[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[Issue]
[Pages 14272-14476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 14272]]
SENATE--Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Roland W. Burris, a Senator from the State of Illinois.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Our fathers' God, to You, the author of liberty, we lift this prayer.
Long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light. Protect us by
Your might, great God, our King.
Lord, it is so easy for us to forget Your gracious providence that
sustained our Nation's Founders through bitter adversity. How easily we
forget and assume that our might, wisdom, and ingenuity alone produced
this land we love. Remind our lawmakers each day that they are helpless
without You. May they not wait for calamities to fall before they
acknowledge their dependence upon You. Lord, deliver them from the
pride which believes that they alone can solve the problems that beset
our Nation. Quicken their minds to seek Your wisdom, and return them to
that noble dependence on You that enabled our forebears to persevere
and win against great odds.
We pray in Your sovereign Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Roland W. Burris 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, June 9, 2009.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable Roland W.
Burris, a Senator from the State of Illinois, to perform the
duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. BURRIS 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 the remarks of the leaders, the
Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with
Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The
majority will control the first 30 minutes, and the Republicans will
control the second 30 minutes.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of
H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Last
night, cloture was invoked on that matter, and we also agreed last
night that we would have a vote in relation to the Burr substitute
amendment at 4:30 p.m. I hope we will be able to reach an agreement to
consider other amendments prior to the vote in relation to the Burr
amendment.
Senators will be notified if any other votes are scheduled. Staff is
working now trying to come up with a list of amendments we can vote on.
The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly caucus
luncheons.
____________________
MEASURE PLACED ON CALENDAR--H.R. 31
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that H.R. 31 is at
the desk and it is due for a second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by
title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 31) to provide for the recognition of the
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this
time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will
be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when it comes to health care, Americans
are looking for answers. They don't understand why basic medical
procedures are so expensive. They don't understand why millions of
Americans have to go without basic care in a nation as prosperous as
our own. Many are worried about losing the care they already have and
like.
So the need for health care reform is not in question. All of us want
reform. The question is: What kind of reform will we deliver? And two
very different approaches are now beginning to come into view.
According to one approach, the government plays the dominant role by
getting into the health care business and leverages taxpayers' money to
muscle everybody else out of the way. Under this approach, the vast
majority of Americans who like the health care they have risk losing it
when a government-run system takes over.
The other approach is to find ways of controlling costs, such as
discouraging the junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of practicing
medicine and limit access to care in places like rural Kentucky;
lifting barriers that currently diminish the effectiveness of
prevention and wellness programs that have been shown to reduce health
care costs, like quitting smoking, fighting obesity, and making early
diagnoses; and, finally, letting small businesses pool resources to
lower insurance costs--without imposing new taxes that kill jobs.
This second approach acknowledges that government already plays a
major role in the health care system, and that it will continue to play
a role in any solution we devise. But this approach is also based on
the principle that government cannot be the solution. Americans want
options, not a government-run plan that drives every private health
plan out of business and forces people to give up the care they
currently have and like.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services acknowledged this concern
about a health care monopoly when she described those parts of the
country where certain private health plans already have a monopoly.
``In many areas in the country,'' she said, ``the private market is
monopolized by one carrier . . . You do not have a choice for
consumers. And what we know in any kind of market is a monopoly does
not give much incentive for other innovation or for cost-effective
strategies.''
Well, if this is true of private health plans, then it would be
especially true of a government-run health plan. If a government-run
plan came into being, concerns about a monopoly would not just be
regional, they would be national.
[[Page 14273]]
Another problem with a government plan is a feature that has become
all too common in nations that have adopted one. Many of these nations
have established so-called government boards as part of their
government health plans that end up determining which benefits are
covered and which benefits are not covered. Our former colleague and
the President's first choice for HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, envisions
just such a board in his widely cited book on the topic. ``The Federal
Health Board,'' he writes, ``would promote `high value' medical care by
recommending coverage of those drugs and procedures backed by solid
evidence.''
What this means is that the Federal Government would start telling
Americans what drugs they can and cannot have. We know this because
that is exactly what is happening in countries that have adopted these
government boards. They have categorically denied cutting-edge
treatments either because the treatments cost too much or because
someone in the government decided the patients who needed it were
either too old or too sick to be worth the effort. When these countries
enacted health boards, I am sure their intention was not to delay and
deny care. But that is exactly what these government boards are doing.
The writer and commentator Virginia Postrel, who has written for the
New York Times and the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an account of
her own first-hand experience with breast cancer and her ability to
treat it successfully with the drug Herceptin here in the U.S. Postrel
said the availability of the drug increased her chances of survival
from a coin flip to 95 percent. A year after beginning her treatments,
Postrel wrote that she had no signs of cancer.
In the same article, Postrel points out that the situation is far
different in New Zealand, where a government board known as Pharmac
decided that Herceptin should not be made available to some cancer
patients in that country. As one cancer doctor in New Zealand put it,
New Zealand ``is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer
treatment are not so attractive there right now.'' Bureaucrats in New
Zealand finally relented and allowed coverage for Herceptin, due in
part to a public outcry over the limited availability of the drug.
New Zealanders have also been denied access to drugs that have proven
to be effective in reducing the risk of heart disease and strokes.
According to an article from 2006 in The New Zealand Medical Journal,
the restrictions placed on statins by New Zealand's government board
significantly hampered the preventative approach to heart disease. As
the authors of the article put it, ``[it is probable that . . . this
one decision] has caused more harm and premature death to New Zealand
patients than any of their other maneuvers.''
Americans want health care reform. But they do not want reform that
destroys what is good about American health care in the process. They
do not want a government bureaucrat making arbitrary decisions about
which drugs they or their loved ones can or cannot take to treat an
illness. And they do not want to be told they have to give up the care
they have. Americans do not want a government-run health plan. And they
certainly do not want a government board to dictate their health care
coverage. They want real reform that solves the problems they face
without sacrificing the benefits they enjoy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the
time equally divided between the two leaders, or their designees, with
the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling
the second half.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
for 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
GUANTANAMO
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the last month, the Republican leader
from Kentucky has come to the floor and argued that we should not move
detainees currently in Guantanamo into the United States, even for
trial. Luckily, the President, the Attorney General, and the head of
the joint military chiefs of staff have come to the conclusion that it
is in the best interest of the safety and security of the United States
that one of these notorious terrorists be brought to the United States
for trial. So it has been announced today that Mr. Ahmed Khalfan
Ghailani is being brought to the United States, to New York, for trial.
Luckily, this administration is not following the advice and counsel
of Senator McConnell and some on his side. It is time for this man to
face trial. What is he being charged with? He is being charged as one
of those involved in the 1998 embassy attacks in Africa. This Tanzanian
national has been held in Cuba since September of 2006. He was captured
by our forces, and others, in Pakistan in 2004 and transported to
Guantanamo. He is being charged with his involvement in the 1998
bombings of U.S. Embassies in east Africa, which killed 224 people,
including 12 Americans.
The position being taken by the Republicans in the Senate is that
this man should not be brought to the United States for trial. I think
they are wrong. I think it is time that he answered for the crimes
being charged against him. Twelve Americans died as a result of what we
believe was his conduct. He needs to be held accountable. This argument
that he cannot be brought to the United States and tried would
virtually allow this man to escape punishment for the crime that we
believe he committed. The Republicans' position that he should not be
brought to the United States because somehow, if he is being held in a
prison in the United States, it is a danger to the rest of us cannot be
supported in fact.
There are 347 convicted terrorists presently being held in U.S.
prisons--not one has escaped--in supermax facilities and no one has
ever escaped. For the Republicans to argue we cannot bring this man to
the United States for trial for killing a dozen Americans leaves him in
a position where we may lose our ability to prosecute him. The speedy
trial requirements of our Constitution and the laws of the United
States could virtually end up with the United States being unable to
prosecute this man if the Republican position on Guantanamo detainees
is followed.
GEN Colin Powell is right, Guantanamo needs to be closed. It is a
recruiting tool for al-Qaida. We know these individuals can be brought
to the United States and tried and safely imprisoned. We have never had
an escape from a supermax facility. We know that to turn these
prisoners over to some other country runs the risk that they will be
released.
Dangerous people who threaten the United States should be dealt with
by our Constitution and laws. The administration has made the right
decision that this man be brought to trial in the United States, held
accountable for any wrongdoing on his part that led to the deaths of so
many hundreds of innocent people at our Embassies in Africa.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning we heard the Republican
leader come to the floor again--this is not the first time--to address
the health care situation in America. I have read his previous speech,
and I listened to
[[Page 14274]]
his speech today. It is clear to me he does not believe we are facing a
crisis when it comes to health care. I think we are. I think it is a
serious crisis. It is a crisis where 47 million Americans have no
health insurance. Imagine, if you will, being a parent and having
children with no health insurance coverage. Imagine yourself in a
position where an accident or a diagnosis at a doctor's office could
literally mean you would lose every penny you have ever saved in your
life for expensive medical care when you do not have health insurance.
Imagine that as a crisis that affects Americans, too many of them
today.
Then imagine those who have health insurance and worry that tomorrow
the costs will go up to the point where they cannot afford it, that
there will be medical procedures necessary uncovered by their health
insurance. Cost is an issue. It is an issue which is driving us to look
at reform of the health care system.
I heard Senator McConnell this morning, and what he is arguing about,
frankly, is not even in the debate on Capitol Hill. He said
repeatedly--said it yesterday, said it again today--that our debate
over health care reform means Americans run the risk of losing the
health insurance they want. Exactly the opposite is true. What
President Obama has said and what we are saying is that if you have
good health insurance, you can keep it. You like the health insurance
you have? You can keep it. No one has ever argued the opposite
position, which the Senator from Kentucky referred to this morning.
He also spent a lot of time talking about government-run health care
plans. It is interesting that he would raise that as an issue when we
are not suggesting a government-centered health insurance reform. We
think it should be a patient-centered health insurance reform.
But we also know that when you ask Americans across the board--
families and patients--what do you think about the health care system
in America, what are its greatest shortcomings in the current health
care system, do you know what No. 1 is? Almost half, 48.9 percent, of
the people say not having health insurance. The second, 43 percent say
the greatest shortcoming of America's health care system is dealing
with health insurance companies; 30.9 percent, inflexibility of health
care plans; 30.9 percent, insurance companies' refusal to cover
preexisting conditions.
When the Senator from Kentucky comes to the floor and argues against
changing the current situation, he is arguing for allowing these health
insurance companies to continue to dominate. As long as they dominate,
Americans and their families will be vulnerable--vulnerable to
increases in costs they cannot manage, vulnerable to new policies with
more exclusions, vulnerable to preexisting conditions not being
covered. That is the vulnerability of Americans we have today that we
have to seriously address.
The Senator from Kentucky argues we do not want a Canadian plan, we
do not want a British plan, we do not want a New Zealand plan. He is
right. We want an American approach--an American approach that
combines, yes, private health insurance companies when they are held to
standards that are fair to American families but also holds open the
option that we will have a plan which is run by the government--as an
option, a voluntary option--for people to choose. If they like what
they have in their current plan, they can keep it. If they want to move
to another private health insurance plan, they can do so. If they want
to choose a government plan, they can do that as well.
According to the Senator from Kentucky, if the government is involved
in it, it must be bad. Tell that to 40 million Americans under
Medicare, many of whom never had health insurance in their life and now
have the protection of Medicare. Medicare has worked for senior
citizens and the disabled for a long period of time.
The Senator from Kentucky should also tell the people in the
Veterans' Administration that when the government is involved, it does
not work. They know better. Veterans and their families across America
know our veterans health care system provides quality care for them. We
entrust to them, the men and women who risk their life for America and
come home injured--we know they are going to get quality care. To argue
that if there is any government involvement at all in health care it is
to the detriment of America argues against Medicare, argues against the
Veterans' Administration.
The Senator went on to say, if the government gets involved, the
delays will be intolerable. We do not want delays. We want timely
treatment of people. If a doctor believes either I or my family members
need to have a surgical procedure, some help, some diagnostic test, we
want it done in a timely fashion.
What the Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader, ignores is
that there are delays within the current system. An article in
BusinessWeek highlights a case of a woman in New York, Susan, who
called for an annual mammogram appointment in April, knowing she would
have to wait 6 weeks. In 2007, her first scan at the end of May was not
clear. A followup scan detected an abnormality which the doctor wanted
to address with a needle biopsy and outpatient procedure. The first
available date was mid-August, more than 2 months later. This lady who
had an abnormality in her mammogram was forced to wait months under the
current private health insurance system.
We have a similar problem in Chicago, Cook County, IL. At the local
public hospital, wait times for speciality services can range from 6
months to 1 or 2 years under the current system.
We know that when it comes to delays, unfortunately, they are
occurring in the current system. We also know that for a lot of people,
this current system has become unaffordable and intolerable.
I think back to one of my friends in Springfield, Doug Mayol. Here is
a fellow who tells a story. He owns a small business in my hometown of
Springfield, a shop that sells cards and gifts. His only worker has
Medicare coverage, so she is taken care of. But Doug has to buy private
health insurance. Unfortunately, Doug has a problem. He was diagnosed
many years ago--30 years ago, in fact--with a congenital heart valve
defect. He has no symptoms. Without regular health care, he runs the
risk of developing serious problems.
In the year 2001, Doug, in Springfield, IL, paid $200 a month for
health insurance. By 2005, even though he had not turned in any claims,
his cost of health insurance was up to $400 a month. The next year,
when he turned 50, the rate nearly doubled to $750 a month. He made
some changes in coverage so he would pay more out of pocket, choose a
small network of providers, and have a higher deductible. He got his
premium down to $650 a month.
This man owns a small shop. He sells greeting cards. He was up to
$650 a month. Two years later, his premium jumped to over $1,000 a
month. Again, he made some changes. By opting for the highest possible
deductible, he was able to bring his premiums down to $888 a month.
Think about that: He is paying 300 percent more than he paid for health
coverage 8 years ago and getting a lot less for it.
He isn't a costly patient. His valve condition is asymptomatic. He
has never made a claim for illness or injury. He receives routine
medical care. His high deductible rarely kicks in. Here is the problem.
Because of his high deductible and expense of health insurance, he is
afraid to go to a doctor, that it will create another red flag for the
health insurance company to raise his premiums even more.
It is unfair to him, Doug Mayol, working in Springfield, IL, as a
small business owner, a man whose insurance company has never paid a
claim, to watch his costs explode from $200 a month to $1,000 a month
in just a few years. Sadly, if we follow the advice of the Senator from
Kentucky, it will get worse.
President Obama has challenged us to take on this reform. This is not
[[Page 14275]]
easy, believe me. There are health insurance companies that are going
to fight us every step of the way. Anytime we step in to try to protect
Doug and other families to make insurance affordable and to make sure
it is quality, they are going to argue it is too much government, such
as we heard from the Senator from Kentucky this morning. What he had to
say is what we hear from the health insurance companies: Leave it
alone, leave the system alone.
Can we afford for Doug Mayol and millions of Americans to leave this
alone? We have to make sure we move toward a situation that recognizes
we face a crisis. It is a crisis of cost and a crisis when it comes to
availability of health insurance. We have to hold the health insurance
companies accountable to provide us affordable quality care. We have to
change the system so we have early detection of problems--preventive
care. We have to ring some of the costs out of the system.
One of the persons who has made a comment on this regularly whom I
respect very much is a doctor in Boston named Atul Gawande. He
recently, in a June 1 article in the New Yorker, talked about the
disparity in cost around the United States for Medicare. It is clear
that in some parts of the country--and he was speaking of McAllen, TX,
at this point--the cost for Medicare patients is dramatically higher
than they are in other places. We can bring costs down to a reasonable
level and try to take control of a system that is currently out of
control, but we cannot do it if every day we are reminded of problems
that do not exist. That is what we have heard from the other side of
the aisle.
They are arguing that we want to take away people's health insurance.
Absolutely false. We said: If you like your health insurance, you can
keep it. They argue the government will take over the health care
system. I have not run into anybody who has suggested that. What we
want to do is have public health insurance and have a private option,
which the Senator from New York is going to address in a moment when I
close.
This is an important debate for every single American. It is time to
put together reform that assures quality and affordable health care for
all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Illinois for his strong and forceful words, meaningful, bringing it
home, as he always does, in a very strong and good way about
individuals and how they are affected.
I would like to talk a little bit about where we are in health care
and where we have to go. Let me say that about 10 years ago--I cannot
remember the exact time--one of the major issues we faced was called
the Patients' Bill of Rights. Doctors and patients felt--everyone
felt--that HMOs were taking undue advantage of them. Doctors, if a
patient desperately needed a prescription, would call some accountant
in a faraway city and could not get approval and the patient would not
get the medicine. It sort of hit home.
There was a movie called ``As Good As It Gets,'' with Jack Nicholson,
and I cannot remember the name of the woman who starred in it. The
family could not get the health care they needed because the HMO turned
them down. I believe it was her child who was hurting. When she and
Jack Nicholson made remarks about how somebody has to keep an eye on
these HMOs, in theaters across America, the audience got up and
cheered.
That is, again, what we are talking about when we talk about public
option. Every one of us has a friend, a family member--maybe it is
ourselves--who has experienced the basic intransigence of insurance
companies in providing--even when you have a package of benefits--the
kind of care you or a loved one, a member of your family, needs.
It is clear in America the insurance companies--and they are doing
their job maximizing their profit to their shareholders. Of course, our
capitalist system says they have to maximize it by trying to sell as
many policies as possible. So there is some check on them. But it is
clear America is not happy with insurance companies.
My good friend from Kentucky, the minority leader, keeps saying we do
not want the government involved. Well, let me ask him: Who is going to
protect the individual and even some of the individual providers--the
doctor in a small town or in an inner city--from an insurance company
when the insurance company either charges too much or tries to get rid
of the small businessman--such as in the case of the gentleman from
Springfield whom my friend Dick Durbin talked about--or when they deny
coverage or when they tell you because you have a preexisting condition
that you can't get coverage or they are not renewing your proposal or
whatever?
We understand there needs to be a check on the insurance companies.
Left alone, they will not provide the kind of low-cost, full health
care many Americans need. And when we propose a public option, we are
proposing someone to keep a check on them. That is the only point. If
we had complete faith in the insurance companies, we wouldn't be
debating a public option. If we had complete faith that, left on their
own, when an individual had the situation of an illness and their costs
went way up, they would say: Sure, we are going to take care of you,
you signed the contract when you were healthy and now you are sick--and
sometimes that happens. I am not saying it never happens, not for sure.
But what about all the instances when it doesn't? What about the worry
the rest of us have? And praise God, we are healthy, but it might
happen. There has to be a check on the insurance companies, and that is
what the so-called public option does.
Insurance companies are part of the free enterprise system, and it is
a great system, but the goal of the insurance company--it is probably
in their charters, but it is how our system works--is to maximize
profits to their shareholders by producing a good product. But we all
know, particularly when it comes to health, that system has major
flaws. It sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't work.
If we thought only the private sector should provide health care, we
wouldn't have Medicare. And I know there are some--way over on the
right side--who would like to get rid of Medicare. If we thought
private insurance on its own worked just fine, we wouldn't have fought
for years for a patients' bill of rights. So this idea coming from the
minority leader that we should have no check on the insurance
companies, which is what we would have if we had no form of public
option, isn't where the American people are, and it is certainly not
where I am.
Some bring up--and I think it is a valid argument--well, if the
government is involved--and by the way, what we are proposing here is
not that the government take over health care. We are proposing that in
this exchange where all kinds of insurances companies compete, there be
at least one that doesn't put the profit motive above all else but has
to put patients above all, a public option. It doesn't make a profit.
And what we are saying is, if you believe in competition, why not let
the public option compete? We do this in State governments. In State
governments, if you are a State worker in some States, you can
sometimes get a public plan or a private plan. The consumer chooses.
And that is how it should be. We are simply saying that, just as there
are some who might say: I don't think there should be any private
sector involved in health care, it should all be public--and many
people think that is not the right view, as I know my friend from
Kentucky does--many of us think it is just as wrong to say it should
only be the private sector. Let's see who does a better job. Let them
compete in the marketplace.
My view is this: There has to be a level playing field. You cannot
give the public option such advantages that it overwhelms the private
sector. The proposal that I have made and that others are looking at--
Senator Bingaman is one; my friends in the House, Congressmen Welch and
Brady and Murphy--is to try to make the playing
[[Page 14276]]
field level. The government won't just keep pouring money into the
public option. It sets it up and then it has to compete. If the private
sector needs reserves--God forbid there is catastrophic illness
everywhere--then so will the public option. I am certain those of us
who are interested in a public option are very interested in
suggestions as to how to make the playing field level. But make no
mistake about it, the public option is a different model. The public
option will not have to make a profit. That is about 10, 12 percent.
That money will go to health care for the patients. The public option
will not have to merchandise and advertise. That is often 20 percent.
So right off the bat, the public option has the same level playing
field but has 30 percent of its revenues that can go to patient health
care.
My friends on the other side say: Well, the public option isn't very
efficient; it doesn't give enough direction, and direction to the right
person, to cure this disease but lets people go all over. Well, if it
is not, it is not going to work.
You know, if I were designing a health care system, I would even look
carefully at single payer. I believe we do need control mechanisms, and
I think the insurance companies themselves, no matter how we try to
regulate them, will figure out ways around them. That is almost their
mandate because their goal is to maximize profit. There is nothing
wrong with that. But we are not going to get single payer here. We know
that. And we are probably not even going to get something called
Medicare For All, which would be a much more pure system that would not
be, frankly, a level playing field. But just as we have to compromise
and move to the center a little bit to get something done, so do my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Again, when they say no
public option, it is the inverse of saying no private insurance
companies. Let's see who does better in this exchange.
My view is this: The public option will have certain advantages. It
won't have to make a profit, it won't have to advertise and
merchandise. But on the other hand, it is going to have certain
responsibilities. When Dick Durbin's friend from Springfield can't get
insurance from a private company, the public option will be there, and
that may be somewhat more expensive for them. Admittedly, we are going
to try to pass laws to say the private insurance company has to keep
Dick Durbin's friend, the small businessman who is paying for his own
insurance, without a huge increase in cost. But if you believe, as I
do, and I think most Americans do, that the private insurance company
is not going to embrace this and say: Gee, this is great, this is
costing us a ton of money and we have to report earnings for our
shareholders, and we will try to find ways--there will be an intention
of not covering people like that, and the public option will step into
the lurch.
So this is a different model, no question about it. It is not just
another insurance company that happens to be public. But it will be a
level playing field. There will be a playing field where the private
insurance companies will be under certain rules and the public option
plan will be under certain rules. If the private company has to leave
reserves, the public company will have to leave reserves. No one is
seeking to unlevel the playing field, but we are seeking to keep the
insurance companies honest. A public option will bring in transparency.
When we know what the public option has to pay, we will say: Why isn't
the private insurer paying the same? A public option will keep the
insurance company's feet to the fire.
That is why President Obama feels so strongly about it. He said so in
his letter. My friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, said he is just
being political. I don't think so. He knows the public option will work
well. Maybe after 3 years, the public option fails and isn't needed.
Fine. Fine. But I don't believe that will happen. But we are not going
to, in the public option, just keep putting more and more government
money in until it wipes out the insurance companies. That is not the
intent. The intent is to have a robust market, such as we have in other
States and some of the Federal systems, where many different plans
compete, and one is a public option. There might also be co-ops, such
as my friend from North Dakota has been advocating, but there will be
plenty of private insurance companies.
I would say one other thing. My friends on the other side of the
aisle say: Well, why can't we just have the private insurers compete
and offer a whole lot of plans? We don't have that in the vast majority
of States right now. We have a system where any private company can
sell insurance. But in more than half our States--and I believe this
statistic is right, but I will correct the record if it is not--the top
two companies have more than 50 percent of the market. There is usually
not unvarnished competition when you just leave it up to the private
insurance companies but, rather, an oligopoly. And we all know what
happens when there is not real competition: Price setting occurs. Price
leadership is what the economists call it. Nobody tries to undercut on
price. We have seen this with the oil industry, for instance, with our
five big oil companies, and you don't get the kind of competition you
would from a public option, even if there were only one or two
insurance companies competing.
In conclusion, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to, A, be openminded. We haven't said no this or no that. When
you say no public option, you are saying we want to let the private
insurance companies, under the guise of competition, run the show. And
if you believe that will work, fine, but then you also should believe
the public option won't be a threat to them. Some of us who are worried
that, left to their own devices, the private insurance companies will
not serve all or even most of the public as well as they should be
served, are saying let there be the competitive advantage or the
competition of a public option in a level playing field that has no
particular built-in advantage but has a different model--no profit, no
merchandising, no advertising, serve the patient first.
This debate will continue, but I would just say to my fellow
Americans out there who might be listening to this, when you hear the
other side say no public option, ask them: Then who is going to provide
a check on the insurance companies? And do you believe the insurance
companies, even with some government regulation, won't find their way
out of the regulations or avoid the regulations or walk around them?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. The debate will continue, Mr. President, and I
appreciate the opportunity to address my colleagues.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand the time for morning business
has now reverted to the Republican side; is that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I would like to address two subjects. The first is the
subject my colleague from New York was just discussing, and that is
what to do about health care issues we have in the United States.
