his hearty infectious laughter
filling the room.
Greg is fondly regarded by his District Office staff, many of whom he
hired. The high retention rate in my District Office is a great tribute
to Greg who treated his employees with respect, compassion, and a sense
of humor which often kept the staff on their toes. Greg related well to
young and older employee alike, always interested in what everyone had
to say, encouraging staff for good deeds done, but also willing to
guide staffers back in line when they went astray.
Greg leaves my office in the height of his career, rising with me as
a first term Representative to the Dean of the Colorado Congressional
Delegation. I am deeply indebted to him for his service, guidance, and
enduring commitment to the residents of the First Congressional
District of Colorado.
At the end of the day, there is one main reason we come to serve in
this body: to help the people we represent and to improve their
communities and livelihoods to the best of our abilities. It is with
the assistance of such exceptional staff members as Greg Diamond that
we are able to achieve these goals. There are thousands of Coloradans
and residents of Denver, Englewood, Sheridan, and Cherry Hills Village
whose lives have been touched by Greg's dedication and service.
I ask you and our colleagues to join me as I thank Greg for his 10
years of service to the First District, express my gratitude for his
long friendship and congratulate him as he enters a new phase of his
public service.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SAMUEL SNOW

______

HON. CORRINE BROWN

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay
honor and tribute to the memory of Samuel Snow, of Leesburg, Florida.
In 1944, Samuel Snow was among a group of black American soldiers
involved in the largest and longest U.S. Army court martial of World
War II.
Mr. Snow, then a 19-year-old Army private, and 42 other black troops
were tried at Fort Lawton in Seattle for the death of an Italian Army
prisoner of war. All 43 were accused of rioting, while three of the GIs
were charged with first degree murder. Mr. Snow was one of two men
still alive to tell the story.
Mr. Snow enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1944, in New Orleans. His
enlistment helped fill a need for black soldiers to fill segregated
units to be shipped to Japan. As Snow packed to get ready to be shipped
out, a fight broke out between a large number of black soldiers and
Italian POWs.
Only two attorneys were appointed. They had just two weeks to prepare
a defense and no access to key evidence. After the Army's longest court
martial of World War II, 28 soldiers were convicted--and it was all
wrong. 13 acquitted and charges against two others were dropped.
He spent a year in confinement. This was the largest court martial
during the war, and the only time blacks were tried for alleged
lynching. Mr. Snow was issued an ultimatum: Go to prison or receive a
dishonorable discharge.
Last October, the Army overturned those convictions after Seattle
author Jack Hamann's investigation proved the soldiers were unjustly
tried in his book ``On American Soil.'' Their convictions were all set
aside. On Saturday, July 26, the Army officially apologized in a
ceremony at Fort Lawton in Seattle in front of family and friends of 28
of the soldiers. Only 2 of them are still alive and Sam Snow was
determined to attend the ceremony.
Mr. Snow travelled to Seattle from Florida and was admitted to a
Seattle hospital Friday night. He smiled when his son Ray read the
honorable discharge petition to him following the Saturday ceremony. At
12:45 a.m. Sunday, Samuel Snow died of congestive heart failure.
His son, Ray Snow, who traveled with him to Seattle, said ``Getting
that honorable discharge was more important than his health.''
Sam Snow, on a previous visit to Fort Lawton, said that ``we hope
this never happens again and I am proud to be an American.''
Samuel Snow was a speaker at my Veterans Braintrust at the
Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference this past
September. His is very moving story and if there is one thing to learn,
it is that we must always be vigilant against injustice.
He is survived by his loving wife, Margaret Snow; son, Ray;
grandchildren, Maurice Snow, Denise S. Norwood, Marvin J. and Ray L.
Snow; and three great-grandchildren.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. THELMA D. DRAKE

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for
publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received
as part of H.R. 6599, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Project Name: Fire and Emergency Services Station
Requesting Member: Representative Thelma Drake
Bill Number: H.R. 6599
Account: Military Construction, Navy
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Representative Thelma Drake
Address of Requesting Entity: Naval Station Norfolk, VA, USA
Description of Request: Accelerate funding of $9,960,000 for a Fire
and Emergency Services station located at Naval Station Norfolk,
Virginia.