Specifically, I would like to refer to some comments that both he made
and the assistant majority leader made this morning.
The first point I wish to make is that when the assistant majority
leader came to the floor this morning and in effect said: Unless you
agree with our solution, you don't believe there is a problem, that is
a fallacy, of course. I think everybody agrees there are lots of
problems. The question is, What is the right solution? So we can all
agree there are problems, but let's don't suggest that unless you agree
with my solution or your solution, somehow or other we don't appreciate
that there are problems.
We are frustrated and a lot of Americans are frustrated because they
may work for a small business or they are
[[Page 14277]]
unemployed and therefore they don't have insurance. It is not easy to
take your insurance with you. It is hard to find quality, low-cost
health care. This has to be a big priority for a lot of Americans. We
all understand that.
Health care needs to be portable. It needs to be accessible. It needs
to be affordable. I think all Americans want it to be quality care as
well. The question is, How do you accomplish these goals?
One of the problems is, what if you have insurance and you like it?
The President says, in that case you get to keep it. The problem is,
under the bill that is being discussed in the Finance Committee, you do
not get to keep it. If you are an employee of a small business, for
example, or you are an individual with your own insurance, when your
insurance contract runs out--and those contracts are usually 1 year, 2
years, sometimes as long as 3 years; let's say it is 2 years, and you
are through the first year of it--the bottom line is, even though you
may like it, at the end of next year when the contract runs out, you
don't get to keep it.
Under the bill being discussed there is a new regime of regulation
for the insurance companies about who they have to cover, how they
cover them, what they can charge, and a whole variety of other
regulations that mean that the policy you used to have, that you liked,
does not exist anymore.
It may be you will be able to find coverage that you like, but it is
simply untrue to say that one of the mainstays of the legislation being
proposed is that if you like your current plan, you get to keep it.
When your current plan expires, it expires, and you don't get to keep
it because it cannot be renewed in its current form. That is point No.
1.
Point No. 2. We just had a discussion about government-run insurance.
I find it interesting that some on the other side like to call this a
public option, as if the public somehow or other is operating its own
insurance company. Let's be clear about who would operate this
insurance company. It is the U.S. Government. It is not the public; it
is the U.S. Government. That is why Senator McConnell has referred to
it properly as government-run insurance.
The Senator from New York just got through saying: Who else is going
to provide a check on the private insurance companies to make sure they
do things right? The President himself has spoken about the need for a
government-run plan to keep the other insurance companies ``honest.''
Insurance is one of the most highly regulated enterprises in the
United States. Every State in fact regulates health insurance. This is
an area that not only has some Federal regulation, but every State
regulates health insurance. In fact, one of the reasons you cannot buy
a health insurance policy from the State you do not live in--you can't
go across State lines and buy a policy in another State--is because we
are so jealous of the State regulation of insurance. So to the question
of my friend from New York, who is going to provide a check, the answer
is, your State. If you do not trust your State to properly regulate
health insurance, then I don't know where we are. But you are not going
to provide better regulation by commissioning a government insurance
company to exist and compete right alongside the private insurance
companies. How does that provide a check on the private insurance
companies?
It is not as if there are not enough private insurance companies or
they are not providing enough different kinds of plans, so that can't
be the problem. It is not a matter of a lack of competition in most
places. If the question is, who is going to regulate, the answer is,
the State is going to regulate. To the extent it does not, the Federal
Government is going to regulate. That is why, A, it should not be
called a public option if what they are talking about is creating a
government-run health insurance company, which is exactly what is being
proposed in the only legislation put out there so far, the so-called
Kennedy legislation in the HELP Committee. That is precisely what he
proposes. Republicans say: No, thank you. We are not for that.
My final point is that the assistant majority leader said there are
lots of other government-run plans, and we are not afraid of them. He
mentioned Medicare and the Veterans' Administration. First of all,
these are not government insurance companies, these are government-run
programs. But, second, the President himself said, and everybody I know
of who has studied the issue agrees, Medicare is in deep trouble. The
President has said its commitments are unsustainable, meaning we cannot
keep the promises we have made in Medicare to future generations
because it is far too expensive. We have to find a way to get those
expenses under control.
How is adding another 15, 20 or 30 million Americans to an existing
program that is not sustainable going to make it any better?
My colleague talked about waiting lines. It may well be true we can
find an example or two of people who have to wait in line in the United
States. That is something we should not permit in the United States. We
know that is what exists in other countries, and I will get to that in
just a moment. Why does that justify having an expansion of a
government program? If we have a government program which causes
waiting lines today, does it solve the problem by adding a whole lot
more people to the rolls?
What is likely to happen? The waiting lines are going to get longer
because more people are going to have to be waiting for care. Is that
what we want in the United States of America? I submit not. So far from
being a justification for a government-run program, I believe that
argues for not having a government-run program, or at least not
expanding the government programs we already have. A government
takeover is not the answer. No country, even the United States, the
most prosperous country on Earth, has unlimited resources to spend on
health care.
That brings up the third problem, which is the rationing, the
inevitable delay in getting treatment or tests and frequently the
denial of care that results from that. When a government takes over
health care, as it has, for example, in Britain and Canada and many
places in Europe and other places, care inevitably is rationed. We all
have heard the stories.
One of the most direct ways we can ration care is one that the White
House has already embraced, and it is part of the Kennedy bill that I
spoke of earlier.
The White House has said comparative effectiveness research, which
would study clinical evidence to decide what works best, will help them
eliminate wasteful treatments. Wasteful to whom? A recent National
Institutes of Health project has a description of part of their plan
that states, and I will quote:
Cost-effectiveness research will provide active and
objective information to guide future policies that support
the allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute
and chronic conditions.
Allocation of health resources is a euphemism for rationing.
Allocation means to allocate, and inevitably there will be denial based
upon those things which are deemed to be too costly.
As discussions about health care reform have dominated the news
recently, stories have trickled out from individuals living in
countries that ration care whose medical treatment has been delayed or
denied due to rationing, and we are beginning to hear some of those
stories. One that I came across was reported in the Wall Street
Journal.
It was the story of one Shona Holmes of Ontario, Canada. When Miss
Holmes began losing her vision and experiencing headaches, panic
attacks, extreme fatigue, and other symptoms, she went to the doctor.
An MRI scan revealed a brain tumor, but she was told she would have to
wait months to see a specialist.
Think about this. She goes home and tells her family: The MRI said I
have a brain tumor. I have all of these symptoms, including losing
vision and the rest of it. But I have to wait months to see a
specialist--I gather, to confirm the diagnosis. I don't know. As her
symptoms worsened, she decided to
[[Page 14278]]
visit the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. So she left her home country, paid
her way down to Arizona and paid for the diagnosis and treatment that
was called for in her case to prevent the permanent vision loss and
potentially death that could have ensued had she not been treated in a
timely fashion.
A Lindsey McCreith, also of Ontario, was profiled in the same article
to which I referred. Mr. McCreith suffered from recurring headaches and
seizures. When he went to the doctor, he was told the wait time for an
MRI was 4\1/2\ months. Think about this. You are having seizures and
the test that will reveal what if anything is wrong is going to be
delayed 4\1/2\ months. One of the reasons, I am told, by the way, is
that there are very few places in Canada where MRIs are located, where
you can actually get the test. In any event, he decided to visit a
clinic in Buffalo, NY--fairly nearby--in order to get the MRI. He did
and it, too, revealed a brain tumor. Now Mr. McCreith is suing the
Canadian Government's health care monopoly for jeopardizing his life.
I wonder if we want lawsuits to be the answer. When you can't get the
care you want, you have to file a lawsuit to get it? Is that what we
want in America? I don't think so.
There are also people whose care has been flatout denied. Britain's
National Health Service has denied smokers treatment for heart disease,
and it has denied hip and knee replacements for people who are deemed
to be obese. The British Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has said it
is fine to deny treatment on the basis of lifestyle.
[Doctors] will say to patients: ``You should not have this
operation until you have lost a bit of weight,'' she said in
2007.
That is easier said than done for some people. In any event, if they
need a health treatment and they need it now, there is a real question
whether they can accomplish the ``losing a little bit of weight,'' as
Ms. Hewitt said. All Americans deserve access to quality care, but
government-run insurance does not equate with access. Rationing will
hinder access.
As I said, my colleague from Illinois, the distinguished majority
assistant leader, says you can actually find some examples in the
United States where there are long wait times. If that is true--and I
don't doubt what he said--that is not good; it is bad. We should try to
fix that so we don't have wait times. We should not justify having more
wait times on the fact that we already have some. We should not say
because there are some people in America who have to wait, therefore we
should make it possible for everybody in America to have to wait; we
should be like Canada or Great Britain.
That is not the answer. If we have wait times here, we should stop
it, not say that we, therefore, might as well be like Canada or Great
Britain. Americans do not deserve or want health care that forces them
into a government bureaucracy with its labyrinth of complex rules or
regulations.
Think about the hassles of dealing with the IRS or Department of
Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration when you have a
problem there and then imagine dealing with the same issues when it
comes to getting health care. We can't enable a panel of bureaucrats,
through rules and regulations, to put the politicians in charge of
deciding who is eligible for a particular treatment or deciding when or
where they can get it. It is wrong for America, wrong for the patients
in America, and it is the wrong approach to health care reform.
Republicans believe there is a better way for health care reform.
Rather than empowering the government, empower patients. Rather than
putting bureaucrats in between your doctor and yourself, try to remove
the constraints that physicians have and hospitals have for treating
people. Try to remove constraints on insurance companies.
One of the things I have asked for, for example, with all of these
wonderful ideas about more government regulation of insurance is, how
about repealing some laws that currently prevent insurance companies
from competing? I mentioned before you can't compete across State
lines.
We all know if you want to incorporate as a corporation--why are all
the corporations incorporated in Delaware, ``a Delaware corporation''?
It doesn't matter whether you are in Illinois or Arizona, corporations
are incorporated in Delaware. At least that is the way it used to be.
One of the reasons is Delaware had very benign laws regulating the
incorporation of businesses. It was cheaper to do it, and there was
less regulatory hassle. But if the distinguished Presiding Officer, for
example, looked across the river to the west and saw an insurance
company in Iowa that could provide him with better coverage at less
cost than the company that insures him in Illinois, why should he be
restrained from buying the policy from the company in Iowa? You could
buy your automobile insurance that way. You could buy your home
insurance that way. Why should you not be able to buy your health
insurance that way? Well, you can't.
I am going to conclude this discussion, but just one idea is to
remove some of the barriers to competition that would make it more
likely that insurance companies could expand their coverage by
competing, be required to compete with lower premiums and/or provide
better access to care. It seems logical, and in this country, where
people move around all the time--my family just drove all the way
across the country from Washington, DC, out to Arizona to visit friends
and family and go on to California. We travel all around this country
all the time. We move families, unlike back in the old days. Why can't
we have an insurance regime that enables you to buy insurance from
another State? It does not make sense; it inhibits competition; it
makes prices higher; and it can have the effect of restricting care.
Those are the kinds of things we need to do to reform our system, not
put more government in charge and not put government between you and
what your physician says you need, or even put some time delay between
the opportunity to visit your physician when you know you have
something wrong with you.
We are going to have more discussion about this in the future, but I
want to back up what Senator McConnell from Kentucky has said.
Americans don't want government-run insurance companies any more than
they want government-run car companies. It seems as though the
government is starting to run everything now--from the banks, to the
insurance companies, to the car companies. Now we are going to run
insurance companies as well for health care. I do not think that is
what the American people want.
I think the Senator from Kentucky is exactly right. I think he is
right when he says no government-run care and that we should not be
rationing care. Those are two of the most critical aspects of the
legislation Senator Kennedy has come forth with and among the things
being discussed in the Senate Finance Committee as well. We need to
draw a line: Put patients first, not put the government first.
(Mrs. Gillibrand assumed the Chair.)
____________________
GUANTANAMO
Mr. KYL. Now, Madam President, since I think I have a little bit more
time on the Republican side--though if I have colleagues who wish to
speak, I will be happy to finish for the moment--I will go for a little
bit longer on another subject.
We have had kind of a running debate on the question of closing
Guantanamo prison. This is a subject the Senate has spoken on by an
overwhelming vote. I think 90-some Senators voted not to close Gitmo.
The American people are 3 to 1 opposed to bringing Gitmo prisoners into
their State. They are 2 to 1, at least, in opposition to closing
Guantanamo prison. This is not something on which there is a little bit
of doubt. The American people are very much opposed to closing
Guantanamo prison and bringing those people to their own States.
Nevertheless, the assistant majority leader and five other Democrats
voted for the appropriation of money--or the authorization of money--
actually, the appropriation of money to close Gitmo
[[Page 14279]]
and acknowledge that would require bringing many of those people to the
United States.
Well, I happen to agree with Senator McConnell that this is a bad
idea, and with the other 89 Senators who agreed it is a bad idea, at
least until we have some kind of a plan to do it. So I was a little
struck this morning when the Senator from Illinois said: Well, here is
the proof of why we should close the Guantanamo prison.
We just have had an announcement we are going to try a terrorist,
whose name is Ghailani, in the United States, and that proves we can
close Gitmo.
Well, it does not prove that. It does not prove anything. What it
proves is, we can try somebody in U.S. courts. We have done that with a
few terrorists, and it is not a pleasant experience. The one that most
of us recall in the Washington, DC, area was the trial across the river
in Alexandria, VA, of Zacarias Moussaoui. That was extraordinarily
difficult for the government to do. It was very difficult for at least
two main reasons.
First of all, much of the evidence that was gained to try him was
classified and could not be shared with him, and there were significant
questions of due process as a result. How can we try somebody for a
serious crime and not show them the evidence against them? That is one
of the main reasons it is very difficult to try these terrorists for
crimes.
The second problem is the security issue. The people in Virginia, in
Alexandria--in the county there--will tell you, it was a costly and
difficult thing for them to be able to conduct this trial of Zacarias
Moussaoui there. Nevertheless, it was possible. Although costly, it was
possible. It was even possible to get a conviction, I would suggest,
primarily because of some decisions Moussaoui made. Nonetheless, it was
possible to do so.
Everybody acknowledges there are some people who need to be tried for
serious crimes, in effect, such as war crimes, and who should be tried
in U.S. courts. It does not make it easy, but it can be done. What it
does not prove is that it should be done for all of the people at
Gitmo. In fact, not even the President suggests that. The President, in
his speech a few weeks ago, acknowledged that many of the prisoners at
Gitmo now are never going to have a trial. They are simply being held
until the termination of the hostilities that have caused them to be
captured and imprisoned in the first place. They are like prisoners of
war who can be detained until the war is over.
Here, however, they do not even have the rights of prisoners of war
under the Geneva accords because they do not adhere to the rules of
war, they do not fight with uniforms for a nation state, and so on.
They, in fact, are terrorists. So they are still allowed humane
treatment, but they do not have the same rights as prisoners of war.
What that means is--as the President acknowledged, as the U.S.
Supreme Court has acknowledged--we have a right to hold them until the
cessation of hostilities so they do not kill any more people. We cannot
just turn them loose.
The President, in his speech, made the point that at least 60--I
think is the number that was used--of these prisoners have been
released and that they were released by the Bush administration. That
is true. The Bush administration was under a lot of pressure to try to
release as many of these people who were being held as possible, and so
they held determinations. They have a determination once a year and
initially as to what the status of the individual is and whether he is
still a danger. Eventually, in many of the cases, they decided the
person could be released back to their home country or to a country
that would take them and it would not pose a danger to the United
States.
The problem is, there is a very high rate of recidivism among these
terrorists. One in seven are believed to have returned to the
battlefield. We have evidence of many of them, specifically by name,
who returned and who caused a lot of death. There are two in particular
I recall who both eventually engaged in suicide bombing attacks,
killing, I think, 20-some people in one instance and at least a half
dozen people in another instance.
So even when we try our best to make a determination that is fair to
the individuals, but we do not want to hold people beyond the time they
should be held--that they no longer pose a danger--we make mistakes and
we release people back to the battlefield who are going to try to kill
us, and they are certainly going to try to kill others, including our
allies; and, in fact, they do so. That is a risk, but it is not a risk
that we should lightly take.
The remaining 240-some prisoners at Guantanamo are the worst of the
worst. These are people about whom it is very difficult to say: Well,
they do not pose a danger anymore. We have already been through those,
and, as I said, one in seven of those people have not only posed a
danger, they have actually gone off and killed people.
So we have 240 of the worst of the worst, and the President correctly
went through the different things that can happen to them. Some of
them--a limited number--will be tried in U.S. courts, such as this
terrorist Ghailani whom Senator Durbin spoke of earlier this morning.
It is hard to do. There are a lot of issues with it. But we will try to
try some of them.
Others can be tried with military commissions. Others will not be
able to be tried. They will have to be held. There may be a few whom we
deem no longer a threat to us and they will have to be released but to
whom nobody knows because nobody appears to want--well, the French will
take one of them, and I think there may be another European country
that said--maybe the Germans will take one. That still leaves a lot to
go.
So the bottom line is, many are going to have to be detained. The
question is, Where do we detain them? My colleague from Illinois says:
Well, there are other people who agree we should close Gitmo. Even my
colleague from Arizona has certainly said that. But what he did not say
is, before we have a plan to do so--and he himself has acknowledged
this is really hard to do. And while he would like to close it--as he
himself has said: I do not know how you do it--we certainly cannot do
it without a plan, and we certainly cannot do it based upon the
timetable that the President is talking about.
So it is one thing to say it would be nice to close it. It is quite
another to figure out how to do it that would be safe for the American
people.
Finally, just a point I want to mention--well, two final points. The
Senator from Illinois said this is a problem he, meaning the President,
inherited. No. The President did not inherit the problem of having to
come up with a plan to close Gitmo by next January 20. The President
made that problem himself. When he was sworn into office, I think it
was within 3 days, he said: And we are going to close Gitmo within 12
months.
That is an arbitrary deadline that I submit he should not have
imposed on himself or on the country because it is going to cause bad
decisions to be made. We may have to try more people, such as this
terrorist Ghailani, in the United States than we want to or than we
should. In any event, we are going to have to try to find, I gather,
facilities in which these people could be held in the United States.
FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the House of
Representatives that that posed a lot of problems, real risks, for the
United States. Nobody is saying it cannot be done. The question is,
Should it be done? Most of us believe, no, it should not be done; there
are better alternatives.
The final point I want to make is this: What is wrong with the
alternative of the prison at Guantanamo? It is a $200 million state-of-
the-art facility in which, as I pointed out yesterday, people are very
well treated, humanely treated. They have gotten a whole lot better
medical and dental care than they ever got or could have hoped to have
gotten in their home countries, fighting us on the battlefield of
Afghanistan or somewhere else.
The bottom line is, this is a top-rate facility. The people there do
not mistreat prisoners. That is the myth.
[[Page 14280]]
Somehow people conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib with Guantanamo.
This brings up the last point. It is argued by my colleague from
Illinois and others that, well, terrorists recruit based upon the
existence of Guantanamo prison.
Think about that for a moment. Are we going to say because terrorists
accuse us of doing something wrong--even though we did not--we are
going to stop any activity in that area because we want to take away
that as a recruitment tool? We would have to basically go out of
business as the United States of America if we are going to take away
all that terrorists use to recruit people to fight the West. They do
not like the way we treat women with equality in the United States.
They do not like a lot of our social values and mores. They do not even
like the fact that we hold elections.
So because that is used as a recruitment tool, we are going to stop
doing all of that? What sense does this make? We treat people humanely
and properly at Guantanamo. People were mistreated in another prison
called Abu Ghraib. They are not the same. Abu Ghraib, therefore, does
not represent the example of what we should be doing with respect to
Guantanamo.
We will have more debate on this subject. I note the time is very
short, and I meant to leave a little time for my colleague from Texas.
I hope to engage my colleagues in further conversation about this
issue. The American people do not want people from Gitmo put into their
home States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
____________________
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
Mr. CORNYN. Actually, Madam President, I intend to speak on the
underlying bill. But because the bill manager is not here, I think my
remarks are just as appropriate in morning business.
I rise to offer my support as a cosponsor of the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the so-called FDA regulation of the
tobacco bill that is currently before the Senate.
This is a rarity these days in Washington. It is actually a
bipartisan bill--people of both parties working together to try to
solve a real problem--and I want to particularly thank Senator Kennedy
and Senator Dodd for their leadership on the bill. I also want to thank
the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for organizing more than 1,000
public health groups, faith-based organizations, medical associations,
and other partners to support this legislation.
The House, as we know, passed the bill in April on a bipartisan
basis, and now it is time for the Senate to do its job this week.
This comes to us in a rather unusual historical and regulatory
posture. The fact is, we know tobacco is a killer. It is a killer. It
kills 400,000 Americans each year in the United States, including 90
percent of all deaths from lung cancer, one out of every three deaths
from other types of cancer, and one out of every five deaths for
cardiovascular disease.
The real tragedy is not just that adults choose to smoke and harm
their health--and many of whom, unfortunately, die premature deaths as
a result--it is that many smokers begin their addiction to tobacco--the
nicotine, which is the addictive substance within tobacco--when they
are young, before they are able to make intelligent choices about what
to do with their bodies and their health.
Every day about 1,000 children become regular daily smokers. Medical
professionals project that about one-third of these children will
eventually die prematurely from a tobacco-related disease.
Not surprisingly, at a time when we are contemplating health care
reform in this country, the huge expense of health care and the fiscal
unsustainability of the Medicare program, it is also important to point
out that tobacco directly increases the cost of health care in our
country. More than $100 billion is spent every year to treat tobacco-
related diseases--$100 billion of taxpayer money--and about $30 billion
of that is spent through our Medicaid Program.
America has a love-hate relationship with tobacco, and Congress, I
should say, and State government does as well. My colleagues will
recall that tobacco actually presents a revenue source for the State
and Federal Government. One of the most recent instances is when
Congress passed a 60-cent-plus additional tax on tobacco in order to
fund an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. So
government has become addicted to tobacco, too, because of the revenue
stream it presents, and that is true at the Federal level and at the
State level.
However, because of the political clout of tobacco companies years
back, when the FDA regulation statute was passed, tobacco was
specifically left out of the power of the FDA to regulate this drug.
The active ingredient I mentioned is nicotine, which was not
acknowledged to be an addictive drug for many years until finally the
Surgeon General did identify it for what it was: an addictive drug that
makes it harder for people, once they start smoking, to quit.
Then, of course, we tried litigation to control tobacco and the
spread of marketing tobacco to children and addicting them to this
deadly drug, which it is. Then, we found out it had basically no
impact, that massive national litigation through the attorneys general
in the States. Basically, the only thing that happened as a result of
that is lawyers got rich, but it didn't do anything to deal with the
problem of marketing tobacco to children.
One might ask, as a conservative: Why would one support more
regulation rather than less? Well, because of this split personality
the Federal Government has in dealing with tobacco--recognizing it is a
deadly drug, recognizing marketing often targets the most vulnerable
among us, and recognizing the fact that it kills so many people and
increases our health care costs not only in Medicare but in Medicaid--
why in the world wouldn't we ban it? I know the Senator from Oklahoma
has said maybe the world would be a better place if tobacco wasn't
legal. Well, we all know that is a slippery slope for the individual
choices we make. If we were to ban tobacco, we might as well ban fatty
food; we might as well ban alcohol. Obviously, the government would
become essentially the dictator of what people could and could not do
and consume, and I don't think the American people would tolerate it
and I think with some good reason.
We have to accept individual responsibility for our choices. But,
again, when you target a deadly drug such as tobacco and nicotine--this
addictive component of tobacco to children--that, to me, crosses the
line where we ought to say the Federal Government does have a
responsibility to allow this legal product, if it is going to remain
legal, to be used but under a regulatory regime that will protect the
most vulnerable among us.
Many States have effective ways to deal with underage use of tobacco.
I think the regime in my State of Texas works pretty well, but it is
spotty and not uniform across the country; thus, I think, necessitating
a Federal response.
This bill--which, as I say, should be our last resort, and in many
ways it is--increases Federal regulation, I believe, in a responsible
way, under an imperfect situation, where this legal but deadly drug is
used by so many people in our country.
This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to
regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products. It
would restrict marketing and sales to our young people. It would
require tobacco companies to disclose all the ingredients in their
products to the FDA. There have been various revelations over time that
there were actually efforts made by tobacco companies to
[[Page 14281]]
provide an extra dose of the addictive component of tobacco, which is
nicotine, in order to hook people at a younger age. I think by
providing for disclosure of all the ingredients of these products to
the FDA, and thus to the American people, we can give people at least
as much information as we possibly can to make wise choices with regard
to their use of tobacco, or not, preferably. It would require larger
and stronger health warnings on tobacco products.
This bill would also protect our young people and taxpayers as well.
Smokers will pay for the enforcement of these regulations through user
fees on manufacturers of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless
tobacco products. Nonsmokers will not have to pay any additional taxes
or fees as a result of this bill.
I hope this bill does some good. I think it will. But the key to
reducing smoking is for individuals to make better choices and for our
culture to change, as it has already changed, when it comes to
consumption of tobacco products. I think about other examples over time
where our culture has changed to where we now do things that are safer
and better today than we used to when I was growing up. For example,
when I was growing up, seatbelt use was very sparse. As a matter of
fact, you could buy a car, and if you wanted a seatbelt, you would have
to have somebody install it for you because it didn't come as original,
manufactured equipment. Today we know seatbelt use is not only much
broader and more widely spread, but you can't get into a car and turn
it on without being dinged to death or otherwise reminded that you need
to put your seatbelt on. The truth is it has made driving in cars a lot
safer. It has kept people healthier, even in spite of accidents they
have been involved in, and it has--not coincidentally--helped reduce
medical admissions and medical expenses as well.
We know there is also today a greater societal stigma against drunk
driving. That was not always the case. As a matter of fact, as a result
of many years of public education and stricter law enforcement, now
people take a much smarter and well-informed view of drinking and
particularly the risks of drinking and driving. We know also that many
Americans, in dealing with energy, are dealing more responsibly by
recycling and conserving energy. Of course, millions of Americans are
trying to do better when it comes to eating right and exercising more
frequently so they can protect their own health and engage in
preventive medicine, so to speak.
Government can't do it all because, as I said earlier, I think
individuals bear a responsibility to make good choices. One thing
government can do is help inform those choices. I think this regulation
bill will help smokers make better decisions by knowing what is in the
tobacco product and allowing the FDA to regulate this drug.
I believe the real drivers of change, though, are not just the
government, not the nanny State that will tell us what we can and
cannot do, but cultural influences and, indeed, economic incentives
which are more powerful than government regulations in influencing
individual behavior.
Some have said: Why in the world would we give tobacco regulation to
the Food and Drug Administration, a Federal agency with the primary job
of determining safety of food and drugs and medical devices as well as
efficacy. As a matter of fact, many people have been tempted to buy
prescription drugs, let's say, over the Internet but not knowing where
they were actually manufactured, whether they were actually counterfeit
drugs. So there is not only the question of safety--in other words, if
you put it in your mouth, is it going to poison you--but it is also if
you put it in your mouth and you take it expecting it actually to be
effective against the medical condition you want to treat. The FDA is a
regulatory agency that is supposed to determine not only safety of food
and drugs but also their efficacy.
There is a certain anomaly in giving the FDA regulatory authority for
something we know will kill people--and does, in fact, kill hundreds of
thousands of people--when used as intended by the manufacturer, but I
think this is a step in the right direction. I think the world would be
a better place--we would all certainly be healthier--if people chose
not to use tobacco, and many have made that choice due to the cultural
influences we have mentioned, as well as some of the economic
incentives that are provided by employers.
As we undertake the task of reforming our health system in America,
something that comprises 17 percent of our gross domestic product, I
think we could well learn from some of the successful experiences and
experiments some employers have used and some workers have used when it
comes to drugs such as tobacco. For example, one large grocery company
headquartered out in California--Safeway--which also has many employees
in Texas, as an employer, they noticed that 70 percent of their health
care costs were related to individual behavior, things such as diet,
exercise, and, yes, indeed, smoking. They recognized that if they could
encourage their employees to get age-appropriate diagnostic procedures
for cancer--colon cancer, for example--if they could encourage their
employees to quit smoking, if they could encourage their employees to
watch their weight and get exercise and to watch their blood pressure
and take blood pressure medication where indicated, where they could
encourage them to take cholesterol-lowering medication, if they had
high cholesterol, that they could not only have healthier, more
productive employees, they could actually bring down the costs of
health care for their employees as well as their own costs. I think
Safeway is just one example of many successful innovators across this
country, where people are encouraged to do the right thing for
themselves and for their employers and for their families. I think
these are the kinds of issues that ought to guide us as we debate
health care reform during the coming weeks.
I believe this legislation fills the necessary gap in FDA's
regulatory authority, an agency that regulates everything from food to
prescription drugs, to medical devices. The only reason tobacco was
left out of it is because of the political clout of tobacco years ago.
This legislation fills that gap and I think presents the most pragmatic
approach to try to deal with the scourge of underage smoking and
marketing to children, as well as informing consumers of what they need
to know in order to make smart choices for their own health and for the
health of their family.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period
of morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m., with Senators
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak in support
of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and also to
express my gratitude to Senator Kennedy and my colleagues who have
pushed so hard for the consideration of this important bill. I am so
pleased about the vote last night which allowed us to move forward on
this bill.
This would be a historic accomplishment for this Senate, the House,
and for the President. I am at a loss to understand how Senators could
stand in opposition to this important legislation. To prove the point,
I could ask a couple of questions:
[[Page 14282]]
What is the leading cause of preventable death in this country,
killing over 400,000 Americans a year? The leading cause of preventable
death is tobacco.
What causes more deaths than HIV/AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use,
motor vehicle accidents, suicides, and murders combined? I guess if you
ask people out there, they may not know that the answer is tobacco.
What are the only products on the market that kill one-third of their
purchasers? Madam President, if you had a health device or any product
that kills one-third of its purchasers, we would outlaw that product in
a heartbeat. We are not outlawing tobacco; we are simply saying tobacco
needs to be controlled by the FDA. Remember, the only product on the
market that kills one-third of its purchasers is tobacco, if used as
directed.
I could go on and on with these rhetorical questions. Clearly, we
know tobacco is the only product on the market that is advertised and
sold without any government oversight.
I don't understand how 35 or so of our colleagues think the answer to
our pushing for this is no. But then again, that is the answer we get
back from the other side of the aisle a lot. I am very grateful to the
eight or nine Republicans who joined us. Without them, we wouldn't be
here today. As I did on the stimulus, thanking those three who had the
bravery to say yes, I thank the eight or nine who had the bravery to
say yes and move to regulate tobacco. Food is regulated. Drugs are
regulated. Consumer products are regulated. Tobacco is not. We know
this bill could prevent 80,000 tobacco-related deaths every year.
It makes me sad to think that over the years our failure to address
this issue is having the greatest impact on our Nation's children.
Ninety percent of all new smokers are children. I have spoken to the
tobacco executives and watched them being interviewed. ``Oh, we just
don't want kids to get our products.'' Please. It is embarrassing that
they can say that with a straight face when they have invented all
kinds of new products, including tobacco candy. You know, there is an
old cliche that ``this is so easy, it is like giving candy to a baby.''
We know kids love candy, and what happens if you lace that candy with
an addictive product? The answer is that we get a lot of kids hooked on
tobacco who cannot quit when they get older.
Claims by the tobacco industry that these products are safe
alternatives to smoking and they are not designed to attract kids,
frankly, just don't add up. You know what they are doing. We know adult
smokers are finally saying no; they are quitting, thank goodness. It is
very difficult. I have watched it up close with family and friends, and
some of them who quit for 2, 3 years go right back again, and it is
worse than ever. This isn't easy. Don't say you are creating a safer
product when you create tobacco candy, a smokeless tobacco. We know
smokeless tobacco can lead to oral cancer, gum disease, heart attacks,
heart disease, cancer of the esophagus, and cancer of the stomach.
Smokeless tobacco products are only the latest effort by the tobacco
companies to market tobacco products that they claim pose a reduced
risk.
Cigarettes contain 69 known carcinogens and hundreds of other
ingredients that contribute to the risk of all of the diseases I
mentioned. Yet the tobacco industry is not required to list the
ingredients of its products as all food products have to do. We have a
right to know the calories, sugar, protein, and all those things when
we eat food, but for cigarettes they don't have to list the
ingredients.
The bill will make it so that we finally know what is contained in
these products. The legislation will grant the FDA the authority to ban
the most harmful chemicals used in tobacco and even to reduce the
amount of nicotine.
A 2006 Harvard School of Public Health study revealed that the
average amount of nicotine in cigarettes actually rose 11.8 percent
from 1997 to 2005. How can my colleagues on the other side, who voted
pretty much en masse against this bill, say we should just keep it open
to amendment? How can they explain that even after all these years, now
that we know the risks of tobacco? There were reasons in the early
years when we didn't know how serious it was. That is one thing. But
here they have a situation where recently they raised the amount of
nicotine. There is no rhyme or reason for that.
This bill will give the FDA the authority to require stronger warning
labels, prevent industry misrepresentations, and regulate ``reduced
harm'' claims about tobacco products. If you die because you use
smokeless tobacco but say you die from a heart attack, you are still
dead. This Congress and the President have committed to reducing health
care costs through comprehensive reform. This legislation is such an
important step on the way because lung cancer is a preventable disease.
It is preventable, as well as the heart risks associated with smoking.
Investing in prevention and wellness will enable us to increase access
to quality health care while reducing costs.
Tobacco use results in $96 billion in annual health care costs, and
in California alone--my State--we spend $9.1 billion on smoking-related
health care costs. Everybody who has a heartbeat and a pulse today
knows that my State suffers mightily from a terrible budget crisis--$20
billion. We don't know where to look, what to do. People never put
together the fact that smoking is causing our health care costs to
swell. If my State could save $9.1 billion on smoking-related health
care costs, that really saves the education system and a lot of other
important things we do in our State.
Preventive medicine and giving the authority to the FDA to vigorously
enforce some strict, new laws about cigarettes is going to make a
positive difference. I am proud to be here in support of this important
legislation.
I wish to say again to Senator Kennedy, if he is watching this
debate, how much I respect, admire, and miss him and his presence here
on this bill. If he were here, he would be roaring from the back of the
Chamber about this, in the best of ways, and challenging us to move
forward on this bill as quickly as we can.
The House has acted. Once the Senate acts, we can have a conference--
or maybe the House will take the Senate bill--and this bill will be on
the President's desk before we do health care reform. Imagine what a
great preamble this would be to health care reform--tackling this
incredible problem in our society, tobacco use, an incredible problem
in our society that causes so much suffering and dependence and so much
addiction, so much cost--if we are able to tackle this as a preamble to
our health care reform, I would be so proud. I know each and every one
of us who will support this will be very proud. I know President Obama
will be very proud. He has struggled with tobacco addiction. He knows
how tough it is to say no to cigarettes. Clearly, the best way is to
prevent someone from getting addicted in the first place.
I don't want my grandkids being lured into smoking by looking at a
box of candy cigarettes and trying one, two, three, and four. I don't
want that for anybody's grandkids. If people decide when they are
older, when they know all of the facts, that they are going to smoke,
in many ways that is their problem. But it is our job to let them know
the risks and dangers. Very clearly, we have been dancing around the
edges with these little warning labels, but we have not controlled
tobacco. We need to do that.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--again,
thanking the eight or nine Republicans for joining us--to make an
investment in the health of the American people and support this
legislation.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 14283]]
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the vote with respect to the Burr-Hagan amendment be modified to
provide that the vote occur at 4:20 p.m. under the same conditions as
previously ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, for the sake of my colleagues, I want to
talk about the timing of the Judge Sotomayor nomination.
I talked with the distinguished ranking member last week on this
schedule, and I would note the concerns he raised, but I am announcing
today that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the confirmation
hearing on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 13.
I have talked and met with Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking
member, several times to discuss the scheduling of this hearing. I will
continue to consult with Senator Sessions to ensure that we hold a fair
hearing. We were able to work cooperatively to send a bipartisan
questionnaire to Judge Sotomayor within one day of her designation by
President Obama. Last week the committee received her response to that
questionnaire. We also received other background information from the
administration, as well as the official Presidential nomination.
This is a reasonable schedule. It will be the middle of next month.
It is in line with past experience. It will allow several more weeks
for committee members to prepare for the hearing--several more weeks
than if I had held the hearing this month--and there is no reason to
unduly delay the consideration of this well-qualified nominee. Judge
Sotomayor deserves the opportunity to go before the public and speak of
her record, especially as some have mischaracterized and misstated it.
The only place she can speak of her record is in a hearing.
It is also a responsible schedule that serves the many interests
involved. Of course, first and foremost is the American people's stake
in a process that is fair and thorough but not needlessly prolonged. It
serves the purpose of the institution of the Senate, where we need
sufficient time to prepare for a confirmation hearing. We have a full
legislative plate of additional pressing business in the weeks and
months ahead that is of great importance to our constituents and to the
Nation. Then, of course, it serves the need of the third branch of
government, which depends on the other branches of government to fill
court vacancies in our independent judiciary. It serves the needs of
the President who has nominated Judge Sotomayor. And lest we forget, it
serves the needs of the nominee herself, who as a judge will only be
able to speak publicly about her record when the hearings are convened.
This is an extremely important obligation that we as Members of the
Senate take on. There are only 101 people who get a direct say in the
nomination and confirmation of a Justice of the Supreme Court. First
and foremost, of course, the President of the United States--and in
this case, President Obama consulted with numerous Senators,
Republicans and Democrats alike--prior to making his nomination. Then
once the nomination is made, 100 Members of the Senate have to stand in
for 300 million Americans in deciding who will get that lifetime
appointment. I voted on every single current member of the Supreme
Court, as well as some in the past, and I know how important an
obligation that is.
The Justice who takes Justice Souter's place for the court session
that convenes October 5 also needs as much time as possible to hire law
clerks, to set up an office, to find a place to live here in
Washington, and to take part with the rest of the Court in the
preparatory work that precedes the formal start of the session on the
first Monday in October.
I mention that because I have put together a schedule that tracks the
process the Senate followed, by bipartisan agreement, in considering
President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court in
2005. At that time, I served as the ranking minority member of the
Judiciary Committee. I met with our Republican chairman, and we worked
out a schedule which provided for Chief Justice Roberts' hearing 48
days after he was named by President Bush.
I might say that the agreement on time was reached even before the
committee received the answers to the bipartisan questionnaire. And
while Justice Roberts--then Judge Roberts--had not written as many
opinions as Judge Sotomayor, he had been in a political policy position
in Republican administrations for years before, and there were 75,000
pages of documents from that time. In fact, some arrived almost on the
eve of the hearing itself. And, of course, that nomination replaced
Justice O'Connor, who was recognized as a pivotal vote on the Supreme
Court.
If something that significant required 48 days, and Republicans and
Democrats agreed that was sufficient to prepare for that hearing, in
accordance with our agreement on the initial schedule, certainly that
is a precedent that says we have more than adequate time to prepare for
the confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor.
My initial proposal to Senator Sessions was that we begin the hearing
on July 7, following the Senate's return from the Fourth of July
recess. I have deferred the start date to July 13 in an effort to
accommodate our Republican members. With bipartisan cooperation, we
should still be able to complete Judiciary Committee consideration of
the nomination during the last week in July, and allow the Senate to
consider the nomination during the first week in August, before the
Senate recesses on August 7.
In selecting the date, I am trying to be fair to all concerned. I
want to be fair to the nominee, allowing her the earliest possible
opportunity to respond to attacks made about her character. It is not
fair for critics to be calling her racist--one even equating her with
the head of the Ku Klux Klan, an outrageous comment, and both
Republicans and Democrats have said it was outrageous--without allowing
her the opportunity to speak to it, and she can't speak to it until she
is in the hearing.
I also want to conclude the process without unnecessary delay so that
she might participate fully in the deliberations of the Supreme Court
selecting cases and preparing for its new term. In his May 1 letter to
President Obama, Justice Souter announced his resignation effective
``when the Supreme Court rises for the summer recess this year,'' which
will happen later this month. Thereafter, the Supreme Court prepares
for the next term. To participate fully in the upcoming deliberations,
it would be helpful for his successor to be confirmed and able to take
part in the selection of cases as well in preparing for their argument.
I am merely following the timeline we followed with the Roberts
nomination. The timeline for the Alito nomination provides no reason to
delay the hearing for Judge Sotomayor. It presented a very different
situation in many ways. For one thing, that nomination was made with no
consultation by President Bush. By contrast, President Obama devoted
several weeks to consultation with both Republicans and Democrats
before making his selection. The Alito nomination was President Bush's
third nomination to succeed Justice O'Connor. It followed 4 months of
intense effort by the Judiciary Committee, beginning with Justice
O'Connor's announcement on July 1. And finally, the Christmas holidays
helped account for the timing of those hearings. I do not believe
Bastille Day requires us to delay the confirmation
[[Page 14284]]
hearings for the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court for an
additional 6 weeks.
Some may recall that Justice O'Connor's resignation in 2005 was
contingent on the ``nomination and confirmation of [her] successor.''
She continued to serve on the Supreme Court when its new term began in
October 2005, and until Justice Alito was confirmed at the end of
January 2006. In addition, proceedings to fill that vacancy involved a
more extended process, not only because Justice O'Connor represented a
pivotal vote on the Supreme Court on so many issues, but because
President Bush first nominated John Roberts and then withdrew that
nomination, then nominated Harriet Miers and withdrew her nomination
when Republicans and conservatives revolted, and finally nominated
Samuel Alito. The nomination of Judge Alito was the third Supreme Court
nomination that the Senate was asked to consider, and followed the
withdrawal of the Miers nomination by only 3 days.
Given that sequence of events, and the then upcoming Christmas
holiday, that hearing on the late October nomination of Samuel Alito
was appropriately scheduled by the Republican Chairman to begin after
the New Year. In addition, Judge Alito did not return his questionnaire
until November 30. His hearing was held 40 days after his questionnaire
was returned, which includes the Christmas and the holiday period. That
is substantially equivalent to the 39 days between the time receipt of
Judge Sotomayor's questionnaire response and her hearing.
Of course, in the case of the current nomination, Judge Sotomayor had
been reported to be a leading candidate for the vacancy as soon as it
arose on May 1, and her record was being studied from at least that
time forward. The right wing groups attacking her were doing so long
before she was named by the President on May 26, and those attacks have
intensified since her designation.
I do not want to see this historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor
treated unfairly or less fairly than the Senate treated the nomination
of John Roberts. In 2005, when President Bush made his first nomination
to the Supreme Court, Senator McConnell, who was the majority whip,
said the Senate should consider and confirm the nominations within 60
to 70 days. We worked hard to achieve that.
The nomination of Judge Sotomayor should more easily be considered
within that timeframe. Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to succeed
Justice Souter, a like-minded, independent and fair Justice, not bound
by ideology, but one who decided each case on its merits and in
accordance with the rule of law. We have the added benefit of her
career being one that includes her service on the judiciary for the
past 17 years. Her judicial decisions are matters of the public record.
Indeed, when my staff assembled her written opinions and offered them
to the Republican staff, they declined, because they already had them
and were reviewing them. We have the benefit of her judicial record
being public and well known to us. We have the benefit of her record
having been a subject of review for the last month, since at least May
1, when she was mentioned as a leading candidate to succeed Justice
Souter. We have the benefit of having considered and confirmed her
twice before, first when nominated to be a judge by a Republican
President and then when elevated to the circuit court by a Democratic
President. We have the benefit of not having to search through
Presidential libraries for work papers of the nominee. By contrast, the
75,000 pages of work papers for John Roberts required extensive time
and effort to retrieve them from Presidential libraries and to overcome
claims of privilege. In fact, they were still being received just days
before the hearing.
To delay Judge Sotomayor's hearing until September would double the
amount of time that Republicans and Democrats agreed was adequate to
prepare for Judge Roberts' hearing. That would not be fair or
appropriate. That would not be equal treatment.
Unlike the late July nomination of John Roberts, this nomination of
Judge Sotomayor by President Obama was announced in May. Unlike the
resignation of Justice O'Connor that was not announced until July, the
retirement of Justice Souter was made official on May 1. Given that the
vacancy arose 2 months earlier, and the nomination was made after
bipartisan consultation 2 months earlier, by following the Roberts
roadmap, we should be able to complete the process 2 months earlier. We
should be able to complete the entire process by the scheduled recess
date of August 7.
Of course, while the Roberts nomination was pending, Chief Justice
Rehnquist passed away and President Bush decided to withdraw the
initial nomination to be an Associate Justice, and proceeded to
nominate John Roberts to succeed the Chief Justice, instead. We did not
insist that the process start over; rather, we continued to move
forward. It was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with its
destruction and toll in damage and human life, that pushed the start of
the hearings back 1 week, by bipartisan agreement.
We were still able to complete Senate consideration and the Senate
confirmed John Roberts to be the Chief Justice 72 days after he was
initially designated to be an Associate Justice. We did this despite
the fact his initial nomination was withdrawn and only shortly before
his hearing he was renominated to serve as the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. And we did this despite the terrible aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, where everybody--Republicans and Democrats alike--
agreed that we should hold back a week on the hearings so we could all
concentrate the Nation's resources on Hurricane Katrina. So that
required a week's delay. If we followed the same schedule, 72 days
after Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court would be
August 6--and we will not have to lose 7 of those days to Hurricane
Katrina.
Her historic nomination should be treated as fairly as the nomination
of John Roberts was treated by the Senate. Given the outrageous attacks
on Judge Sotomayor's character, I do not think it fair to delay her
hearing. I cringed when I was told that, during the courtesy visit
Judge Sotomayor paid to Senator McConnell, reporters shouted questions
about conservatives calling her a racist. She had to sit there silently
and could not respond. She deserves that opportunity as soon as
possible.
The hearing is the opportunity for all Senators on the Judiciary
Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to ask questions, to raise
concerns, and to evaluate the nominee. As Senator Sessions' Saturday
radio speech ably demonstrates, Republican Senators are already
prepared to ask their questions. Last week, we were considering another
judicial nomination at the meeting of the Judiciary Committee when
Senator Kyl suggested that he may oppose all of President Obama's
nominees given what he views as the criteria President Obama is
considering in selecting them. Republicans have questioned whether her
recognition that she brings her life experience with her, as all judges
do, is somehow disqualifying.
Our Republican colleagues have said they intend to ask her about her
judicial philosophy. It doesn't take a month to prepare to ask these
questions. In fact, most of them have already raised the questions.
They will surely be prepared to ask them more than a month from now.
And during that month, we have a week's vacation from the Senate. I
intend to be using that week--without the interruption of committee
hearings, without the interruption of votes, without the interruption
of the regular Senate business--to prepare for the hearings. I would
advise those Senators who feel they have to have extra time to forgo
your vacation and spend that week preparing for the hearing. Holding
Judge Sotomayor's hearing on July 13 will, in effect, afford 10 weeks
for them to have prepared.
Because this is a historic nomination, I hope all Senators will
cooperate. It is a schedule that I think is both fair and adequate--
fair to the nominee, but also adequate for the Senate to prepare for
the hearing and Senate consideration. There is no reason to indulge in
needless and unreasonable delay.
[[Page 14285]]
I say this is a historic nomination because it should unite and not
divide the American people and the Senate. Hers is a distinctly
American story. Whether you are from the south Bronx or the south side
of Chicago or south Burlington, VT, the American dream inspires all of
us. Her life story is the American dream. And so, I might add, is the
journey of the President who nominated her.
Some are simply spoiling for a fight. There have been too many unfair
attacks, people unfairly calling her racist and bigoted. I know Sonia
Sotomayor, and nothing could be further from the truth. These are some
of the same people who vilify Justice Souter and Justice O'Connor.
Americans deserve better. There are others who have questioned her
character and temperament. She deserves a fair hearing, not a trial by
attack and assaults upon her character. So let's proceed to give her
that fair hearing without unnecessary delay.
I am also disappointed that some have taken to suggesting that after
17 years as a Federal judge, including 11 as a member of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor does not understand
``the judge's role.'' I know her to be a restrained and thoughtful
judge. She has reportedly agreed with judges appointed by Republican
Presidents 95 percent of the time. Let us respect her achievements, her
experience and her understanding. Let no one demean this extraordinary
woman or her understanding of the constitutional duties she has
faithfully performed for the last 17 years. I urge all Senators to join
with me to fulfill our constitutional duties with respect.
I have said many times on the floor of this great body over my 35
years here that as Senators we should be the conscience of the Nation,
as we are called upon to be. There have been occasions when this
Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike--has united and shown they can
be the conscience of the Nation. I would say this is one time we should
rise above partisanship and be that conscience.
When I met with Judge Sotomayor, I asked her about her approach to
the law. She answered that, of course, one's life experience shapes who
you are, but ultimately and completely-- her words--as a judge, you
follow the law. There is not one law for one race or another. There is
not one law for one color or another. There is not one law for rich, a
different one for poor. There is not one law for those who belong to
one political party or another. There is one law for all Americans. And
she made it very emphatic that as a judge, you follow that one law.
There is only one law. We all know that. She said, ultimately and
completely a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their
upbringing has been. That is the kind of fair and impartial judging
that the American people expect. That is respect for the rule of law.
That is the kind of judge she has been.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow Senators to ask questions and
raise their concerns. It is also the time the American people can see
the nominee, consider her temperament and evaluate her character, too.
I am disappointed that some Republican Senators have declared that they
will vote no on this historic nomination and have made that
announcement before giving the nominee a fair chance to be heard at her
hearing. It is incumbent on us to allow the nominee an opportunity to
be considered fairly and allow her to respond to false criticism of her
record and her character. Those who are critical and have doubts should
support the promptest possible hearing. That is where questions can be
asked and answered. That is why we hold hearings.
Judge Sotomayor is extraordinarily well equipped to serve on the
Nation's highest court. To borrow the phrase that the First Lady used
last week, not only do I believe that Judge Sotomayor is prepared to
serve all Americans on the Supreme Court, I believe the country is more
than ready to see this accomplished Hispanic woman do just that. This
is a historic nomination, and it is an occasion for the Senate and our
great Nation to come together. This is the time for us to come
together.