[[Page 17779]]

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

of delaware

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Name of Project: Physical Fitness Center
Requesting Member: Congressman Michael N. Castle
Bill Number: H.R. 6599
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Dover Air Force Base
Address of Requesting Entity: Dover, DE
Project Description: The existing fitness center at Dover AFB is not
large enough to accommodate the needs of all personnel in sports,
wellness, and fitness programs. A new facility is necessary to meet the
Air Force's new requirements and emphasis on physical fitness, health,
and wellness. The existing facility is insufficient to accommodate
year-round use necessary for mission readiness. The new facility will
provide for an additional gymnasium and fitness rooms, as well as
incorporating a Health and Wellness Center. The project has been
included in the President's FY09 Budget Request.
Name of Project: Information Operations Communication Facility
Requesting Member: Congressman Michael N. Castle
Bill Number: H.R. 6599
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Dover Air Force Base
Address of Requesting Entity: Dover, DE
Project Description: The current Delaware National Guard Information
Operations Unit operates from a cramped, overloaded, inadequate
facility. Because of the specialized nature of this new mission, there
are no facilities on the New Castle Air National Guard base that can
accommodate the unit. Without a new facility, the unit will not be
capable of properly training or supporting active combat missions with
respect to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. This project
has been included in the President's FY09 Budget Request.

____________________

CONGRATULATING LINDA NELSON

______

HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my
friend Linda Nelson on her retirement as President of the Iowa State
Education Association (ISEA). Linda was elected President of the ISEA
by nearly all of the 500 delegates at their annual meeting in 2004 and
was re-elected in 2006. During her 4 year tenure as President Linda
proved to be a strong and effective leader for the 34,000 members of
the ISEA.
Linda has been active in the ISEA throughout her teaching career. At
the local association level, Linda took on many leadership roles
including president, executive board member, Governmental Affairs
Committee chair, and building representative. Linda's passion for
teaching and politics lead her to become involved in ISEA's Political
Action Committee were she served in several different positions. In
1992, Linda was elected to the Iowa House of Representatives where she
spent four years fighting for teachers all across Iowa. Most
importantly, Linda has dedicated her life to being an educator and has
been a good friend and mentor to her fellow ISEA members, teaching
colleagues and her students.
I'm happy to report that this fall Linda will be returning to her
teaching duties at Carter Lake Elementary School in Council Bluffs.
Linda taught 4th grade at Carter Lake for 31 years before being elected
ISEA President. I congratulate her on all of her success and wish her
the best in all of her future endeavors.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY FAIR

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Humboldt
County Fair on its 150th year anniversary this year, recognized from
July 23 to July 27, 2008. The Humboldt County Fair is located in Dakota
City, Iowa and serves the approximate 10,000 residents of the county in
North Central Iowa.
In 1858, the 300 people living in Humboldt County wanted to get
together for a social event offering opportunities to display prize
produce and compete at the skills of farming. The first Humboldt County
Fair was held in Dakota City on October 5, 1858. The best livestock and
agricultural products of the county were on display, showcasing the
pride and competitive spirit of America as well as prospects for future
agricultural prosperity.
The town of Springvale, larger than Dakota City, attempted to
relocate the fair in 1866. But Charles Bergk, a prominent citizen,
offered to donate 15 acres of land, furnish enough lumber to fence the
entire tract, and dig a well if the fair was held in Dakota City. And
so the fair remained in Dakota City.
The fair of 1912 was not a success, and there were fears that the end
of the county fair was near. A group of Humboldt's leading citizens
organized the Humboldt Get-Together Club and met at MacNamara's Drug
Store to discuss the situation. They developed a plan to not only
continue the fair but make it bigger and better.
Throughout the many years, the Humboldt County Fair has thrived and
kept the county together with community fellowship, celebration and
camaraderie. I congratulate the Humboldt County Fair on this historic
anniversary. It is an honor to represent the past and current members
of the county fair board in the United States Congress. I wish the
Humboldt County Fair and Humboldt community an equally storied future.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican
Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following
information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding
earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599, Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for FY 2009.
Account: Military Construction, Army National Guard.
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida Army National Guard.
Address of Requesting Entity: 400 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399.
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $20,907,000 for
construction of Phase IV of the Regional Training Institute (RTI),
Project Number 120191, located at Camp Blanding, Starke, Florida 32091.
It is my understanding that the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG)
and Army National Guard readiness will be affected if the school cannot
adequately accomplish its mission to educate and train soldiers. This
final phase will finish construction of the remaining 65,000 square
feet of billeting, all remaining infrastructure, supporting facilities,
and all necessary work not completed in the prior phases to support and
house students attending the courses at the training institute.