The process is another step toward the American people regaining
confidence in their judiciary. Our independent judiciary is considered
to be the envy of the world. Though less visible than the other two
branches, the judiciary is a vital part of the infrastructure that
knits our Nation together under the rule of law. Every time I walk up
the steps into the Supreme Court, I look at the words over the entrance
to the Supreme Court. They are engraved in marble from my native State
of Vermont. Those words say: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' The
nomination of Judge Sotomayor keeps faith with that model.
Her experience as a trial court judge will be important. Only Justice
Souter of those currently on the Supreme Court previously served as a
trial court judge. Judge Sotomayor has the added benefit of having been
in law enforcement as a tough prosecutor who received her early
training in the office of the longtime and storied New York District
Attorney, Robert Morgenthau.
I appreciate that she has shown restraint as a judge. We do not need
another Supreme Court Justice intent on second-guessing Congress,
undercutting laws passed to benefit Americans and protect their
liberties, and making light of judicial precedent.
President Obama handled the selection process with the care that the
American people expect and deserve, and met with Senators from both
sides of the aisle. Senator Sessions suggested to the President that it
was important to nominate someone with a judicial record. Judge
Sotomayor has more judicial experience than any nominee in recent
history.
I wanted someone outside the judicial monastery, and whose
experiences were not limited to those in the rarified air of the
Federal appellate courts. Her background as someone who was largely
raised by a working mother in the South Bronx, who has never forgotten
where she came from, means a great deal to me. Judge Sotomayor has a
first-rate legal mind and impeccable credentials. I think she combines
the best of what Senator Sessions and I recommended that the President
look for in his nominee.
The Supreme Court's decisions have a fundamental impact on Americans'
everyday lives. One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and
Diana Levine cases to understand how just one vote can determine the
Court's decision and impact the lives and freedoms of countless
Americans.
I believe Judge Sotomayor will continue to do what she has always
done as a judge--applying the law to the case before her. I do not
believe she will act in the mold of conservative activists who second-
guess Congress and undercut laws meant to protect Americans from
discrimination in their jobs and in voting, to protect the access of
Americans to health care and education, and to protect their privacy
from an overreaching government.
I believe Judge Sotomayor understands that the courthouse doors must
be as open to ordinary Americans as they are to government and big
corporations.
President Obama is to be commended for having consulted with Senators
from both sides of the aisle. I was with him on some of the occasions
that he did. I have had Senators come up to me, Republican Senators,
and tell me they had never been called by a President of their own
party, to say nothing of a Democratic President, to talk about a
Supreme Court nominee. But President Obama did call and reach out.
Now it is the Senate's duty to come to the fore. I believe all
Senators, of both parties, will work with me to consider this
nomination in a fair and timely manner.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 14286]]
____________________
HEALTH INSURANCE
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, in 1945, President Truman delivered a
speech to a joint session of Congress, in which he declared:
Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of
opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Millions do not
now have protection or security against the economic effects
of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them
attain that opportunity and that protection.
That was said by President Truman, 10 or 11 Presidents ago, perhaps
six decades ago, and 64 years later we are still fighting to provide
that opportunity and that protection.
A severely weakened economy, growing unemployment, rising health care
and health insurance costs, and declining employment-based insurance
are all factors contributing to the current health care crisis. Today,
47 million Americans are uninsured. An additional 25, 30, 35, as many
as 40 million Americans are underinsured and millions of Americans are
either underinsured or uninsured and are saddled with catastrophic
medical debt.
Closing the health care gap will dramatically improve the public's
health. It will also lead predictability to national health spending,
which is essential if we are going to get health care costs under
control.
Closing the health care gap would dramatically reduce personal
bankruptcies, more than half of which result from catastrophic illness
and the huge bills that go with it.
Think about that for a moment. Most bankruptcies in this country are
because people have had health care bills they simply cannot pay. Most
of those people have those health care bills which they cannot pay
which then force them into bankruptcy. Most of those people have health
insurance, but it is inadequate and has too many gaps in it.
Closing the health care gap is a short-term and a long-term
investment in the health of Americans, the health of U.S. businesses--
businesses whose premiums are inflated by the costs of uncompensated
care. It is an investment in the health of our economy, which benefits
from the health care industry but not from already too high health care
costs, further inflated by needless red tape, needless duplication,
needless indifference to health care needs that become more serious and
more costly when they are not caught early.
Per capita health care spending in the United States is 53 percent
higher here than that of any other nation in the world, and we are the
only nation in the world without an insurance system to cover everyone.
In other words, we are paying at least half again as much--at least--as
any other country in the world per person. Yet millions, tens of
millions of Americans, do not have health insurance. Life expectancy,
infant mortality, maternal mortality, immunization rates--we are not
among the world leaders in any of those categories.
Interestingly, the only place we are a world leader is life
expectancy at 65. If you get to be 65 in this country, the chance that
you will live a longer, healthier life is greater than in almost any
other country in the world.
In Ohio, $3.5 billion is spent each year by and on behalf of the
uninsured for health care that meets about half their needs. For the
first time, we are on the verge of meaningful health care reform that
will make a difference in the lives of Americans who have, for too
long, put up with less than they deserve when it comes to health care.
Our health insurance system does some things very well, but we have let
the industry, the health care industry, forget its own core central
purpose.
The insurance industry is supposed to bear risks on behalf of its
enrollees, not avoid risk at the expense of its enrollees.
The insurance industry is supposed to protect the sick, not throw
them overboard.
The insurance industry is supposed to offer affordable coverage to
every American, not expensive coverage to some Americans and no
coverage to the rest.
The insurance industry is supposed to cover the reasonable and
customary costs of health care, not a fraction of that.
The health insurance industry is supposed to cover the doctors you
need, not the doctors the insurer chooses for you.
The insurance industry is supposed to pay claims on a timely basis,
not as slowly as they possibly can.
Who can forget, when Senator Obama was talking about his mother in
the last months of her life, how as she suffered and was dying from
terminal cancer, she spent much of her time on the phone trying to
figure out how to collect on insurance, how to pay, how to simply get
by and not leave debt for her soon to be very famous son.
The health insurance industry does some things pretty well, but it
gets away with too much. What do we do about it? First, we put stronger
insurance rules in place. Second, we introduce some good old-fashioned
competition into the insurance market. That is the purpose of a
federally backed insurance option, one the Presiding Officer from New
York has spoken out for, as has the other Senator from New York and a
majority of people in this body. It is to set the bar high enough for
private insurers that they can't slip back into their risk-avoiding
ways without taking a hit in the marketplace. In other words, we need
insurance company rules on preexisting conditions, on changing the way
we do community rating, on a whole host of rules to make insurance
companies behave better and serve the public better.
We also need this federally backed insurance option because all too
often insurance companies are a step ahead of the sheriff. They always
can figure out how to stay ahead of the rules that try to make them
behave in a way that is more in the public interest.
The purpose of establishing a federally backed insurance option--it
is an option--is to give Americans more choices and to give the private
insurance industry an incentive to play fair with their enrollees, or
their enrollees will look elsewhere, perhaps in the public plan.
Private insurers have helped to create a system of winners and
losers--a system in which insured Americans can still be bankrupted by
health expenses and uninsured Americans can still die far too young
because they cannot get the health care they need.
Insurance companies have always been one step ahead of the sheriff.
They have given us no reason to believe they will behave any
differently. They have come to Congress this year and said: You can put
some new rules on us. But when we have done that in the past, we know
they have always found a way to avoid some of those rules that do not
serve their bottom line. And it is their bottom line, and I do not even
blame the insurance companies for acting the way they do. I just say we
need a set of rules to make sure they act in the public interest.
Private insurance market reforms, coupled with the creation of a
competitive, federally backed health insurance option--it is an option,
just as it will be an option, once we pass health insurance, that
anybody today can stay in the insurance plan they have. Nobody is going
to be forced to do anything they do not want to do. Private insurance
market reforms, coupled with the creation of a competitive, federally
backed health insurance option represents our best hope at achieving
the health reforms so vital to the health of our citizens and the
future of our Nation.
Last week, President Obama sent a letter to Chairman Kennedy of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on which I sit, and
to Chairman Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, the other
health care committee here, in which the President stated:
I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of
a public health insurance option operating alongside private
plans. This will give them--
Will give American citizens--
a better range of choices, make the health care market more
competitive and keep insurance companies honest.
A public health insurance option--not administered by a private for-
profit insurance company but a public health
[[Page 14287]]
insurance option--is one of the necessary components of health reform.
There is no better way to keep the private insurance industry honest
than to make sure they are not the only game in town. Historically,
public health insurance has outperformed private insurance in
preserving access to stable and reliable health care, in reining in
costs, in cutting down on bureaucracy, and in pioneering new payment
and quality-improvement methods.
A public health insurance option will not neglect sparsely populated
and rural areas, as insurers too often do. The Presiding Officer
previously represented a rural congressional district in New York. She
knows the problems of insurance availability in rural areas. It will
not disappear.
A public health insurance option will not disappear when an American
loses her job, when a marriage ends, or when a dependent becomes an
adult. And the pages sitting here in front of me, when they finish
school and go into the workplace, they would have an option. Once they
are no longer dependent on their parents, they will have that public
option, as other Americans will.
A public health insurance option will not deny claims first and ask
questions later, as insurance companies too often do. It will not look
for any and every loophole to insure the healthy and avoid the sick, as
private insurance companies too often do.
These are the fundamental reasons why a public plan option is the
key--is the key--to arriving at a health insurance system that better
serves every American, insured and uninsured alike. What is the point
of health care reform if we do not do it right and make sure every
American citizen is better served than they are now in this health
insurance market?
Madam President, I yield the floor.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:34 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Acting President pro tempore.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note there is nobody here who wishes to
speak, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
THE DEFICIT
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about two
issues, and I know Senator Burr wants to continue his discussion of the
FDA tobacco bill.
There are two issues which are very significant to the American
taxpayer, especially to those of us who are concerned about how much
debt this administration is running up on our children, and they need
to be highlighted.
The first is good news. It looks as though a number of banks are
going to repay a fair percentage of the TARP money that has been put
out by the administration--potentially $65 billion. When TARP was
originally structured, the understanding was that we would buy assets
in banks or from banks, and at some point we would get that money back
as taxpayers. In fact, we would get it back with interest. This is what
is happening now. The money is coming back, as these banks have
restored their fiscal strength, and it is actually coming back with
interest. About $4.5 billion on top of the money we have put out, is my
understanding, as to what will be paid back on the interest side
relative to the preferred stock. So that is all good news.
First, the financial system was stabilized during a cataclysmic
period in September and October, and the investments which remained in
preferred stock, with taxpayers' money, is now being repaid.
The issue becomes, however, what are we going to do with this money
that is coming back into the Treasury? Well, it ought to go to reduce
the debt. This administration in recent days has been giving at least
lipservice to the fact that the budget they put in place, with a $1
trillion deficit over the next 10 years on average every year--$1
trillion every year for the next 10 years, of doubling the debt in 5
years, of tripling it in 10 years--they have been giving lipservice
that they understand that is not a sustainable situation. The Secretary
of the Treasury, the Chief Economic Counsel, and even the President
have said the budget they proposed is not sustainable because the debt
that is being run up on the American public cannot be afforded by our
children. It goes from what has historically been about 35 percent of
the gross national product up to over 82 percent of the gross national
product. The interest on the debt alone at the end of this budget which
the President proposed will be $800 billion a year--$800 billion a
year--just in interest payments that the American people will have to
pay. That will actually exceed any other major item of discretionary
spending in the budget. We will be spending less than that on the
national defense. We will be spending more on interest, in other words,
than we spend on national defense because of all of the debt that is
being run up.
Well, if this administration is serious--and I am not sure they are;
I think they are basically holding press conferences because they did
something else today which implies that--if they are actually serious
about trying to address this debt issue, then they should immediately
take the $65 billion they are going to get back from the banks to which
money was lent and that was put out by taxpayers and knew we would get
back, they should immediately take that money and apply it to reducing
the Federal debt. It should not be spent on other programs. It
shouldn't even be recycled through the financial system.
It should be repaid to the taxpayer by reducing the debt of the
United States. That is the only reasonable way to approach it. It would
be a tremendously strong signal not only to the American taxpayers that
this administration is serious about doing something on the debt side,
but it would be a strong signal to the world markets that we were
willing, as a nation, to take this money and pay down the debt.
Ironically, it would also follow the proposal of the original TARP
bill, which said that after the financial system was stabilized, any
moneys coming in should be used to reduce the deficit and debt of the
United States. It certainly should not be used to fund new ventures
into the private sector, whether it is buying automobile companies or
insurance companies or anything else such as that. It should be simply
used to reduce the debt.
I hope the administration will do that because that would follow the
law, and it would be a good sign to the world markets, which are
becoming suspicious of our debt, as we have seen in a number of
instances--for example, the cost of 10-year bills, 30-year bills, and
also the fact that the Chinese leadership, in the financial area,
expressed concern about the purchase of the long-term debt of the
United States. It would also be a positive sign to Americans that we
are going to do something about this debt we are passing on to our
kids.
It is unfair to run up a trillion dollars a year of deficit, double
the debt in 5 years, and triple it in 10 years, and send all those
bills to our kids. These young students here today as pages, in 10
years, will find the household they are living in has a new $30,000
mortgage on it, and it is called the bill for the Federal debt. They
will have a new $6,500 interest payment that they will have to make,
which is called the interest they have to support on the Federal debt.
It is not appropriate to do that to these younger Americans and to the
next generation. Let's take the $65 billion and use it as it was
originally agreed it would be used, which is when it came back into the
Treasury, with interest, which is pretty good, it would be used to pay
down the debt.
[[Page 14288]]
Why am I suspicious that this administration is giving us lip service
on the issue of fiscal discipline? There is a second thing that
happened today. The President today came out and held a big press
conference about how he was for pay-go. I have not heard a Democratic
candidate for Congress, and now the President of the United States, not
claim they are going to exercise fiscal discipline here by being for
pay-go, because the term has such motherhood implications, that you are
going to pay for what you do here. It is total hypocrisy, inconsistent
with everything that has happened from the other side of the aisle in
the era of spending and budgeting. Not only do they not support pay-go,
they punch holes in what we have for our pay-go law.
In the last 2\1/2\ years, this Congress--and now in the last 3, 4, or
5 months--and this Presidency have passed--democratically controlled--
10 bills that have waived or gamed the pay-go rules that are already on
the books to the tune of $882 billion. If you throw in the things they
wanted to do that they weren't able to pass, because we on our side
stood up and said, no, that is too much--and we did it on the rest, but
we got rolled--it is over a trillion dollars of instances where this
Congress and this President have asked for initiatives that would
waive, punch holes in, go around the pay-go rules we already have. That
is why I called it ``Swiss-cheese-go,'' not pay-go. Now we have this
disingenuous statement from the administration that suddenly they are
for pay-go. It already exists; we just don't enforce it around here.
Not only do they claim they are for pay-go, even in their statement
they claim they are for it, and they game their own pay-go proposal by
saying it is not going to apply to the doc fix, the AMT fix, or even to
the health care exercise. There should be a pay-go point of order
against the first 5 years, and they waived that on health care reform.
It is a good precedent. It will be picked up by the mainstream media
as an effort by this administration to try to discipline spending
because, of course, they are not going to acknowledge that it has been
gamed to such an extraordinary extent that over $882 billion has been
spent that should have been subject to pay-go rules. So it is a touch
inconsistent and disingenuous for them to suddenly now find the faith
of pay-go when, in fact, they have been ignoring pay-go rules and
gaming those rules so they could spend money.
Again, what happens there? They run up the debt on the American
people in the United States, creating a system where our government
will not be sustainable or affordable for our children.
If this administration wants to do something meaningful in the area
of reducing the debt and controlling spending, take the $65 billion
they are about to get in repayment of TARP money from the various banks
and apply it to reduce the debt. That would be real action versus the
precedent.
I yield the floor and appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from
North Carolina.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
an hour as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I came to the floor last week for north of 5
hours and spoke about the bill that will be disposed of as this week
goes on and, specifically, on an amendment that, though nongermane
postcloture, the majority leader has agreed to hold a vote on. To me,
this will be one of the most important votes Members in this body cast
this year.
Again, I believe this is one of the most important votes Members in
the Senate will cast this year. Let me try to say why. This is a debate
about the regulation of tobacco and, to start with, Members need to be
reminded that today this is not an industry without regulation. This is
the current charted Federal regulation of the tobacco industry before
we do anything. I point out that included in that regulatory structure
is the Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, Department
of Commerce, Department of Justice, Office of the President, Department
of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Department of
Labor, General Services Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Federal Trade Commission, Department of Agriculture, Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Postal Service, and Department of Defense.
One, no Member can come to the floor and claim this is not a
regulated product. It is the most regulated product sold in America
today. I think there is consensus, and I agree, that we can do better
than this maze of regulatory oversight in jurisdiction that is
currently structured within the Federal Government, because it has been
cobbled together as the Federal Government has grown, as new areas saw
they had a piece of this pie, and they wanted some jurisdiction. We are
throwing this regulatory structure away, and the proposal in the base
bill, H.R. 1256, is to centralize this regulation of tobacco within the
FDA.
For those who aren't familiar with the FDA, let me say the Food and
Drug Administration regulates 25 cents of every dollar of the U.S.
economy--25 percent of all of the products sold in the United States
are regulated by this one agency.
FDA's core mission is this:
Responsible for protecting the public health by assuring
the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary
drugs, biologic products, medical devices, our Nation's food
supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
Nowhere in there does it say tobacco, nor has it ever. A layperson
would look at this and say if there is an agency whose responsibility
it is to approve safety and effectiveness, for God's sake, you could
not give them tobacco because they could never prove it was safe. It
kills, and there is no dispute about that. We are trying to take a
round peg and put it in a square hole. We are trying to find an agency
that we think has punitive steps that they can take, but we are
actually going much farther than that. You see, not only is there
experience or expertise at the FDA to regulate tobacco, they are not.
We are going to ask the FDA to surge, with their resources, their
personnel, expertise, away from things such as lifesaving drugs,
effective medical devices, and a responsibility to food safety at a
time Americans have been killed because this agency couldn't
effectively do their job. We are going to ask them to surge to handle a
new product they have never, ever regulated.
As a matter of fact, the last FDA Commissioner, von Eschenbach, said
this:
The provisions in this bill--
I might say this was slightly over 2 years ago. As I have pointed out
and talked about last week for over 5 hours on H.R. 1256, the authors
of the bill didn't even change the dates in the bill from the bill
written 2 years ago. As a matter of fact, the section by section is the
same bill written 10 years ago. So I think it is appropriate, if they
are going to use an effective date of February 2007, that I use the
comments of the FDA Commissioner at the time, who said:
The provisions in this bill would require substantial
resources, and FDA may not be in a position to meet all of
the activities within the proposed user levels. . . . as a
consequence of this, FDA may have to divert funds from other
programs, such as addressing the safety of drugs and food, to
begin implementing this program.
This is not Richard Burr, this is the former Commissioner of the FDA
saying we may have to divert funds from other programs, such as safety
of drugs and food. If the American people are given this choice, they
would say uphold the gold standard of the FDA. Let me go to bed at
night as I take that medication my doctor prescribed and the pharmacist
filled, and let me feel confident that the most qualified reviewer
looked at that application, at the clinical trial date, and made a
determination that this drug was safe
[[Page 14289]]
and effective for me. Make sure when I go to the grocery store and buy
food in a global marketplace, where the melons might have come from
Chile or the spinach from Mexico, that they have the best and brightest
addressing food safety.
They have already flunked that several times in the last 3 years, and
we have all dealt with the consequences of it. But think about what we
are getting ready to do. We are getting ready to make it worse. We are
getting ready to take an agency that has a seal of approval, a gold
standard, and we are getting ready to say we want you to maintain that
gold standard on drugs, and food, and biologics, and medical devices,
but we understand you cannot hold tobacco to the same threshold. So we
want you to ignore the fact that tobacco kills, and we want you to
regulate it as we prescribe it in legislation. How does H.R. 1256
prescribe this in regulation?
We will turn to this, which is my continuum of risk chart. It
basically starts to my right, and your left, Mr. President. It has
unfiltered cigarettes. You remember those. They had a risk of 100
percent. If you smoked them, there was a 100-percent likelihood that
you were going to have a health problem from smoking.
Then the industry came up with filtered cigarettes, and they reduced
the risk by 10 percent, from 100 percent to 90 percent. But when one is
looking for a way to play this, a 90-percent risk is not a good one.
What H.R. 1256 says is: OK, we realize FDA is not the right agency,
but we are going to place it there anyway, and we are going to tell the
FDA: We want you to leave this alone; we don't want you to touch this
100-percent risk or 90-percent risk. We want to grandfather all the
products that were made before February 2007. And, oh, by the way, that
would include U.S. smokeless tobacco.
The most risky we are grandfathering in and we say to the FDA: You
can't change it. You basically can't regulate it. You can't regulate
the 100 percent, you can't regulate the 90 percent, and you can't
regulate this small but growing U.S. smokeless market that has a risk
of 10 percent.
One might look at the chart and say there are other things on there.
There are electronic cigarettes, tobacco-heating cigarettes, Swedish
smokeless snus. There are dissolvable and other products that have less
risk. All those products in February 2007 were not in the marketplace.
They are banned. They are eliminated.
What are we asking the FDA to do? We are asking them to grandfather
three categories of products and let all adults who choose to use a
tobacco product choose from the most risky categories.
What are we saying to the 40 million Americans who smoke today? If
you are in this category of using cigarettes, we are not going to give
you any options as to what you turn to as you realize that is not the
best thing for your health. We are going to lock you in and hope it
kills you fast so our health care cost goes down.
Any claim--any claim--that H.R. 1256 reduces the cost of health care
is only because we have grandfathered in smokers who will die sooner,
not that we have allowed them a pathway through this bill to ever
experience not only products that are currently on the marketplace that
reduce the risk from 100 percent to as little as 1 percent, but we have
completely eliminated any additional innovation in product in the
future that would allow somebody to get from 100 percent to 1 percent
and actually be a healthier American.
I am not on the floor today suggesting that regulation is not in
order. It is in order. At 4:20 p.m. today, Members of the Senate will
have an opportunity to vote on a substitute amendment that has several
changes from this current bill. One, it does not centralize the
jurisdiction in the FDA. It creates, under the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, a new agency called the Harm Reduction Center. Its sole
job is to regulate tobacco. It regulates tobacco more specifically than
does the FDA under H.R. 1256. But what it does allow is the development
of new products that might encourage individuals to give up smoking and
to turn to products that are less harmful.
Here is a list of the organizations that support tobacco harm
reduction: The American Association of Public Health Physicians, 2008;
the World Health Organization, 2008; the Institute of Medicine, 2001;
the American Council on Science and Health, 2006; the New Zealand
Health Technology Assessment, 2007; the Royal College of Physicians,
2002, 2007; Life Sciences Research Office, 2008; Strategic Dialogue on
Tobacco Harm Reduction Group, 2009--this year.
People around the world are talking about reduced harm, except in the
Senate. As a matter of fact, we don't need to look far across the pond
before we find Sweden. During the past 25 years, Swedish men have shown
notable reductions in smoking-related diseases: a decline in lung
cancer incidence rate to the lowest of any developed country; no
detectible increase in oral cancer rate; improvement in cardiovascular
health. Tobacco-related mortality in Sweden is among the lowest in the
developed world.
Why? Every Member of this Congress should ask why. Because the
sponsors of this bill have said this is what we are trying to do in the
United States.
How did Sweden do it? It is very simple. Sweden did it by allowing
these products to come to market. As a matter of fact, Swedish
smokeless snus is currently on the market in the United States. I am
not going to tell you the market share is big, but I can tell you this.
The risk of death or disease is less than 2 percent. But under H.R.
1256, which the Senate may or may not adopt this afternoon, what we
would do is we would eliminate Swedish snus, and we would lock smokers
into the categories that are currently on the market, all because of an
arbitrary February 2007 date because somebody was too lazy to change
the bill.
Think about that: that we would take something Sweden found over 25
years had been an incentive to get people off cigarettes and move
toward other products, to the degree that, in Sweden, they had a
decline in lung cancer, they had no detectible increase in oral cancer,
and they had an improvement in cardiovascular health; that tobacco-
related mortality in Sweden is among the lowest in the developed world.
Why is that? Because the authors of H.R. 1256 suggest that new product
innovation can happen, and I would tell you there are three thresholds
one has to meet for new products to come on the market. I will not talk
about the first two. I will focus on the third one.
The third one is this: that to have a product approved to be placed
on the market, a company has to prove that a nontobacco user is no more
likely to use that new product if that product is available. Then it
goes on to say, in great congressional form, that unless you have an
application that has been approved, you cannot engage the public on a
product that has not been improved.
How does one do a clinical study that proves to the FDA that no
American is more likely to use tobacco on a product that wasn't in the
marketplace if, in fact, you can't talk to them about the product until
it is approved? It is a Catch-22.
The authors of this bill knew exactly what they were doing. Let me
say it again. The authors of this bill knew exactly what they were
doing.
What has changed over the weekend since I was out here for 5 hours-
plus last week? Public health experts around the country are beginning
to read the bill and they are beginning to go: Oh, my gosh. Do not pass
this. This is a huge mistake. As a matter of fact, I will get into it
in a little while. I have plenty of time that I am going to spend on
it.
Understand there are only three reasons we would consider new
additional regulations: to reduce the rate of disease and death and to
reduce the prevalence of youth access to tobacco products and
specifically smoking.
I know the Presiding Officer heard me say this last week. This is my
chart of 50 States. In 1998, the tobacco industry came to a settlement
with States called the Master Settlement Agreement, MSA. In that
agreement, they
[[Page 14290]]
committed $280 billion to defray the cost of health care for the
States--specifically, their Medicaid costs--and also provided money to
make sure they could have cessation programs to get people to quit
smoking and to make sure youth access, youth prevalence went down.
These are the CDC levels for last year, and I might say the CDC makes
a recommendation to every State at the beginning of the year as to how
much they should spend on programs that encourage youth not to smoke. I
am just going to pull randomly a few States.
Connecticut: Of the CDC recommendation, Connecticut spent 18.9
percent of what the CDC recommended; 21 percent of the youth in
Connecticut have a prevalence of smoking; 23.2 percent of the youth in
Connecticut have a prevalence of marijuana usage.
The Presiding Officer's own State, Illinois: Of the CDC
recommendation of what Illinois should spend on youth prevention,
Illinois spends 6.1 percent; 19.9 percent of the youth have a
prevalence to smoke. They are at 23.3 percent who have a prevalence of
marijuana use.
In Missouri, of the CDC recommendation on how much should be spent on
the prevalence of youth smoking, Missouri spent 3.7 percent; 23 percent
of the youth have a prevalence of smoking; 19 percent a prevalence of
marijuana use.
I can see that the Presiding Officer gets where I am going. We have
constantly, since 1998, with the money provided by the tobacco industry
to the States, chosen to build sidewalks over promoting programs to
reduce youth prevalence of smoking. Now the authors of this bill would
have us suggest that by allowing the FDA to have regulation of tobacco,
the prevalence of youth smoking is going to go down because now we have
one Federal agency that will have total jurisdiction over this product.
Let me say this: If that were the case, the prevalence of marijuana
usage by youth would be zero because it is illegal. There is no age
limit. As a matter of fact, there is no agency need for jurisdiction
because nobody in America--adult or youth--is supposed to use it. It is
a myth for us to believe the authors of this bill that by simply
dumping this in the FDA, somehow youth prevalence of smoking goes down.
It is a joke. It is a joke, and the public health community has now
recognized this.
In 1975, Congress commissioned the University of Michigan to track
youth smoking rates. At that time, youth smoking was at an alltime
high. However, those rates started coming down and leveled off around
30 percent all the way up to 1993. For some unknown reason at that
time, youth smoking started to rise and peaked at an alltime high in
1997. In 1998, 12th graders who said they tried a cigarette in the last
30 days was approximately 36 percent, according to the University of
Michigan.
Congress didn't have a good sense of why this was happening.
Opponents of the tobacco industry started blaming all this on the
alleged manipulation of young people by tobacco manufacturers through
sophisticated marketing and advertising.
The tobacco industry has a checkered past, I will be the first to
admit that, when it comes to advertising in the market. But what I am
suggesting is, it may not have been all due to tobacco marketing. There
was another trend occurring during the 1993 to 1998 period that
virtually mirrored that of youth smoking. It was the increase in
illicit drugs in the United States.
Let me say that again. What mirrored the trend from 1993 to 1998 of
the increase in youth smoking was the increase of use of illicit drugs
by teenagers. Something much broader was happening among our country's
young people.
The Senate's answer to the smoking rate increase was to pass this
initiative, to give FDA jurisdiction.
Senator Kennedy made the following remarks during the 1998 Senate
floor debate to emphasize the need to protect kids. Let me quote him:
FDA Commissioner David Kessler has called smoking a
``pediatric disease with its onset in adolescents.'' In fact,
studies show that over 90 percent of the current adult
smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. It
makes sense for Congress to do what we can to discourage
young Americans from starting to smoke during these critical
years. . . . Youth smoking in America has reached epidemic
proportions. According to a report issued last month by the
Centers from Disease Control and Prevention, smoking rates
among high school students soared by nearly a third between
1991 and 1997. Among African-Americans, the rates have soared
by 80 percent. More than 36 percent of high school students
smoke, a 1991 year high. . . . With youth smoking at crisis
levels and still increasing, we cannot rely on halfway
measures. Congress must use the strongest legislative tools
available to reduce youth smoking as rapidly as possible.
Well, the Senate told the American public that the passage of a
massive FDA tobacco regulation back in 1998 contained the strongest
legislative tools available to address youth smoking issues.
By the way, they have decreased since 1998--youth smoking has
decreased. As a matter of fact, overall smoking has decreased. I don't
want anybody to think there is no light at the end of the tunnel. As a
matter of fact, what this shows is a comparison--a study done by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and then a Congressional
Budget Office estimate after reviewing the Kennedy bill, or Waxman
bill, H.R. 1256. What the CDC said was that if we do nothing, we reduce
smoking to 15.97 percent by 2016, and the Congressional Budget Office,
under H.R. 1256, said that if we pass the Kennedy bill, the rate would
be 17.80 percent. As a matter of fact, I miscalculated when I put the
chart together, and it is actually 2 percent higher, meaning we do 4
percent better if we do nothing.
You see, my point is this, and it is exactly what I said at the
beginning: The authors of this bill said its purpose is to reduce the
risk of death and disease and to reduce youth smoking. I would tell you
that a caveat to that should be that we should reduce smoking. Clearly,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that if you do
nothing, it goes to this point, and the Congressional Budget Office,
after looking at the bill, suggests it is 2 percent or 4 percent higher
if, in fact, we pass the bill. Why is that? How could it possibly be
higher if you pass legislation that is supposed to fix it? Well, it is
for this reason: It is because of what H.R. 1256 does. It is not a
public health bill. It is a bill that locks in the most risky products
and grandfathers them to the Food and Drug Administration and allows no
pathway for reduced-harm products to come to market. It actually takes
some reduced-harm products that are currently on the market, that
haven't been sold since February 2007, and says, therefore, they are
gone. There is no ability for the FDA to look at this product and say:
My gosh, in the name of public health, let's keep this product on the
market, because the Senate is legislatively telling the FDA what to do.
Why does it matter what agency we put this in? If Congress believes
they can fix it, then why haven't they fixed it up until now? If
writing a bill that legislates how to fix it would work, why haven't we
done it? Well, I would contend that all I have to do is go to this
chart of 50 States, and for the majority of the States the prevalence
of marijuana usage is higher than the prevalence of youth smoking,
which tells you there is no regulatory body that can eliminate the
usage of an illegal product by those who choose to use it, unless--
unless--it is through education. There is no education in H.R. 1256.
Let me say it again: There is no education in H.R. 1256.
If the goal is to reduce the risk of death and disease and education
is the only way to accomplish that, if the goal is to reduce youth
prevalence of smoking and the only tool to accomplish that is
education, then I ask the sponsors to come to the floor and show me
where the education is in FDA regulations.
I am on day 5 now--maybe day 6 if you count that I was here for a
short period of time last Monday, but I didn't make it yesterday,
Monday--day 6, and I have yet to have anybody come to the floor and ask
a question, refute anything I have said or question the facts
[[Page 14291]]
I have produced. Why? Because I am using the same agencies most Members
come to the floor and reference: the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Congressional Budget Office. It is hard to say that
they are wrong, that they are not reputable entities within the Federal
Government, and then turn around next week and bring your own
statistics using the same entities we use as a gauge.
One can question whether the Royal College of Physicians came to the
right conclusion when they said:
In Sweden, the available low-harm smokeless products have
been shown to be an acceptable substitute for cigarettes to
many smokers, while ``gateway'' progression from smokeless to
smoking is relatively uncommon.
Let me say that again: ``. . . while gateway progression from
smokeless to smoking is relatively uncommon.''
Some authors of H.R. 1256 have come to the floor and said: Well, my
gosh, if we let reduced-harm products come to the marketplace, this is
going to create a gateway to youth usage of tobacco products that will
eventually turn them into smokers.
Read the substitute bill. The substitute bill requires the Reduced
Harm Center to actually list for the American public the most risky
tobacco products and the least risky. The bill that consolidates all
this jurisdiction for tobacco within the Food and Drug Administration
doesn't even require the Food and Drug Administration to rank the most
risky products. Why? Because those are the ones we have grandfathered.
We have said they can't touch them.
Compassion would tell you that if you want people to switch from
smoking and give it up, you have to give them a tool to get there. But
what we have said is that the future will consist of no new tools
except those manufacturers that were on the market before February
2007--some magical date in history we will all look back on and
probably find that to blame as to why this program doesn't work.
In a little over an hour, we will have an opportunity to come to the
floor and to vote on the substitute. Let me say to my colleagues, if
you want a real public health bill, vote for the substitute. If you
want to reduce the prevalence of youth smoking, vote for the
substitute. If you want to reduce the rate of death and disease, vote
for the substitute. Don't just listen to me, listen to public health
experts and authors who now have written on this issue.
This happens to be a book--and I am not sure how long ago it was
published, although I am sure I can probably find that out--that I
think I spent $50 today to get, either that or it is on loan. That
seems like a lot of money, but the truth is, it is a book about how the
Senate of the United States is getting shafted. It is a book about the
collusion that happened behind closed doors between the authors of this
bill and Philip Morris. It is written by an author named Patrick
Basham. I want to read a few things he has printed in his book.
Handing tobacco regulation over to the FDA, as Congress is
poised to do, is an epic public health mistake. It is
tantamount to giving the keys of the regulatory store to the
Nation's largest cigarette manufacturer.
It goes on:
There are significant and numerous problems with the FDA
regulating tobacco and virtually no benefits to public
health.
Let me say that again.
There are significant and numerous problems with FDA
regulating tobacco and virtually no benefits to public
health.
Do you get it? I mean, if you are going to bill it as a public health
bill, for God's sake, put something in there that is to the benefit of
the public health of this country.
Mr. Basham goes on to say:
Kennedy, Waxman, and the public health establishment
present their legislation as a masterful regulatory stroke
that will end tobacco marketing, preventing kids from
starting to smoke, make cigarettes less enjoyable to smoke,
and reduce adult smoking. But FDA regulation of tobacco will
do none of these things.
This is not a fan of the tobacco industry. This is an author, an
individual, who has been covered in numerous publications. He is an
adjunct scholar with the Cato Center for Responsible Government. He is
a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University. He has written a variety of
policy issues, and his articles have appeared in the New York Times,
the Washington Post, USA Today, the New York Post, and the New York
Daily News, just to name a few. His book is titled ``Butt Out! How
Philip Morris Burned Ted Kennedy, the FDA & and the Anti-Tobacco
Movement.'' This is no fan of tobacco. This is a guy who is calling
balls and strikes. He is one person who is so concerned about the
public health in this country and making sure what we do accomplishes
good public health policy that he is willing to be outspoken.
He goes on in his book and says this:
The process of validating new reduced-risk products appears
to be designed to prevent such products from ever reaching
the marketplace, thus giving smokers the stark, and for many
the impossible, choice of ``quit smoking or die.''
You might want to remember that part. We can now call the continuum
of risk ``quit or die.''
Rather than making smoking safer for those who continue to
smoke, it will deny smokers access to new products that might
literally save their lives. That is hardly a sterling
prescription for good public health.
If the objective is public health, H.R. 1256 falls way
short. Even if the idea of FDA regulation were good in theory
and practice, several things, including the FDA's competence
in tobacco policy and science, its public image, its fit with
the tobacco file, its available resources, and its overall
current competence, argue strongly against giving it
regulatory responsibility for our Nation's tobacco policy.
This is a scholar, Mr. President.
FDA regulation of tobacco need not be a public health
tragedy, however. By bringing the crafting of tobacco policy
out into the light of day, by taking it out of the hands of
the special interests and, most importantly, by keeping it
away from the FDA, there is every opportunity to begin to
create a policy that not only serves the interest of
nonsmokers and smokers, but a policy that might really work.
To Senators of the U.S. Senate: If you want a policy that really
works, do not adopt H.R. 1256. Consider strongly the merits of the
substitute amendment, which does focus on the public health of this
country.
Mr. Basham is a professor who studies and writes on a variety of
topics, and when he took an objective view of the situation, he saw
H.R. 1256 for what it was. He saw it as misguided legislation.
Our amendment--mine and Senator Hagan's--accomplishes exactly what
Mr. Basham raises. Our amendment sets up a new agency under the
auspices of HHS and a Secretary who will examine all tobacco products
and set up a regulatory framework that will save lives. That is in the
public health interest of America. We don't preclude new reduced-risk
products from entering the marketplace. We do not preclude reduced risk
products from coming into the marketplace; H.R. 1256 does. We mandate
the Tobacco Harm Center post the relative risk of each tobacco product
currently on the market. Wouldn't that be incredible if we had a
ranking between cigarettes and all the other things? We wouldn't need
that if H.R. 1256 passed because we would only have nonfiltered
cigarettes, filtered cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco. I can tell you
the ranking would be unfiltered cigarettes the worst, filtered
cigarettes next to the worst, and smokeless third. Those are the
choices that adults would have in this country, and for somebody who is
addicted to smoking, if smokeless wasn't something that enticed them to
quit smoking, they would be left out because the legislation does not
create a pathway for new products.
We also give current users the information they need to decide
whether they want to migrate from a more harmful product, such as
cigarettes, to less harmful products.
I have heard my colleagues and many other advocacy groups boast how
the underlying bill will give the FDA authority to remove toxins in
cigarettes, boast how granting the FDA the ability to regulate
advertising will encourage people to not use, and current smokers to
quit.
I agree, better warning labels will act as a deterrent to nonsmokers.
But what about current smokers? Dr.
[[Page 14292]]
Basham sites a very interesting study conducted in Canada and the
United States by an independent organization. The study consisted of
showing smokers packages of their current cigarettes with an increased
warning label and graphic pictorials of cancer and other diseases. The
study concluded that no statistically significant change in smoking
behavior could be expected to be followed from the redesigned packages.
If you have noticed, over this 45 minutes, so far, I have sort of
knocked all the things out that the sponsors of this bill said it
accomplished. It does not do any of them. It does do one thing: it
grandfathers the most risky products and consolidates their regulation
at the FDA. It does not reduce risk of death, disease, or youth
prevalence of smoking.
Since H.R. 1256 bans any reduced risk smokeless products from
entering the marketplace, it locks current smokers only into
cigarettes. However, our amendment does not lock them into just
cigarettes. We provide this consumer with the ultimate amount of
choice. The purpose of my amendment, as I said, is to reduce the risk
of death and disease and to reduce youth prevalence of smoking.
The regulated products under my amendment? All tobacco and nicotine
products. There are no holes in the substitute. It covers the entire
scope of tobacco products. New smoking provisions in H.R. 1256,
``change current tobacco advertising to black and white only and
require graphic warning labels on packages of cigarettes.''
We require graphic warning labels on the package of cigarettes, and
we eliminate print advertising. Somehow the authors of this bill would
have us believe if we go from color to black and white advertising that
people under 18 actually will not read it or can't read it. Maybe
today's youth can only read in color. But they suggest theirs is a
stronger regulatory bill. But the substitute eliminates print
advertising. No longer will the Vogue magazine that a mom finds in the
grocery store attractive, that might not be one of those publications
that is considered a publication that youth would purchase, but a 14-
year-old might go to her mother's Vogue magazine and flip open and see
a tobacco ad by mistake--it can't happen under the substitute
legislation. It will happen under H.R. 1256, but only in black and
white.
H.R. 1256 uses user fees to fund the FDA, about $700 million over 3
years. We asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services: How much do
you need to stand up a complete new agency that is only focused on
tobacco legislation? One hundred million dollars a year because these
fees that we charge the tobacco companies are passed on to the
consumers, the people least likely to fund it, the ones who are already
funding the Children's Health Insurance Program, funding the majority
of the State Medicaid programs. Let's give these folks a break. Let's
not put this entire burden on their backs, especially if it is not
going to do any good.
It is not just Mr. Bashan. As a matter of fact, Brad Rodu wrote,
March 26--Brad Rodu, the Endowed Chair of Tobacco Harm Reduction
Research, School of Medicine, University of Louisville--I will read a
couple of excerpts of what he wrote.
According to the American Association of Public Health
Physicians, the bill ``will do more harm than good in terms
of the future tobacco-related illnesses and death.'' While
the AAPHP favors ``effective regulation of the tobacco
industry. . . . This bill does not meet this standard.'' The
bill, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman, is supported by
medical groups that are engaged in a crusade against the
tobacco industry. That's the problem: In a blind desire to
kill tobacco manufacturers, the Waxman bill may end up
hurting smokers.
It goes on and on. Again, an endowed chair of a major academic
institution says don't do this.
How about Michael Siegel, Professor in the Social and Behavioral
Sciences Department at--get this--Boston University School of Public
Health, home of the authors of the bill. The Los Angeles Times, op-ed,
June 3--not long ago. Let me read a couple of excerpts out of Mr.
Siegel's op-ed.
In the end, it ensures that federal regulation of tobacco
products will remain more about politics than about science.
H.R. 1256 gives the FDA the ability to lower nicotine
levels in cigarettes. Since H.R. 1256 locks current users
into cigarettes only by banning reduced risk products, H.R.
1256 ensures that 40 million Americans who currently smoke
are doomed to death and disease associated with cigarette
smoking. H.R. 1256 will cost lives, not save lives.
This is a professor in the Boston University School of Public Health,
talking about his Senator's bill. He goes on to say:
Even worse, by giving a federal agency the appearance of
regulatory authority over cigarettes without the real ability
to regulate, the legislation would seemingly create a FDA
seal of approval for cigarettes, giving the public a false
sense of security about the increased safety of the product.
In fact, the bill's crafters are apparently so worried
about the harmful effects of such a public perception--
Get this--
that they have written a clause into the bill that prohibits
the cigarette companies from even informing the public that
cigarettes are regulated by the FDA or that the companies are
in compliance with FDA regulations.
The legislation forbids a company from even referring to the
regulator. He goes on to say:
This is clearly an unconstitutional provision, as it
violates the free speech rights of the tobacco companies;
nevertheless, it suggests that even the supporters of the
legislation are aware that the bill creates a false
perception of the increased safety of cigarette smoking.
There is a charge I have not made. The bill is actually
unconstitutional. When we recognize things as unconstitutional, I know
it is the inclination of some Members of the Senate to wait and have it
passed and somebody refer it to the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court
can tell us it is unconstitutional. When scholars tell us it is
unconstitutional, I believe our responsibility is then: don't pass it,
don't do it.
Let me conclude with Michael Siegel, professor in the School of
Public Health, Boston University.
During the previous administration, the FDA was accused of
making decisions based on politics, not health. If the Senate
passes the FDA tobacco legislation, it will be
institutionalizing, rather than ending, the triumph of
politics over science in federal policymaking. This is not
the way to restore science to its rightful place.
I am not saying it. It is a professor from the School of Public
Health at Boston University.
What is this bill about? Its author said reducing the rate of death
and disease and prevalence of youth smoking. Michael Siegel's
assessment: It is about politics.
Patrick Bashan's conclusion in ``Butt Out,'' the book: It is about
politics. As a matter of fact, it says on the back of the book:
Philip Morris outwitted this coalition of useful idiots at
every turn.
The decision in front of Members of the Senate is simple. Do you want
to reduce the risk of death? Do you want to reduce the risk of disease?
If you want to reduce the prevalence of youth smoking you only have one
chance, and that is support the substitute amendment.
If you want to do politics as usual, if you want to let politics
trump science, if you want to lock in a category of products that have
a high likelihood of risking the American people, if you want to ignore
the research from around the world that suggests by allowing lower harm
smokeless products on the marketplace it allows smokers to get off the
tobacco products, support H.R. 1256.
I believed 5 days ago when I came to the Senate floor that was all I
needed to put up to win this debate. I actually believed that was all I
needed to put up for the American people. I have learned over the past
5 days just how stubborn Members of the Senate are. I hope that now,
after 6\1/2\ hours of coming to the Senate floor on this one bill,
staff members through every office--Republican, Democrat, and
Independent--have taken the opportunity to check the facts that I have
presented, and they have found I am right; they have found a study did
exist in Sweden. I didn't make it up; they have found that CDC did do a
study--if we did nothing we would reduce smoking more than if we pass
this bill; they have found that in Sweden, people did become healthier
[[Page 14293]]
because of the decision to use smokeless products.
I thought this was all it took for the American people to understand
it; that you can't take an agency of the Federal Government that is
``responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety,
efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biologic products,
medical devices, our Nation's food supply, cosmetics and products that
emit radiation''--it is impossible to take an agency where that is
their core mission and give them a product where you ask them to ignore
the gold standard on everything else they regulate. I think the
American people would say it seems reasonable to create a new entity to
regulate tobacco, if for no other reason than--if you didn't believe
any other science that I have shown and the data that has been proven--
if for no other reason than why would we jeopardize this gold standard?
Why would we make one American at home wonder whether that
pharmaceutical product they were taking was actually safe or effective?
Why would we have them question for a minute whether that medical
device was approved and reviewed by the most seasoned reviewer versus
maybe somebody who was fresh on the job because that seasoned person
went over to regulate tobacco products?
Why would we put the American people in a more difficult situation
today on their question of food safety with the incidents we have had
of death in the United States of America because the Agency could not
quite meet their mission statement?
Why would we dump on them now? Why would we do this to the American
people? It is beyond me. But when you turn to some of the folks who
have written on this issue--whether it is Brad Rodu, whether it is
Patrick Basham, whether it is Michael Siegel, in the public health
department at Boston University--I guess the only answer is, it is
politics over science, that for 10 years people have said we have to
put this in the FDA, that Matt Meyers, head of Campaign for Tobacco-
Free Kids, is the most powerful ``U.S. Senator'' because he is getting
his wish, he is getting exactly what he has been trying to do for
decades. He is not a science expert. If he was, he would be voting for
the substitute, if he were here.
He wrote the bill. I am surprised he did not catch the mistake of
February 2007. Nobody caught that. But the truth is, the bill has not
changed much in 10 years, though the world has changed a lot. The
science has changed a lot. Health care has changed a lot.
There is a real opportunity to do the right thing in the Senate. But
Members will have to show a degree of independence and vote for the
substitute and not wait for the base bill. I hope Members will heed the
words of people who have no dog in this fight who have suggested, if we
pass this bill--not the substitute, the base bill--we will have done a
great disservice to the public health of America. More importantly, we
will have done a disservice to those individuals to get locked into
these categories, as shown on this chart, because their certain future
is death and disease. They are counting on us. They are. They are
counting on us to do the right thing.
I can leave this debate tonight and say: I left nothing in the bag. I
have tried everything to convince my colleagues not to make a huge
mistake. I will sleep well tonight. If this substitute does not pass,
if H.R. 1256 passes and becomes law, it is others who are going to have
to live with the way they voted. When people die because of what they
did, it is others who are going to have to live with it.
There are going to be more articles. This is just the tip of the
iceberg of health professionals, of public health individuals, people
who detail in great quantity exactly what has been going on. As a
matter of fact, as they say, the wool has been pulled over our eyes.
Well, it has not. That is why we have a substitute amendment. That is
why the majority leader allowed a nongermane amendment to come to the
floor. Well, it might have had something to do with that he did not
have the votes for cloture without allowing it to come to the floor,
but I give him the benefit of the doubt that he understood this was an
important debate to have, that this was worth extending the opportunity
for people to vote up or down.
I see my colleague is here to speak, and I am not going to prolong
this debate. In less than an hour, Members will have an opportunity to
come to the floor. Most Members will get probably 2 minutes equally
divided; 60 seconds to hear what it has taken me 6 hours to say in this
debate. Clearly, that is not much time. But now it is in their hands.
It is a decision Members of the Senate will have to make about the
future of the public health policy of this country.
I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support the
substitute amendment today at 4:20 and make sure the future of our
country is one we will be proud of and not one we will find as an
embarrassment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MIDDLE CLASS TAX
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the
President's announcement a few hours ago relative to pay-go.
Today, the President said:
Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps
that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive.
Well, I could not agree more. But I must ask: Where was that common
sense when the President proposed to add $10 trillion to the national
debt in the fiscal year 2010 budget submission? Where was this basic
common sense when he signed a bill earlier this year that adds $1
trillion in debt this year alone? Where was this newfound fiscal
discipline when he proposed a massive universal health care proposal
that is now turning out to be a government-run proposal with just a
downpayment of $650 billion?
The President's announcement undoubtedly was meant to quell rising
fears about the amount of spending and borrowing his administration has
undertaken. It was likely intended to calm the fears of those who buy
our debt who are wondering if it is just paper.
But do the President's words today in any way address the mountain of
debt and increased taxes he proposed and supported just a few weeks ago
with the budget submission? The answer to that is no.
Today's announcement does absolutely nothing to decrease the rising,
crushing debt we have accumulated. In fact, this President has
significantly added to our debt, causing it to rise to an unprecedented
level, an unsustainable level. Let me repeat that. The President's
announcement does absolutely nothing to address our record spending and
borrowing. This is akin to maxing out on the personal credit card and
then promising not to use it anymore but offering no plan to pay off
the balance.
The President rightly pointed out today:
The debate of the day drowns out those who speak of what we
may face tomorrow.
Maybe it is an appropriate time to thoughtfully consider what we face
tomorrow because of the unpaid credit card balance.
It is important to dissect the rhetoric and speak to Americans who
have been promised something I would suggest the President cannot
deliver. Remember that those in the so-called middle class--and the
definition of that has changed--have been told they will be shielded
from tax increases. Well, I would suggest the evidence is obvious. The
rug is about to be pulled out from underneath them by the President's
explosive growth in spending and borrowing.
If Congress continues to follow the President's unlimited spending
spree and tries to balance the budget at the same time, the middle
class will get hammered with tax increases. This, I would suggest, is
the elephant in the
[[Page 14294]]
room that no one in the Obama administration wants to discuss for fear
of the consequences.
But the American people deserve an open discussion about the real-
life consequences of big government and the runaway freight train of
spending and borrowing that comes with bigger government.
Supporters of the current budget claim that only individuals earning
more than $200,000 will see their taxes go up; therefore, there will be
no tax increase on the middle class. Yet such a tax on higher income
earners still results in an average annual deficit hovering around $1
trillion per year for the next 10 years, described by many to be
unsustainable.
Our national revenue simply cannot keep up with the bloated spending
in the budget, and that is resulting in a shortfall.
Let me illustrate this in an example. This is equivalent to a
Lincoln, NE, teacher earning $33,000 per year but spending $58,000 per
year--year after year. It cannot last long. So is the Obama
administration going to continue this spending increase with only the
revenue from the so-called rich? How can they continue running annual
deficits with no end in sight? They cannot. Inevitably, the spending
spree and exploding deficits will land squarely on the middle class in
the form of higher taxes, unless we do something.
The reality is, the Obama administration cannot continue the
unprecedented level of spending while claiming to hold the middle class
harmless.
If you do not believe me, listen to leading economists.
Martin Sullivan, a former economic aide to President Reagan,
actually, who backed President Obama last fall, said:
You just simply can't tax the rich enough to make this all
up.
He went on to say:
Just for getting the budget to a sustainable level, there
needs to be a broad-based tax increase.
Leonard Burman, director of the liberal Tax Policy Center, said:
[T]here's no way we're going to be able to pay for
government 10, 20 years from now without coming up with a new
revenue source.
Finally, economist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote:
I, at least, find it hard to see how the federal government
can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases
on the middle class.
All of these experts echo the point I am making: You cannot tax the
rich enough to cover all the spending. Inevitably, what all of this is
leading to is that the middle class will fall victim to massive
taxation.
I will put this into more tangible terms by examining how much the
tax rate would need to rise to make up for only this year's projected
budget deficit--just this year's projected budget deficit. The deficit
for this year alone is an eye-popping $1.8 trillion. This does not even
take into consideration the more than $12 trillion public debt we
currently owe.
Here is what would have to happen to the tax rate. The rates for the
top four brackets would skyrocket from the current rates of 35 percent,
33 percent, 28 percent, and 25 percent to an alarming 90 percent across
the board. Imagine, people would have to work until Thanksgiving just
to pay their taxes.
Some may say: Well, this is great. Tax the rich because they can
afford to pay more in taxes. Yet those making up the third and fourth
brackets from the top can hardly be characterized as rich.
Let's look at who actually falls in those income brackets. Currently,
for tax year 2008, people who fall under the 25-percent bracket earn
about $32,000 to $78,000.
Does anyone want to come to the Senate floor and make the case that
somebody making $32,000 a year in Nebraska is rich? The average salary
in Nebraska is $35,000. I do not know anyone who would suggest that
only wealthy people fall within the bracket.
The average Nebraskan would have something to say about that in terms
of whether they are wealthy. Let's look at the next bracket, those
taxed at 28 percent. The income levels for this bracket are roughly
$78,000 and $164,000 for singles. For married couples, it is $131,000
to $200,000. What does that mean? This means that a landscape architect
in Nebraska making $75,000 a year, hypothetically, married to an
emergency room nurse making $59,000 a year would fall into a 90-percent
tax rate. Again, I suggest if you asked this couple, I am quite
confident they would not describe themselves as wealthy. Taxing the
middle class to the tune of 90 percent would bring this economy to its
knees.
There is some notion in America that we, the people, should be the
masters of our own economic success. If you tax someone at a 95-percent
rate, you take away the economic incentive to be innovative, to strive
for greater success. Eventually you end up with slim or no productivity
or competitiveness. Yet this administration keeps spending as though it
is monopoly money. Just this week, more directions: Get that money out
there. Get that spending going. Their spending binge has an
unsustainable course. Complying with pay-go alone won't even come close
to fixing it. Maybe Congress would benefit from being coached by the
same credit card counselors who help Americans who are drowning in
debt. I will bet those counselors would have some stern words.
My point is simple: This is not the right direction for our country.
We must start to make spending decisions today that paint a realistic
and candid picture of the impact on the middle class, and if it is the
purpose of our Nation to hold them harmless, then we have to cut
spending and we have to smart size our government.
Working families across our Nation and in my State deserve an honest
debate. It is time for Washington to take responsibility. The people at
home I believe are demanding it. I often say Nebraskans have great
wisdom to convey. I couldn't agree more with a gentleman from North
Platte, NE, who wrote me a letter recently and he said this:
It's important to remember that while government consumes
wealth, transfers wealth and sets the ground rules for the
generation of wealth, it is the private individuals that
create it.
As a final note, the President today rightly acknowledged:
The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a
very deep hole.
I would add to that: And the present.
Digging our way out will take time, and patience, and tough
choices.
Again, I could not agree more, other than I would add to that: The
present.
However, instituting pay-go does nothing to cut the deficit or the
debt, it simply attempts to hold the line, which the President's budget
fails to do. His proposal is actually a more liberal approach than what
is already in House rules. Right-sizing government and cutting spending
is far from revolutionary. So while the President is saying when you
find yourself in a massive hole, stop digging, the more important
question might be: How are we going to start filling up this gaping
hole?
Our country needs leadership, not the empty rhetoric I would suggest
we heard today. The President's speech today sought to subdue the fears
of many regarding our country's exploding deficits. I am sure it was
targeted to those who buy that debt, who are expressing concerns about
what they are purchasing. Yet people should not be fooled into thinking
that pay-go is the holy grail for solving all of our spending and
borrowing woes. I believe that while pay-go is a useful tool, when you
look at the hard facts, you realize that President Obama's speech
today, though, is simply too little and it is too late. The horse is
already out of the barn, and the President is talking to us about
closing the barn door.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Burr
amendment No. 1246. The Burr substitute amendment takes major steps to
restrict tobacco. It creates a new office within HHS to regulate
tobacco. It puts in place a realistic, science-based standard for the
approval of new and reduced risk products. It also requires states to
do more on tobacco control--something we can all support.
[[Page 14295]]
As many of you know, I support strong tobacco regulation. I want to
remind my colleagues that supporting a different approach to tobacco
regulation doesn't mean being soft on tobacco.
The Burr amendment is extensive--longer and more detailed even than
the underlying bill. It makes it more difficult for kids to get tobacco
and start smoking, and that is the most important thing of all.
Whether we see the Burr proposal or the Kennedy proposal put in
place, we still have our work cut out for us when it comes to putting
out tobacco use. I am going to keep working on this issue, and I am
going to keep putting forward new ideas to stop smoking. These
proposals are a first step, but we have a long way to go.
I urge my colleagues to support the Burr amendment.
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. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I will try and be brief on this. I know
I have spoken at some length about the bill before us, the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I wish to begin by again
thanking our colleagues who voted yesterday to allow us to move forward
by supporting the cloture motion. It took a bipartisan effort and I am
grateful to colleagues, both in the majority and the minority, for
lending their support to that effort. I am also pleased we are having
an opportunity to vote on the Burr-Hagan amendment. There were some
questions raised as to whether that amendment would be permissible
under a postcloture environment from a parliamentary standpoint. As I
told my friend from North Carolina, Senator Burr, even though I
disagree with his amendment, I would vote against a point of order if
one were raised against it so he would have a chance to make his case.
His State is going to be affected by this decision we are making. As I
recall, I think he told me there are some 12,000 to 15,000 tobacco
farmers in North Carolina, hard-working families who have been in the
business for generations. This will have an impact on them. It may not
be as dramatic as some suggest, but it certainly will have a negative
impact if we are successful in reducing the amount of smoking and use
of tobacco products by young children.
I am pleased my colleague from North Carolina has had a chance to
make his case, along with his colleague from North Carolina, Senator
Hagan.
Having said I would support his right to be heard, now I wish to take
a few minutes to express why I support the underlying bill. This bill
has been supported over the years by a substantial number in this body,
as well as in the other body, the House of Representatives--as I
pointed out in the past, this matter, which has been under
consideration for almost a decade, has not become law because neither
House of Congress has adopted the legislation in the same Congress. We
have ended up with the Senate passing a bill, the other House passing a
bill, but never in the same Congress. So for all of these years, the
Food and Drug Administration has not been able to regulate tobacco
products.
We are about to change that if we, in fact, reject the Burr amendment
and several others that are pending and give the Food and Drug
Administration the power, the authority, to regulate the sale,
production, and marketing of tobacco products, particularly to young
children. So for the first time, the FDA will have this authority and
put in place tough restrictions that for far too long have been absent.
This will provide support for families when it comes to how cigarettes
are marketed to their children.
I am sure my colleagues are tired of hearing me speaking over the
last several weeks about the number of young people who start smoking
every day. We have been at this matter now for about 2 or 3 weeks,
considering the floor action, as well as the action in the HELP
Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. You can do the math
yourself: Over 20 days, 3,000 to 4,000 children every day starting to
smoke while we have been deliberating this piece of legislation.
Needless to say, I don't know of a single person in this country with
an ounce of sense who wants that many children who begin this habit to
continue. I don't know of anybody with any sense at all who believes
our country is better off if day after day we allow an industry to
market products designed specifically to appeal to young people,
knowing what danger and harm it causes. Four hundred thousand of our
fellow citizens expire, die every year because of smoking-related
illnesses--400,000 people. That is more than the number of people who
lose their lives as a result of automobile accidents, AIDS, alcohol
abuse, illegal drug abuse, and violent crimes with guns. All of those
combined do not equal the number of deaths that occur because of
people's use of tobacco and tobacco products. That does not include the
number of people who lead very debilitated lives, who are stricken with
emphysema or related pulmonary illnesses that fundamentally alter their
lives and the lives of their families.
I apologize to my colleagues for continuing to recite these numbers,
but I pray and hope these numbers may have some impact on those who
wonder if every aspect of the bill makes the most sense or not. None of
us should ever claim perfection, but we have spent a lot of time on
this, a lot of consideration on this. There are 1,000 organizations,
faith-based, State organizations--leading organizations dealing with
lung cancer and related problems and they are all speaking with one
voice. They are telling us to pass this bill, pass this bill, and allow
finally for the FDA to be able to control the marketing, the selling,
and the production of these tobacco products.
Absent any action by this Congress, more than 6 million children who
are alive today will die from smoking. Mr. President, 1 out of 5
children from my State of Connecticut smokes today, and 76,000
children, we are told by health care professionals, will die
prematurely because of their addiction to tobacco.
As I mentioned earlier, we are on the eve of passing major health
care reform legislation. The centerpiece of that bill, as I hear my
Republican friends and Democratic friends talk about it, is prevention.
That is the one piece about which there is a great deal of unanimity.
How can we deal with health care reform? The best way to treat a
disease is to have it never happen in the first place. This bill may do
more in the area of prevention, if adopted, than anything else we may
include in the health care bill in the short term. The estimates are
that 11 percent of young people would not begin the habit of smoking if
this bill is adopted. Imagine 11 percent of the young people not
smoking of that 3,000 to 4,000 every day who start. That in itself
would be a major achievement.
My friend from North Carolina, Senator Burr, does not give authority
to the FDA. The FDA is 100 years old. His bill creates a completely new
agency, an untested agency, to oversee tobacco products. But the FDA is
the right agency because it is the only agency that has the regulatory
experience and scientific experience and the combination of that with a
public health mission. Unlike the Kennedy bill, the underlying bill,
the Burr substitute fails to provide adequate resources to do the job.
In the first 3 years, if the Burr substitute is adopted, it would
allocate only one-quarter of the funding allocated in Senator Kennedy's
proposal. The Burr substitute fails to give the authority to remove
harmful ingredients in cigarettes, which the Kennedy
[[Page 14296]]
bill would do. It doesn't go far enough in protecting children and has
weaker and less effective health warnings as well.
I say respectfully to my friend, setting up and creating a whole new
agency, providing a fraction of the funding necessary to get it done,
and providing inadequate resources in order to support these efforts is
not the step we ought to be taking. All of us can agree that the FDA is
basically the agency we charge with the responsibility of regulating
everything we consume and ingest, including the products ingested by
our pets. The FDA has jurisdiction over your cat food, dog food, and
what your parakeet may have, but your child's use of tobacco is not
regulated by anybody. Your child's safety, in many ways, is being less
protected than that of a household pet. That needs to change.
For a decade, we have debated this. We have been through countless
arguments. Now we have come down to the moment as to whether this
Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, as we did yesterday, will say enough
is enough. We have come to the end of the debate.
Mr. President, 400,000 people are losing their lives every day, and
3,000 to 4,000 children are starting to smoke, a thousand of whom will
be addicted for life, and one-third of that number will die because of
the use of these products. That is over with. The marketing, the
production, as well as the selling of these products has to come to an
end. This is the best way to save money, if you are not impressed with
the ethics and morality of the issue.
This is a self-inflicted wound we impose on ourselves as a country,
knowing the damage it causes, the costs it imposes, the hardships, the
horror, and the sorrow it brings to families. I don't know a single
person who smokes and wants their child to begin that habit. If they
could stand here collectively--the families across this country who are
smokers--they would say with one voice: Pass this bill. Please do
everything you can to see to it that my child doesn't begin that habit.
Ninety percent of smokers start as kids, we know that. So we need to
change how we regulate these products. That is what this bill does. It
has had tremendous support from our friends, both Republicans and
Democrats, over the years. We have never done it together, and we are
on the brink of doing that and making a significant change in our
country for the better. It is long overdue.
When the vote occurs on the Burr amendment, I urge my colleagues to
vote against the amendment. I want to do everything I can to help those
farmers. The bill makes a difference in providing real help to the
farmers. I see my friend from Kentucky. He knows I went to law school
there, and he knows I have an affection for the people there. We owe it
to them to provide real help so they can get back on their feet. I say
to my friend from North Carolina, and others, I know what it means to
have an industry in your State face these kinds of challenges, but
clearly the challenge to our Nation is to begin to reduce the number of
children who smoke and to save lives every year. I say respectfully
that there is no more paramount issue for our Nation as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Burr amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the ranking member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, and I will take a
few moments to discuss the pending Supreme Court nomination and the
proceedings leading up to that. I have notified the Democratic floor
staff that it might slightly delay the 4:20 vote. I find that not
objectionable on the other side.
I would inform our colleagues that we are going to proceed as if in
morning business. I ask unanimous consent that we may do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. It will not cause much of a delay on the 4:20 vote.
Senator Sessions is up and will be first to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
____________________
SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator McConnell for his
leadership in so many ways but in particular the concern he has shown
repeatedly on the U.S. judiciary. He is on the Judiciary Committee, and
he takes these issues seriously. I think it is important that we all do
so.
I have to say I am disappointed that this morning we learned from
media reports--I did--that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Leahy, announced we would begin the hearings on July 13 on
Judge Sotomayor. I believe that is too early. I don't believe it is
necessary. It is far more important that we do this matter right than
do it quick. When the announcement was made, President Obama said the
time we should look to is October 1, when the new Supreme Court term
starts. I think that always was an achievable goal, and it is something
I said I believe we could achieve and still do it in the right way.
The question is, Can we get all this done in this rush-rush fashion?
It will be the shortest confirmation time of any recent nominee. It is
a time well shorter than that of Justice Roberts--now Chief Justice--
and we had a need to move that a bit because he was confirmed, as it
turned out, on September 29, a couple of days before the new term
began. He was going to be Chief Justice. But the last nominee, whose
record was much like this nominee, Justice Alito, was coming up in late
December, and the Democratic leader then on the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Leahy, asked that it be put off until after Christmas. The
Republican chairman at that time, Senator Specter, despite President
Bush's desire that it move forward, said: No, I think that is a
reasonable request, and so we put it off. It was 90-some-odd days
before that confirmation occurred. It was well over 70 days before the
hearings began.
Mr. President, first and foremost, we are committed to giving this
nominee a fair, good, just hearing. But to do so requires that we have
an opportunity to examine her record of probably more than 4,000 cases.
In addition to that, she has given a lot of speeches and written law
review articles, which need to be analyzed.
Make no mistake about it, this is the only time, the only opportunity
this Congress and the American people have to play a role in what will
turn out to be a lifetime appointment, an appointment to a Federal
bench of independence and unaccountability for the rest of their lives.
I think it is important that we do this right.
I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership in trying to insist that
we do it right. I believe, from what I know today, the timeframe set
forth is unrealistic. More than that, it is not necessary. Let's do
this right, take our time, and do it in a way that I hope--as I have
said repeatedly, this would be what people could say is the finest
confirmation process we have ever had.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alabama for
his observation about this nomination. He and I have been involved in a
number of these confirmation proceedings over the years. In every one
of them, I think there is a sense of fairness that can be reached on a
bipartisan basis so that the nominee is adequately and appropriately
vetted. That is what the Senator from Alabama is looking for as we go
forward on the Judiciary Committee.
Frankly, I was surprised to learn that the majority decided
unilaterally, basically, that the schedule would involve hearings
beginning on that specific date, July 13, to which Senator Sessions
referred.
During the Senate's consideration of both the Roberts and Alito
nominations, we heard a lot from our Democratic colleagues about how
the Senate wasn't a rubberstamp and about how it was more important to
do it right than to do it fast. If that was the standard, I suggest to
our colleagues, just a few years ago, why wouldn't it be a good
[[Page 14297]]
standard today? If that was the standard when the Republicans were in
the majority, why wouldn't it be a good standard when the Democrats are
in the majority? We are talking about the same Supreme Court, the same
lifetime appointment to which Senator Sessions referred.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, today, said back then that
``We need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as
the American people deserve. It is going to take time.'' That was
Senator Leahy then. He also said, ``It makes sense that we take time to
do it right.'' I think the American people deserve nothing less. He
also said that we want to do it right, we don't want to do it fast.
Again, if that was the standard a few years ago when Republicans were
in the majority, I don't know why it wouldn't be the standard today.
I don't know what our friends in the majority are fearful of. This
nominee certainly has already been confirmed by the Senate twice. She
has an extensive record, and it takes a while to go through 3,600
cases. In the case of the Chief Justice, there were only 327 cases. He
had only been on the circuit court for a couple of years. She has been
on one court or another for 17 years. It is a larger record. I am
confident, and our ranking member, Senator Sessions, confirms that the
staff is working rapidly to try to work their way through this lengthy
number of cases. But a way to look at it is the committee had to review
an average of six cases a day in order to be prepared for Judge
Roberts' hearings--six cases a day. The committee will now have to
review an average of 76 cases--76 cases--per day in order to be ready
by the time the majority has proposed for the Sotomayor hearing.
The Senate functions on comity and cooperation, and the majority
leader and I are a big part of that every day, trying to respect each
other's needs and trying to make the Senate function appropriately.
Here the Democratic majority is proceeding, in my view, in a heavy-
handed fashion, completely unnecessary, and is basically being
dismissive of the minority's legitimate concerns of a fair and thorough
process. There is no point in this. It serves no purpose, other than to
run the risk of destroying the kind of comity and cooperation that we
expect of each other in the Senate, all of which was granted in the
case of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Let me be clear. Because of what our Democratic colleagues are doing
and the way they are doing it, it will now be much more difficult to
achieve the kind of comity and cooperation on this and other matters
that we need and expect around here as we try to deal with the Nation's
business.
I hope they will reconsider their decision and work with us on a
bipartisan basis to allow a thorough review of this lengthy record that
the nominee possesses.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to join the ranking member of the
committee on which I sit, as well as the distinguished minority leader,
in asking the question of why we have to set a date right now on the
hearing for Judge Sotomayor. There is no reason for us to do that
because there is no way to know at this point whether we will have our
work done by that time.
Historically--and it is for good reason--you want to have the review
completed before you question the witness about the matters under
review. That makes sense. So there is no reason to set that date today,
and that is troublesome. We don't know if we will be ready by July 13,
but there is a lot of history to suggest it is going to be very
difficult to be ready by that time.
The leader just pointed out the fact that if you compare the work
required to consider the nomination of the now-Chief Justice John
Roberts as opposed to this nominee, you have more than 10 times as many
cases to look at with Judge Sotomayor as you had with Justice Roberts.
That takes a lot of time. And even with 20-some staffers reading these
4,000-plus decisions, it is not just a matter of reading the cases; it
is a matter of then looking to see what the precedents cited were to
determine whether you think the judge was right in the decision that
was rendered, to look at the other references in the case to see how
closely this followed existing law, and whether it appears the judge
might be trying to make law as opposed to deciding law.
That is important in this particular case because of the standard the
President laid down for his nominees which strongly suggests something
beyond deciding the law. In 5 percent of the cases, as he said, there
is no precedent, there is no legal mechanism for deciding how the case
should come out. You have to base it on other factors. Everybody is
well aware of some of the factors this particular nominee has talked
about and the President has talked about--the empathy, the background,
the experience in other matters.
The question is, in reading these opinions, do you find a trend of
deciding cases on something other than the law, potentially the making
of law in this particular case? And even if, as the leader said, you
have to review 76 cases a day, that is only the decisions she has
participated in or the opinions she has written or joined in.
How about the other writings--her law review writings, her speeches
she has given, the FBI report, the ABA report, which we do not have
yet, the questionnaire which has not been completed; in other words, a
variety of things that have been reviewed and read. And then you
discuss the nomination with witnesses to say this matter has been
raised, this matter has been raised, what do you think about that?
She will have a variety of people who will be writing to the
committee on her behalf. We will receive reams of letters and comments
from people who think she is a good nominee, and we will receive a lot
of comments, I suspect, from people who think she is not a good
nominee. We need to go through all of that. When people write to us
about these nominees, for or against, we don't ignore what they say; we
take it to heart. That is part of our job. All of this takes a great
deal of time and effort.
Final point, Mr. President. We don't want to leave this to staff. We
are going to read those opinions. I have instructed my staff on the
opinions I want to read. I am used to reading court opinions, but not
everybody has done that fairly recently in their career, and that takes
a lot of time as well, considering all the other work we have to do.
To do this right, to conduct the kind of fair and thorough hearing
that Senator Sessions talked about, and to follow the kind of
precedents and tradition that the minority leader talked about, I think
it is important for us to do it right, to get it right, to take the
time that requires. And if that means going beyond July 13, then do
that.
Senator Specter, when he was chairman of the committee, worked in a
bipartisan way with Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy can certainly work in
a bipartisan way with us to ensure there is an adequate amount of time.
At the end of the day, what we want is a hearing that everyone can
say was fair, was thorough, resulted in a good decision and, hopefully
and presumably, will allow this nominee, if she is confirmed, to take
her position prior to the beginning of the October term. Justice
Roberts was confirmed, I believe, on the 29th of September, and that
was 4 days ahead of the time, I think--or 2 days. The Court reconvenes
on October 5. Therefore, I see no reason why, if we do this right, we
cannot have the nominee--if this nominee is confirmed--confirmed by the
time the October term begins.
I say to my colleagues, let's do this right and not try to push
things beyond the point that is appropriate under the circumstances.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for his leadership
on this committee. He is one of the Senate's great lawyers. I
appreciate his insights, as we all do.
I note that I think this rush is ill advised. In truth, the White
House was determined to get the nominee's questionnaire to the Senate
in a hurry.
[[Page 14298]]
There were a number of cameras and crews and press releases that went
out when boxes were delivered. In many ways, the questionnaire was
incomplete, the result, I think, of that kind of rush. In others, the
nominee failed to provide sufficient details that are required by the
questionnaire.
For example, the judge did not include a troubling recommendation to
the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund to lobby against a New York State
law that would reinstate the death penalty, and it had quite a bit of
intemperate rhetoric in it. After that was noted, she admitted she had
failed to include but got that document in. But I suggest perhaps if
somebody had not been aware of that omission, maybe we would not have
received that document at all. What else might she have failed to
include that might be an important bit of information as our committee
does its oversight work?
In addition, the nominee was supposed to provide opinions and filings
for cases going to verdict, judgment, or final decision. For three
cases, she indicates that the District Attorney's Office is searching
its records for information on this case, and she did not provide
those.
In 14 cases, she noted that she tried, the record is incomplete and
not provided. So we don't have any documents related to these cases.
As another example, the nominee is supposed to list speeches,
remarks, and lectures she gave and, in the absence of having a prepared
text, to provide outlines, notes, and then a summary of the subject
matter.
Several of the entries lacked any subject matter descriptions or are
so vague as to be utterly uninformative, including these quotes I will
note for the record, and we have had some problems with her speeches. A
lot of speeches she has given she has no text for.
I note this is on her questionnaire: ``I spoke on Second Circuit
employee discrimination cases.'' She did not indicate what or give any
summary of that.
Another one: ``I spoke at a federal court externship class on `Access
to Justice.''' It is not clear what that was in any way, and no summary
and certainly no text.
``I participated in a panel entitled `Sexual Harassment: How to
Practice Safe Employment.''' Similarly, no additional explanation.
Next: ``I spoke on the United States judicial system.''
Next: ``I spoke on the topic `Lawyering for Social Justice.' I
discussed my life experiences and the role of minority bar
organizations.''
``I participated in a symposium on post-conviction relief. I spoke on
the execution of judgments of conviction.''
``I spoke on the implementation of the Hague Convention in the United
States and abroad.''
``I participated in an ACS panel discussion on the sentencing
guidelines.''
``I participated in a roundtable discussion and reception on `The Art
of Judging' at this event.''
It would be nice to know what she thought about the art of judging.
``I contributed to the panel, `The Future of Judicial Review: The
View from the Bench' at the 2004 National Convention. The official
theme was `Liberty and Equality in the 21st Century.'''
Those are some of the things that I think are inadequate responses to
the questionnaire's requirements. This questionnaire is one we have
used for nominees of both parties for a number of years.
The chairman justifies this rushed schedule because of the need, he
says, to allow the nominee to respond to unfair criticisms of her
record. But the chairman and all our Democratic colleagues know that
the Republican Senators who will actually be voting on this nominee, I
am confident and certain, have been nothing but extremely fair and
courteous and respectful of the nominee. Even when she made mistakes,
such as omitting several things from her questionnaire, we have not
criticized her for that. So in return for this courtesy, I am
disappointed that we are being rushed to complete this process in a
time based on what I know now is not a wise approach. I don't think it
is a good way to begin the proceedings.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this date. Perhaps we
can do better as we move forward. It is an important process. It is the
public's only opportunity to understand what this is about. I think we
ought to do it right. As Senator Leahy has said, do not rush it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. 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. 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, let me say a few words regarding the
excellent work of the Judiciary Committee, the work that has been done
by Chairman Leahy. He has informed me that Senator Sessions has been
most cooperative during the entire time Senator Sessions has had this
new assignment.
Senator McConnell asked me one day last week to delay a floor vote on
Judge Sotomayor until after the August recess, and he sent me a letter,
which I was happy to receive, making his case for this delay. I
indicated to him this morning--he, Senator McConnell--that I had a
telephone call scheduled with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee
and the President to go over the content of Senator McConnell's well-
written letter.
We had quite a long conversation with the President. Time? I don't
know, 15 minutes, 10 minutes. But it was certainly enough to learn very
quickly that the President was well versed on this nomination.
After having spoken with the President and the chairman of the
committee this morning, I had an obligation to convey to Senator
McConnell my conclusion based on my conversation with the President.
What I wish to do now, Mr. President, is read into the Record a
letter I had delivered this morning to Leader McConnell:
Dear Mitch:
Thank you for your letter regarding the process for
considering the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United
States Supreme Court. I have taken your concerns into
consideration and have discussed the confirmation process
with the President and the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Judge Sotomayor's judicial record is largely public and has
been undergoing extensive review by all interested parties at
least since the President announced her nomination on May 26.
In addition, she has returned her questionnaire, including
available records of her speeches and writings, in record
time. Her record for review is now essentially complete.
In contrast, both Judge Roberts and Judge Alito had spent
significant time in the executive branch and much of their
record was not public or available for review following their
nominations. Numerous executive branch documents were not
included with their questionnaires, and much staff
preparation time was devoted to extensive negotiations over
document production with both nominations.
In 2005, Senator Leahy agreed to a September 6 hearing date
for the Roberts nomination before Judge Roberts had submitted
his questionnaire, and before more than 75,000 pages of
documents, primarily from the Reagan Library and the National
Archives, came in throughout August and before the hearing
began in September. Indeed, on the eve of the planned start
of the hearing, on August 30, the Archives notified the
Judiciary Committee they had found a new set of documents
consisting of about 15,000 pages. These were delivered
September 2, further complicating the hearing preparations.
The hearings went ahead on September 12.
Furthermore, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and Chief
Justice Rehnquist passed away while Judge Roberts' nomination
to be an Associate Justice, leading to a week-long delay in
his hearing after he was then nominated to be the new Chief
Justice.
Despite these obstacles, Judge Roberts was confirmed 72
days after President Bush named him as a nominee to the
Supreme Court. If Judge Sotomayor is confirmed before the
Senate recess in August, she will have been confirmed on a
virtually identical timetable. If, however, she is not
confirmed until the beginning of the Court's term in October,
consideration of her nomination will have lasted nearly twice
as long as that of Judge Roberts.
Confirming Judge Sotomayor before the August recess would
give her time to prepare
[[Page 14299]]
adequately for the Court's fall term, including the review of
hundreds of petitions for certiorari for the Court's first
conference and preparation for merits arguments. It would
also allow her time to move and hire law clerks. I do not
believe it is fair to delay Judge Sotomayor's confirmation if
it is not absolutely necessary.
I appreciate that Senate Republicans are committed to a
fair and respectful confirmation process for Judge Sotomayor.
I believe it is important that Senators be permitted the
opportunity to thoroughly review Judge Sotomayor's record and
to fulfill our constitutional duty to provide advice and
consent. I believe our proposed schedule for hearings and a
floor vote on her confirmation will do so.
I signed that letter Harry Reid.
The hearing date is just 48 days after Judge Sotomayor was selected
and is consistent with the 51-day average time between announcement of
a Presidential selection and the start of their hearings. It has been
that way for the past nine Court nominees who were confirmed.
The proposed alternative, that the hearings be held after the August
recess, or the first Tuesday after Labor Day, Tuesday, September 8,
would subject Judge Sotomayor to the longest delay between selection
and her confirmation hearing of any Supreme Court nominee in history,
so far as we can tell. We stopped checking, frankly, when we got back
to 1960. The GOP plan would delay her hearing until the 107th day after
her selection. Robert Bork, the current record holder, waited 76 days.
Thomas and Alito waited 64 and 67 days, respectively.
We are doing our utmost to have this nominee have a fair hearing. We
want to make sure the Republicans have all the time they need, but
history doesn't lie, and history suggests we are being overly generous
with this good woman. She will be a wonderful addition to the Court,
and I would hope we can move forward and have this matter resolved
quietly, respectfully, and fairly.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield. I might add to
that. When I met with the distinguished Senator from Alabama last week,
I had originally suggested it would be well within the appropriate
timeframe of the other Justices--including Justice Roberts--that we
have the hearing the week we came back from our week-long break of the
Fourth of July. He had expressed--and I will let him speak for
himself--some concern about that week after, and so I said: OK, we will
put it a week later.
He, obviously, wanted to speak with his leadership, and that is fine.
I had originally intended to speak about it on Friday, but I understood
that the Republican leader had sent a letter to the majority leader
because the majority leader had told me about that, and we are all
aware of the date. There was never a question about what date I
intended to start. I had known that for some time. But this morning I
told him by telephone I was going to do that date. I talked to the
President, and I so advised Judge Sotomayor.
The fact is, we are not doing something where we have problems with
tens of thousands of pages just days before the hearing. We have all
the material. I can't speak for other Senators, but we have a lot of
work to do. We are paid well, and we have big staffs. I had hoped to
take some vacation time during the Fourth of July week--I will not. I
will spend that time preparing for it in my farmhouse in Vermont. I
would suggest Senators may have to spend some time doing that. I know a
lot of our staffs--both Republican and Democratic staffs--are going to
have to plan to take time off. They are going to be working hard.
We have a responsibility to the American people. Certainly, we have a
responsibility to have a Justice have time enough to get a place to
live down here, hire law clerks, and get going.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a moment?
Mr. LEAHY. Sure.
Mr. REID. It is also true, is it not, the announcement was made that
during the 5 weeks we are in session during July we are going to be
working Mondays through Fridays, and you have informed the members of
the Judiciary Committee--Democrats and Republicans--that would be the
case? That is why--it is my understanding from the distinguished
chair--you had announced the hearing was going to start on a Monday?
Mr. LEAHY. We are going to be in anyway. I would also note this gives
us plenty of time.
We get elected in November, most of us--the first week in November--
and when we are new Senators, we find it difficult to put everything
together in 2 months, to go into the Senate in January. We should at
least give the same courtesy to a Justice of the Supreme Court that we
expect the American voters and taxpayers to give us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to confirm and agree with most of
what the majority leader and our chairman have said. The bottom line
is, this is a nomination that should be easy to study up on. The record
is public. The record has been available from the day she was
nominated. There are not thousands and thousands of pages given to us
at the end of the days, as I know my colleague, the chairman, has said.
I would like to make one other point. I know my colleague, our
ranking minority member, Mr. Sessions, said Alito took some 90 days.
That is true. But that included both the Thanksgiving and Christmas
breaks. If you look at the actual working days, it was much shorter, as
it has been for every other Justice. Let me repeat. If we were to do
what the minority leader asks, and not vote on this nomination until
well after the September break, it would be the longest nomination
proceeding we have had for the most publicly available and most concise
record.
This is not somebody whom we have to dig and find out things about,
because she has had 17 years--17 years--of Federal decisions at the
district and at the court of appeals level, more than any other nominee
to the Supreme Court in 100 years--in 70 years, excuse me. No, in 100
years for Federal and in 70 years for Federal and State because Justice
Cardozo had 29 years on the State bench. The record is ample and the
record is public. Given the staff that I know the Judiciary minority
has, as chairman of the Rules Committee, any lawyer worth their salt
could more easily research the whole record in less than a month. So,
actually, Chairman Leahy has been kind of generous by delaying a week
or two beyond that month.
Every day, as we speak now, there are, I daresay, tens of thousands
of lawyers who have larger research dockets to do and are doing them in
less time. So the bottom line is very simple. One can only come to the
conclusion that the reason for delay is delay alone, not needing time
to study a public, ample record. So I would urge my colleagues on the
other side to reconsider.
I have been told, at least on my subcommittee, that no one is going
to participate in any meetings on anything. I don't know if that is
true--I hope it isn't--that there is going to be an attempt to close
down the Judiciary Committee on all the important issues we face.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will yield to the Senator.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague, in terms of the public
record, is it true not only that this is the longest period of time,
but if we were to delay it until September, that would be the longest
period of time for consideration of any Justice for the Supreme Court
in history?
Mr. SCHUMER. I believe my colleague from Massachusetts is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Certainly much longer than Justice Alito, Justice Roberts
or any of the others whom we considered very rapidly?
Mr. SCHUMER. Clearly, longer than Roberts--much longer than Roberts--
and somewhat longer than Alito. But Alito had both the Thanksgiving and
Christmas breaks that were counted in that time, and we all know people
are busy celebrating the holidays.
Mr. KERRY. I would also ask my colleague whether there is any
rationale here whatsoever, that we have seen, for
[[Page 14300]]
why this Justice's entire record, which is public, and has been poured
over already, requires having the longest period in history, in terms
of Justices of the Supreme Court, particularly given the issues that
are at stake and the convening of a new Court in October?
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, I thank my colleague, and I think his points are
well taken. As I mentioned before, the bottom line is, any lawyer worth
his salt--and there are many very qualified lawyers in the minority on
the Judiciary Committee--could research this record within a month,
easily--easily. Right now, in the buildings here in Washington and in
the buildings in New York and in the buildings in Birmingham, AL, are
lawyers who have far more extensive research to do in less time and
they do it well.
Mrs. BOXER. Would my friend yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I know we have to vote, but I wish to speak for a minute.
As a woman, and being from California, we have such excitement about
this nomination. I know we all agree this is a historic first, this
nomination, and I think, given that and the fact that the women of this
country comprise a majority and there is only one woman on the Court--
and we certainly have never had a Latino on the bench--I am asking my
friend, does he not believe this nominee should be accorded equal
treatment--equal treatment as it relates to the others who have been
nominated to the same post?
That is all I am asking for. I am not on the committee, but I am
supporting our Chairman Leahy and the rest of the committee--at least
those who are moving toward this in a schedule similar to Justice
Roberts. I would ask, once again: Shouldn't we, who are very excited
about this nomination and want to see it move forward, expect to have
Judge Sotomayor treated in an equal fashion?
Mr. SCHUMER. I think my colleague from California makes an excellent
point, and I would answer in the affirmative. We are not asking for
more time. We are actually asking for less time, if you include
vacation time.
It is not a situation like with Justice Roberts and even Judge Alito,
where there were weeks and weeks before we were able to get private
records that were available. No one has requested--Judge Sotomayor has
not worked with the executive, so you don't have all those issues that
have to be discussed and negotiated about executive privilege. She has
a 17-year career on the bench. She has 3,000 opinions. If that is not
an adequate record?
My office just in 2 days looked at every one, for instance, of the
immigration asylum cases that were brought before her. There were 83--a
pretty good sample, 83 percent. I don't recall the number, but there
were a large number of cases, and 83 percent of the time we found she
denied asylum to the immigrant applicant, which we concluded made it
pretty clear that her fidelity to rule of law trumped her natural
sympathy for the immigrant experience.
We just did that in a day or two. I don't have the kind of staff that
my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, has. He should have it. He is
the ranking minority Member. So it is very easy, given the number of
staff, given the public record, given that there is no litigation or
discussion about executive privilege--as there was with both nominee
Alito and nominee Roberts--that a month seems to me to be ample time.
The chairman, in his wisdom, to which I will defer, gave more than a
month to the day of the nomination.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for just one question?
Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator from California raised the question
of doing for this nominee as the others. If this goes forward as
planned, it would be 48 days from nomination announcement to the first
hearing. I wonder if the Senator from New York would acknowledge that
for Justice Breyer it was 60 days; for John Roberts it was 55, the
shortest; and Sam Alito was 70. This would be much shorter a period of
time than the period we are being given for this nominee, who has 3,500
cases.
I would ask if the Senator remembers saying with regard to the Alito
nomination, when our Democratic colleagues asked that it be held over
past Christmas, and at their request it was done so, he said:
It is more important to do it right than to do it quickly.
And now we have a bipartisan agreement to do that.
So we just ask for a bipartisan agreement to do it right and not too
fast. I don't know how we can work it out, but I think this is an
arbitrary date, designed to move this process forward by a certain end
game, faster than we need to. The vacancy, as the Senator knows, does
not occur until October when Justice Souter steps down. So we do need
to complete it by then. I have told the President I will work to make
sure that occurs.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. If I might respond, with nominee Alito, now Justice
Alito, there was a Christmas break. As I understand it, according to
Chairman Leahy it was the majority, Republicans, who asked we go to
that Christmas break, not the Democrats. In Justice Roberts' case, I
believe Katrina intervened and everybody had to drop everything and
work on the emergency of Katrina.
If you look at days where the record is available, and it has been
available right from the get-go here, and no vacation, no intervening
long recesses and things like that, the minority here, any Senator
here, will have had more time to scrutinize this record than we have
had for most other Judges. Again, underscored by the fact that the
record is public, is open and ample.
No one has to go look for needles in a haystack to try to figure out
the record of Judge Sotomayor. It is very extensive and ample. With
Justice Roberts, we only had a few years where he was on the bench and
all the rest of his record was in the executive and it took us weeks, I
think--the chairman probably remembers this better than me--or months
to get the record.
With that, I yield the floor. I know we want to get on with the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
3 minutes before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join in saying the chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has come up with a
reasonable timetable for considering this historic nomination. I
believe his setting Monday, July 13, for the hearing is well within the
ordinary bounds of time allotted for Supreme Court nominees. The
important date is when paperwork is submitted. When it came to the
submission of paperwork before the hearing actually took place,
basically, when it came to Judge Sotomayor, she completed her paperwork
setting forth her key information, background, on June 4. The July 13
hearing will take place 39 days after that paperwork was submitted.
In the case of Justice Alito--who incidentally had participated in
4,000 cases, 1,000 more than Judge Sotomayor--in that case, in Justice
Alito's case, the hearing took place 40 days after we received his
work; for Chief Justice John Roberts, 43 days. This is entirely
consistent.
I might also add a point that was raised by Senator Udall of New
Mexico. Judge Sotomayor is no stranger to this Chamber. She was
nominated first for the district court bench by President George
Herbert Walker Bush and then nominated for the district court by
President Clinton. That is an indication that we have seen her work
before. We are aware of her background.
The last point I would make, consistent with the Senator from
California, is that justice delayed could be justice denied. In this
case, if we continue this hearing for a record-breaking period of
time--which has been requested by the Republican side--it will mean we
will have a vacancy on the Supreme Court when it begins its important
work this fall.
[[Page 14301]]
What Chairman Leahy has asked for is reasonable. It is consistent
with the way Judges were treated under President Bush and at the time
the Republicans had no objection or complaint about it. This is a
reasonable timetable. I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Leahy.
I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1256, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1256), to protect the public health by
providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain
authority to regulate tobacco products, and to amend title 5,
United States Code, to make certain modifications in the
Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement System, and
the Federal Employees' Retirement System, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Dodd amendment No. 1247, in the nature of a substitute.
Burr/Hagan amendment No. 1246 (to amendment No. 1247), in
the nature of a substitute.
Schumer (for Lieberman) amendment No. 1256 (to amendment
No. 1247), to modify provisions relating to Federal employees
retirement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1246 by
the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator
from Mossouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--60
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Grassley
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Byrd
Kennedy
McCaskill
The amendment (No. 1246) was rejected.
Mr. DODD. 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.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may--I wish to ask unanimous consent to
go into morning business at the conclusion of these brief remarks--
there are several amendments that are germane amendments to this bill
that we ought to consider, and my hope is that will happen. I will let
the leadership determine what the rest of the day will be like, but my
hope is we can complete these other germane amendments that are before
us. I know there is a package of amendments on other things to be
looked at, and I am certainly prepared to do that.
My good friend, the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, is not on the
floor at this minute, but he and I have had a good relationship on this
bill, and we would like to complete it if we could. We have been now
almost a week and a half on this legislation, so it shouldn't take much
more to get to final passage.
So I make that offer to my colleagues, that they can sit down and see
if we can't resolve some of those matters or at least allow for some
time for debate on those outstanding germane amendments that are
pending.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from Missouri be given a couple of minutes to
make his speech for the record and that afterwards I immediately be
given the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not
intend to object, I would ask unanimous consent to be recognized
following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, and
then following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Utah, that
I be allowed to follow him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish my colleague to understand that I
may take longer than 10 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
____________________
NOMINATION OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY McCHRYSTAL
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today in the Appropriations Defense
Subcommittee we heard about some good things going on in South Asia and
the new strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan to bring military
and civilian efforts into that region.
I understand the Armed Services Committee has just approved the
nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal, an ex-commander of the
international security forces, the final senior-level military position
in the theater.
The dedicated members of the American military, our intelligence
professionals and State Department officials continue to serve our
country well, but it is essential that the efforts of each be woven
together to form a comprehensive strategy that will not only win the
battle but win the war. This will take senior leaders of great vision
in all areas of our government.
Last November I reached out to many of these leaders when I sent then
President-elect Obama and his national security team my report on the
way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama has taken many
of the steps I outlined, steps that are critical to our long-term
success in the region.
Earlier this year the President appointed a special envoy for the
region who will oversee the implementation of the new strategy and he
appointed a new ambassador to Afghanistan, who will focus the efforts
of U.S. Government agencies in country. With General Petraeus firmly in
place as the CENTCOM commander and the recent nomination of LTG Stanley
McChrystal as the next commander of International Security Forces,
Afghanistan--COMISAF--the President will have filled the senior-most
military and civilian positions in-theater.
[[Page 14302]]
I recently met personally with General McChrystal to talk about our
way forward in the region and to listen to his ideas on Afghanistan and
Pakistan. I must say I was impressed. He is not only a dedicated and
accomplished soldier who has years of combat and counterterrorism
experience, he is also an effective leader who understands the critical
challenges we face in the region. More importantly, he understands that
the war will not be won with military might alone--that to win this war
we must combine the outstanding work of our military with effective
diplomatic and economic efforts.
A true counterinsurgency--or COIN--strategy, one that wins the hearts
and minds of the local population and gains grassroots support for
development and governance efforts, includes an effective public
diplomacy campaign. General McChrystal not only understands the
importance of good public diplomacy, he is dedicated to ensuring that
our actions on the ground speak as loudly for our intentions as do our
information efforts. That is part of what I call ``smart power''--
combining diplomatic, economic, informational and military efforts.
I have seen first-hand the success of these smart power efforts. In
Nangarhar Province, the Missouri National Guard Agriculture Development
team gained the trust and cooperation of the local leaders. These
Missourians have given Afghans in Nangarhar the skills they need to
grow and harvest legitimate and sustainable crops. As a result, Afghan
farmers are not only improving their own lives and land, but poppy
production in the region has virtually been eliminated. I am confident
that General McChrystal will support increased focus and investment in
smart power efforts such as these.
General McChrystal understands how critical putting an ``Afghan
face'' on our combat operations is to our ultimate success. I was
pleased that when we talked about accomplishing this goal by improving
our efforts to train the Afghan National Army and Police, General
McChrystal acknowledged the Afghan component is essential to any
successful COIN strategy. Years of special operations experience has
led him to know inherently how important it is to have the populace
gain confidence in its own government institutions. Having met with the
general in Iraq and seen the good work he did there, having watched his
work on the Joint Staff, and having spoken with him at length over the
past several weeks, I can unequivocally state that he is the kind of
officer who intends to do just this--build public trust in Afghanistan.
Just look at his testimony. According to the general, more
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) is good not only
because it gives you a better understanding of the battle space, but
also because it increases precision which ultimately reduces civilian
casualties. Reducing civilian casualties is a must and will gain trust
in Afghanistan.
General McChrystal also believes that corruption is ``one of the
things that must be reduced for the government to be legitimate, and
therefore for the people to trust it.'' The general intends for us to
partner with Afghans at every level to help them rid or reduce the
widespread corruption because it has a corrosive effect on the
legitimacy of the government and is perceived by the Afghan people to
be a real problem. This will also gain trust in Afghanistan.
Finally, he believes it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan
not only because it removes access to safe havens for al-Qaida and
associated groups, but because it is the right thing to do. According
to the general's testimony, ``we have the ability to--to support the
people of Afghanistan and to move and to shape a better future that
they want. And I think that that will make a difference in how we are
viewed worldwide.'' This gains trust in general.
Everything I have seen or heard about Lieutenant General McChrystal,
from my conversations with him and from his testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, his impeccable record of military command and
operations, to the comments of his fellow officers, tells me that Stan
McChrystal will be a wise, measured, and excellent commander of our
operations in Afghanistan. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this nomination without delay so General McChrystal can get on the
ground.
I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my distinguished
colleague from Utah.
____________________
CONFIRMATION PROCESS
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks
and concerns expressed earlier by both the Judiciary Committee's
ranking member, Senator Sessions, and the distinguished Republican
leader and whip, Senators McConnell and Kyl.
The White House talking points tell us that the Supreme Court
nomination, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, has more Federal judicial experience
than any Supreme Court nominee in a century. My friends on the other
side of the aisle have taken, used, and aggressively circulated these
talking points. I assume by stressing judicial experience they are
saying that this overwhelmingly deep, broad, and vast judicial record
provides the basis on which to judge the nominee's fitness for the
Supreme Court. Well, that coin has two sides. The flip side is that a
17-year judicial career that has produced thousands of judicial
decisions takes time to evaluate adequately and properly to consider.
The question is whether the majority is at all interested in a genuine,
serious, deliberative process by which the Senate can fulfill one of
our most important constitutional responsibilities. This process should
be fair and thorough. Instead, it is being rigged and rushed for no
apparent reason other than that the majority can do so.
This process should be bipartisan, and instead it is becoming
entirely partisan. The ranking member was not even given the very same
courtesy that the chairman was given when he was in that position at
the time of the previous Supreme Court nominations.
Let me focus on the process followed to consider the previous Supreme
Court nominee, Justice Samuel Alito. He had served on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit for more than 15 years when he was
nominated to the Supreme Court. This is 5 years longer than Judge
Sotomayor has served on the Second Circuit and nearly the same as Judge
Sotomayor's combined judicial service on both the district and circuit
courts.
The other party demanded and was granted 70 days from the
announcement of the nomination to the hearing to study then-Judge
Alito's record. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, was
chairman at the time. He made no unilateral partisan announcements. He
imposed no truncated, limited timeframe. No, he consulted the ranking
member, and they agreed there would be 70 days to study that voluminous
judicial record.
Oh, what a difference an election makes. With the unilateral partisan
edict announced today by the chairman, we are being given only 48 days
to study the same lengthy record. We are told we must consider the
largest judicial record in a century in the shortest time in modern
memory, and that is simply not enough. It is not enough to do the job
right, and I would remind my friends on the other side that it was
their leaders who once said that it is more important to do it right
than to do it fast. That was when there was a Republican President and
a Republican Senate. Are we to assume from the unilateral imposition of
a stunted and inadequate process that the majority today no longer
cares that the confirmation process be done right, only that it be done
fast?
The chairman has actually suggested that he really has no choice,
that some intemperate criticism by a few people has somehow forced his
hand. He cannot be serious about this. This nominee has the full force
and weight of no less than the entire administration of a currently
popular President, a compliant media, and the largest partisan
congressional majority in decades to come to her defense. Interest
groups are mobilizing, lobbying campaigns are in full swing, Web sites
are already in
[[Page 14303]]
operation. With all of that, are we to believe a few ill-considered
remarks by a few people outside this body are enough to cut the
confirmation process off at the knees? Are we to believe this is all it
takes to set aside fairness, to undercut the ability of the Senate to
do its confirmation duty, and to inject this degree of partisanship and
rancor into the process? Give me a break.
This is choice, plain and simple, and it is the wrong choice. The
distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has said that
Senators on our side of the aisle oppose this nominee at their peril,
as if there is any peril in fairly applying basic principles and
standards to this as well as to other nominees. But the distinguished
majority leader has apparently said the same thing to Senators on this
side of the aisle, literally daring any of them to vote against this
nominee. That is a strange tactic, indeed, especially so publicly and
so early on in the process. It makes me wonder whether there are
concerns, even on the majority side, that the leadership simply cannot
allow to be expressed.
I urge my friends on the other side to reconsider and not be
intimidated and not be pushed around. There is more than enough time to
do the confirmation job right, to have a fair and thorough process that
can have a confirmed Justice in place when the Supreme Court begins its
term in October. There is no need gratuitously to further politicize
the confirmation process. Injecting such partisanship at the beginning
easily can result in greater conflict and division further down the
confirmation road, and that is not good for Judge Sotomayor or anybody
else in this body. That is not in the best tradition of the Senate, it
is not how the Supreme Court nominations have been considered in the
past, and it is not the way we should do this today.
I have been informed there have been some 4,000 decisions. My gosh,
it is going to take some time to go through those decisions.
I believe we ought to be fair in this body, and fairness means giving
enough time to be able to do the job properly and to get it done within
a reasonable period of time and not be pushed in ways that really don't
make sense.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes now to talk
about the perils of creating a government plan on American families and
health care.
I am very disappointed that the President and my friends on the other
side of the aisle have chosen to pursue the creation of a new
government-run plan--one of the most divisive issues in health care
reform--rather than focusing on broad areas of compromise that can lead
us toward bipartisan reform in health care legislation.
Yesterday, I spearheaded a letter with my Republican Finance
Committee colleagues urging the President to strike a more conciliatory
tone on health care reform. Having played a profound role in almost
every major health care legislation for the last three decades and
having worked repetitively in a bipartisan manner with everyone from
Senators Kennedy and Dodd to Congressman Waxman, I know something about
getting things done for our families in a thoughtful manner. You
advance legislation by focusing on areas of compromise, not strife.
First and foremost, let me make this point again, even though I am
starting to sound like a broken record: Reforming our health care
system to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable,
and portable health care is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is
an American issue. When we are dealing with one-sixth of our economy,
it is absolutely imperative that we address this challenge in a
bipartisan manner. Anything less would be a huge disservice to our
families and our Nation.
Clearly, health care spending continues to grow too fast. This year
will mark the biggest ever 1-year jump in health care's share of our
GDP--a full percentage point to 17.6 percent. You can think of this as
a horse race between costs and resources to cover these costs. The sad
reality is that costs win year after year.
Growing health care costs translate directly into higher coverage
costs. Since the last decade, the cost of health coverage has increased
by 120 percent--three times the growth of inflation and four times the
growth of wages. It is not the only problem, but cost is one part of
the reason more than 45 million Americans do not have health insurance.
I believe we need to do more to ensure we achieve universal and
affordable access to quality health care for every American. We can do
this by reforming and improving the current system. However, the
creation of a government plan is nothing more than a backdoor approach
to a Washington-run health care system.
At a time when major government programs such as Medicare and
Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand
new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial
outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the
private coverage of their choice.
To put this in perspective, as of this year, Medicare has a liability
of almost $39 trillion, which in turn translates into a financial
burden of more than $300,000 per American family.
In our current fiscal environment, where the government will have to
borrow nearly 50 cents of every dollar it spends this year, exploding
our deficit by almost $1.8 trillion, let's think hard about what we are
doing to our country and our future generations.
The impact of a new government-run program on families who currently
have private insurance of their choice is also alarming. A recent
Milliman study estimated that cost-shifting from government payers,
specifically Medicare and Medicaid, already costs families with private
insurance nearly $1,800 more each year. Creating another government-run
plan will further increase these costs on our families in Utah and
across the country.
Let me make a very important point. A new government plan is nothing
more than a Trojan horse for a single-payer system, a one-size-fits-all
government-mandated system, where we are going to put bureaucrats
between you and your doctors. Washington-run programs undermine market-
based competition through their ability to impose price controls and
shift costs to other purchasers.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group has concluded that a government plan open
to all, and offering Medicare-level reimbursement rates, would result
in 119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage. This is
almost three times the size of the entire Medicare Program, which is
already in trouble. More important, this would run contrary to the
President's own pledge to the American families about allowing them to
keep the coverage of their choice. So far as I know, no one has
disputed the Lewin Group. They are well known as one of the most
nonpartisan groups in the country.
Proponents of this government plan seem to count on the efficiency of
the Federal Government in delivering care for American families, since
it is already doing such a great job with our banking and automobile
industry.
Medicare is a perfect example. It is on a path to fiscal meltdown,
with Part A already facing bankruptcy within the next decade, and we
all know it. It underpays doctors by 20 percent and hospitals by 30
percent, compared to the private sector, forcing increasing numbers of
providers to simply stop seeing our Nation's seniors. According to the
June 2008 MedPAC report, 9 out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries have to get
additional benefits beyond their Medicare coverage--9 out of 10.
We have a broken doctor payment system in Medicare that has to be
fixed every year, so seniors can continue to get care. This year alone,
this broken formula calls for a more than 20-percent cut. I can keep
going, but the point is simple: Washington and a government-run plan is
not the answer.
Talk about creating problems. The supporters of the government plan
know these facts. So they are trying a different approach by claiming
that the government plan is simply competing with the private sector on
a so-called level playing field. Give me a break.
[[Page 14304]]
History has shown us that forcing free market plans to compete with
these government-run programs always creates an unlevel playing field
and dooms true competition.
The Medicare Program, once again, provides an important lesson. As a
political compromise, Medicare was set up in 1965 to pay doctors and
hospitals the same rates as the private sector. Faced with rising
budget pressures, Congress quickly abandoned this level-playing-field
approach and enacted price limits for doctors and hospitals. Today, as
I have said, Medicare payments are 20 percent less for doctors and 30
percent less for hospitals compared to the private sector. I have been
told by doctors from Utah and across the country that if this
continues, they will simply stop seeing patients altogether. A number
of them are ready to quit the profession. I cannot tell you the
problems that will arise if we go to a government-run program--a Trojan
horse to lead us to a government-mandated, government-run, one-size-
fits-all massive program.
In his March, 2009, testimony before the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, testified that it would be ``extremely
difficult'' to create ``a system where a public plan [government plan,
if you will] could compete on a level playing field'' against private
coverage. The end result would be a Federal Government takeover of our
health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of our doctors
and our patients, placing them in the hands of a Washington
bureaucracy, and inserting that bureaucracy right between them.
Here is the bottom line: We are walking down a path where stories
such as Jack Tagg's could become increasingly common in our great
country. In 2006, Jack Tagg, a former World War II pilot, suffered from
a severe case of macular degeneration. The regional government
bureaucrats rejected his request for treatment, citing high costs,
unless the disease hit his other eye also. It took 3 years to overturn
that decision--3 years, while he had to suffer, when we could have done
this in a better way.
Let's remember that a family member with cancer in an intensive care
unit would probably neither have the time nor the resources to appeal
such an egregious bureaucratic decision. We need to remember the real
implications of these policies--not simply in terms of political spin
and special interests but in terms of its impact on real people, who
are mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, and children.
Similar to the ill-conceived stimulus legislation and flawed auto
bailout plan, health care reform has the potential of simply becoming
another example of the Democrats justifying the current economic
turmoil to further expand the Federal Government.
To enact true health care reform, we have to come together as one to
write a reasonable and responsible bill for the American families who
are faced with rising unemployment and out-of-control health care
costs.
I do look forward to working together to transform our sick-care
system into a true health care system. I continue to hold deep in my
heart that we will move beyond these beltway games and work together in
a bipartisan way to fix Main Street. The time is now and I am ready.
I am absolutely positive the way to go is not with a government-run,
government-mandated health care program, which will bring the lowest
common denominator in health care to everybody. I think you are going
to find that the costs are so astronomical, the way it is being formed
in the HELP Committee, in particular, that we are leaving a burden on
our kids and grandkids and great grandkids that is going to be
insurmountable.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from Oregon is
recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Before the Senator leaves the floor, I wish to tell the
Senator from Utah how much I am looking forward, on a personal level,
to working with him in this 5-month sprint to figure out a way to fix
American health care in a bipartisan fashion. Some of the moments I am
proudest of have been those when the two of us have been able to team
up on health reform. Without getting into it this afternoon, let me say
that millions of poor young people who use community health centers are
getting services there at no extra cost to our taxpayers, because
Senator Hatch was willing to work with this Senator and a group of
others, including public interest groups and a wide variety of health
care advocates, in order to change malpractice rules. This was done to
make sure not only that those who had a legitimate claim got served but
also that the bulk of the money went to patients in need. Thousands of
low-income Americans get care because Senator Hatch was willing to take
a stand for low-income folks. I wish to tell him I am very much looking
forward to working with him and our colleagues on a bipartisan basis
over the next 5 months to get this job done.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I am very appreciative of the
Senator's remarks. I have spent 33 years working on virtually every
health care bill that has come up. We have always done it in a
bipartisan way. I certainly enjoy working with the distinguished
Senator from Oregon. He is one of the more thoughtful people in health
care on the Finance Committee and in this whole body. I am grateful to
him for wanting to work together and in a bipartisan manner. We need to
do that. You cannot work on a partisan basis on issues regarding the
American economy. There are some in the White House and on the
Democratic side who want to do that. I am grateful the Senator from
Oregon is not one of them. I, personally, will do everything in my
power to try to put together a bipartisan approach to this that would
work and would put the best of the private sector in with the best of
the government sector and work for our folks in this country. When you
are talking about one-sixth of the American economy, if we do that, it
will be for the betterment of the country and for everybody. If we go
in a partisan, one-size-fits-all way--especially, in my opinion, with a
government-run plan--we are going to be anything but good as far as
health care is concerned. I am grateful for the Senator's kind remarks.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I share the Senator's interests. There are
a lot of Senators of good will on both sides of the aisle who want to
get this done right.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning
business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. When I was a young man, I got involved working with senior
citizens as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. Every day back
then, we got up and said we are going to make a difference. We are
going to help people and, particularly, for senior citizens we are
going to make it possible for them to have a better quality of life.
The distinguished occupant of the chair is, I think, close to my age.
We can both recall that in those days if a town had a lunch program for
senior citizens, that was considered a big deal. There weren't a whole
lot of discount programs. People didn't even talk about home and
community-based health care services. In most of the country, back
then, if a town had a lunch program for senior citizens, that was
considered a full-fledged program for older people.
In those early days with the Oregon Gray Panthers I started thinking
about the importance of good-quality, affordable health care. I spent
hours and hours back then watching what happened when seniors and their
families got exploited in the health care system. The first issue I was
involved with concerning senior citizens was a real tragedy. At that
time, there were a lot of older people who needed insurance to
supplement their Medicare. It was very common for senior citizens then,
every time some fast-talking salesman came through, to buy another
policy. When I
[[Page 14305]]
was running the legal aid office for senior citizens I would go to
visit older people in their homes, and very often they could take out a
shoe box full of health insurance policies--15 or 20 policies. A lot of
them weren't worth the paper they were written on. In fact, they had
what were known as subrogation clauses, so that if you had another
policy, the first one would not pay off. It was tragic to watch senior
citizens walking on an economic tightrope every week, balancing food
against fuel and fuel against medical bills, and getting sold all this
junk health insurance, and as I said earlier, most of it wasn't worth a
lot more than the paper it was written on. I starting saying to people,
I want to do something about this. In a few years, I got elected to the
House of Representatives, and I had a chance to work with both
Democrats and Republicans, a number of them in the Senate today.
Chairman Baucus was very involved in the effort.
In the early nineties, we finally drained that swamp of paper. Today
it is possible for a senior to have just one of these policies, not 15
or 20, and have the extra money to spend on other essentials. The
coverage is standardized so you don't need to be some kind of Houdini
in order to figure it out.
That effort resulted in the only tough law on the books today that
really has teeth in it to regulate and stop some of these private
insurance ripoffs. I am very proud to have taken a role along with some
of my colleagues in the Senate in changing it.
Democrats and Republicans, as part of health reform, are going to
have to fix the insurance market for the nonelderly population. The
insurance market today for those who are not in Medicare or in the
veterans system, but who instead have private coverage, is inhumane. It
is all about cherry-picking. It is about trying to find healthy people
and send sick people over to government programs more fragile than they
are. That is today's insurance market.
Fortunately, a big group of Democratic Senators and Republican
Senators are now on record saying they want to change that. They want
to make sure, for example, that people cannot be discriminated against
if they have a preexisting condition. These Senators want to make sure,
for example, that instead of being sent off to the individual insurance
market, where people don't really have any clout or any bargaining
power, people will be able to be part of a bigger group so they get
more value for their health care dollar. In this larger group market,
insurance companies pay out a bigger portion of the premium dollar in
terms of benefits.
Democrats and Republicans are prepared to, in effect, turn the
current system of private insurance around completely and say: Instead
of basing it on cherry-picking, which is what it is about today, in the
future, private insurers should have to take all comers. They should
not discriminate. People should pool into large groups, and the
companies should compete on price, benefits, and quality. There will
have to be prevention and wellness so it is not just sick care, as
Senator Hatch touched on very eloquently.
That is something Democrats and Republicans already are on record as
coming together to support. Fixing the private insurance marketplace is
a fundamental part of health reform.
There are other areas where Democrats and Republicans can join
forces. One that I care most about is making health care coverage
portable so that you do not lose your coverage when either you leave
your job or your job leaves you.
This is an especially serious problem for the millions of folks who
are laid off today. They go to a program called COBRA, which, I might
note, is the only Federal program named after a poisonous snake.
Colleagues have improved it, certainly, in the stimulus to try to
provide additional assistance. But it is still part of a dysfunctional
system that has not changed a whole lot since the 1940s. Much of the
rules with respect to coverage--and certainly, in my opinion, that have
led to the lack of portability--were made in the 1940s, when there were
wage and price controls, and when big decisions got made that affect
health care today.
Back in the 1940s, the rules made some sense for those times. People
would usually go to work somewhere and pretty much stay put for 20 or
25 years until you gave them a gold watch and a 20,000-calorie
retirement dinner. That is not what the workforce is about today.
Today the typical worker changes their job 11 times by the time they
are 40. So what workers need is portable health care coverage, coverage
they can take from place to place. People do not need to find that when
they lose their jobs, they go out and face discrimination in the
insurance marketplace where they are not able to afford insurance, even
with the COBRA subsidies which, of course, run out often before they
get their next position.
The current system is also anti-entrepreneur because very often
somebody who works for a business has a good idea and they would like
to go into the marketplace and try it out, but if they have an illness,
they cannot leave their job because they are not going to be able to
get coverage at their next job.
Once again, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are on record as
being willing to make a fundamental change in the way the system works
today. They are on record in favor of portability and guaranteeing to
Americans who lose their job or want to go somewhere else the ability
to take their coverage with them. This system would be administered in
a seamless kind of way so you wouldn't have to go out and reapply and
have physicals and incur excessive costs.
Which leads me to my next point where Democrats and Republicans are
in agreement, and that is lowering the crushing costs of health care
administration. This Senate has begun to move in the right direction,
with the leadership of the Obama administration, to promote electronic
medical records. As far as I am concerned, we ought to send these paper
medical records off to the Museum of American History and put them next
to the typewriter and telegraph.
The Obama administration has made good progress in moving in that
direction. But much more needs to be done to lower administrative costs
in health care.
Once again, Democrats and Republicans have teamed up. They've said,
let's use the withholding system. We already do that for administering
much of the human services benefits on which our people rely. We will
make sure people sign up once so they don't have to go through it again
and again. We will pool people into these larger groups so they don't
have to experience the excessive administrative costs that are
associated with smaller groups, and they will have portable coverage so
our people do not have to apply time and again, every time they change
their job.
For each one of these issues--insurance reform, portability, lower
administrative costs--already there exists a significant group of
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate willing to join forces.
My own view is these are not partisan issues, and I think there are
other areas that can also be tackled together by Democrats and
Republicans.
One of the most contentious of those upcoming issues involves the tax
rules for American health care. The reason these are so important is,
of course, they are vital to Americans who are trying to pay for their
health care and other essentials. These tax rules, which are upwards of
$250 billion a year, amount to the biggest federal health care program.
Prominent Democrats and prominent Republicans, just in the last few
weeks, have said these rules do not make sense. Let me give some
examples for colleagues on our side of the aisle of some of the
progressives who have called for reforms just in the last couple of
weeks. Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor, certainly one of
the leading progressive thinkers in our country, has talked about the
regressivity of these rules, how they disproportionately favor the most
affluent. Bob Greenstein, the head of the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities,
[[Page 14306]]
is on record with the same views. Both of those reflect the comments of
individuals who are progressive.
Suffice it to say, a number of conservatives have spoken out against
these rules as well. Milton Friedman, going back to a legendary
conservative, began to speak out against these rules some time ago.
We ought to deal with these issues on a bipartisan basis. I know of
no Senator--not a single one--who is going to support taxes on middle-
class people on their health care. It is off the table. It is not going
to happen. There are 100 of us. Not a single one of us is going to
support taxing those individuals. But I do think Democrats and
Republicans, just like Robert Reich and Bob Greenstein on the
Democratic side and conservatives going back to Milton Friedman on the
Republican side, have said we can come together and find a way to make
sure in the future these rules do not subsidize inefficiency and also
disproportionately favor the most affluent.
What is tragic in the State of Delaware, the State of Oregon, the
State of Georgia, is, if somebody does not have health care coverage
and works in a furniture store outside Atlanta, they, in effect, have
their Federal tax dollar subsidize somebody who is particularly well
off who decides they want to get a designer smile in their health care
plan.
Can we not all say in the interest of protecting taxpayers and
fairness that we want that person who is interested in their designer
smile to be able to buy as many of them as they want; but can we not
agree, Democrats and Republicans, that if they are going to get a
designer smile, they are going to pay for it with their own money
rather than with subsidized dollars?
In each of these areas I mentioned there is an opportunity for
Democrats and Republicans to come together. What each of the areas I
have touched on deals with is making health care more affordable--more
affordable for individuals, more affordable for families, and more
affordable for taxpayers who are getting pretty darned worried about
the debts that are being incurred and the prospect that their kids and
their grandkids are going to have to pick up some of these bills.
I believe one of the keys to making health care more affordable is to
make it possible for the individual, largely as part of a group where
they can have some clout, to be rewarded for making a financially sound
decision for herself and her family and to have a choice to go to the
kind of program that makes sense for her and her family.
The current statistics show 85 percent of our people who are lucky
enough to have employer coverage get no choice. Let me repeat that.
Eighty-five percent of those who are lucky enough to have employer
coverage get no choice.
Every one of us is going to require that a final bill protect
somebody's right to keep the coverage they have. Mr. President, 100
Senators are going to vote for the requirement that you can keep the
coverage you have. But can we not agree, as Democrats and Republicans,
that we are also going to say you ought to have some other choices? I
would like those choices to be in the private sector. If you can find a
plan that is financially in your interest, you can keep the difference
between what your health care costs today and what this new health
package you buy costs. You can keep the difference. We will have a
functioning market. If you save $600, $800 on the health care you buy,
you have $800 to go fishing in Oregon, and I suspect the Senators from
Delaware and Georgia may have some other ideas for where people can use
their savings.
The point is, we will have created a market where there is none now.
I consider the current health care system today, for all practical
purposes, a money-laundering operation. What we have done largely since
World War II is set it up so that third parties call the shots, and
there are not any opportunities for individuals who want to make a
cost-conscious choice to buy a good quality health care package. In
effect, the individual has been divorced from the process completely.
I am not calling for individuals to go off into the health insurance
marketplace by themselves. What I am saying is they ought to have the
opportunity, as we have as Members of Congress, to be part of a large
group where they can have clout, where they aren't discriminated
against, where they do have power in the marketplace to make a sensible
choice for themselves and their family.
So in each of these areas, Mr. President--and this is why I wanted to
come to the floor of the Senate today, because I know emotions are
starting to run hot on this health issue--I have outlined ways in which
Democrats and Republicans can come together. The Congressional Budget
Office, which is the independent arbiter of all of this, has largely
scored the proposals I have outlined in the legislation that 14
Senators are in support of as being budget neutral over a 2-year phase-
in period. The CBO has said that in the third year the proposals would
actually start bending the cost curve downward.
I close with this--and I thank my colleague and friend from Georgia
for his patience--I think we have five of our most dedicated
legislators working now on a bipartisan basis in two committees to
bring Democrats and Republicans together. The leaders on the Finance
Committee on which I serve--Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley have
been extremely fair and gracious. They have put untold hours into this
issue. Both of them have spent an exceptional amount of time with me,
and they have extended that offer to literally any Member of the
Senate, to sit down and spend time with them to try to address this
bill in a bipartisan way. In the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Dodd, and Senator Enzi who serves on both committees, are
extending the same kind of goodwill. I have told the leaders of both of
these committees I am going to do everything I can to bring to them the
ideas I have outlined today that have strong bipartisan support and
have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as saving money and
pushing the cost curve downward. I have great confidence in the leaders
of those two committees, because they are showing they want to spend
the time to bring the Senate together.
I see the distinguished Senator from Maine on the floor, and I know
that for a lot of us who have worked together on health care over a lot
of years, this is a historic opportunity. This is the place--the
Senate--and this is the time to get it done. I believe Democrats and
Republicans coming together can make it happen.
Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, but before I do I want to
compliment the Senator from Oregon for his passion and his eloquent
statement on behalf of renovating and reforming our health care system.
That certainly will be a historic occasion. I have worked with him on
so many instances in the past, in a bipartisan fashion, on key issues,
such as prescription drugs and adding the critical Part D benefit to
the Medicare Program. That also was a historic event in the Medicare
Program--the first major expansion of Medicare since its inception. I
look forward to working with him in a genuine bipartisan way to build a
consensus for this historic occasion that is so essential and so
important to all Americans.
It is important to get it right. It is important that we work
together in a concerted fashion, as we have in the past. And certainly
on the Senate Finance Committee, as we begin to proceed to mark up
legislation in the future, I certainly am looking forward to working
with him.
Mr. REED. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a
parliamentary request?
Madam President, at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from
Maine, I ask unanimous consent to be
[[Page 14307]]
recognized for 5 minutes, and then following me that Senator Isakson be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. I thank the Senator and the Chair.
____________________
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues in
expressing first and foremost my admiration for Senator Kennedy, for
his longstanding, vigorous leadership, which has been the impetus
behind this legislation. Undeniably, Senator Kennedy continues to serve
as the strongest of champions on so many matters relating to health
care, and I am certainly, as we all are, grateful for his tireless
contributions to this major initiative. I also commend Senator Dodd,
who has been guiding this legislation here in the Senate, and I
certainly appreciate all of his efforts to make sure that this
legislation becomes a reality. I also appreciate the public health
agencies and advocates who work ceaselessly to address these serious
public health problems associated with tobacco, as we all well know,
and who are committed to the task of reducing youth smoking. I
certainly want to commend States such as Maine that have used their
funds from the 1998 tobacco settlement to reduce smoking rates.
First and foremost, it is regrettable as the first decade of the 21st
century draws to a close that we are even having this debate when the
American Lung Association reports that cigarette smoke contains more
than 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer, and that
smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung
cancer deaths, and that 8.6 million people in the United States have at
least one serious illness caused by smoking.
In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates
that smoking costs the country $96 billion a year in health care costs
and another $97 billion a year in lost productivity.
It didn't have to be this way. Looking back over the last several
Congresses, I can tell you that many of my Senate colleagues have
engaged on this issue of tobacco usage's ill effects for the better
part of a decade. I well recall during the 105th Congress at least five
comprehensive tobacco policy bills which were introduced in the Senate.
The Senate Commerce Committee, on which I have served, held no fewer
than 10 hearings on issues ranging from how to implement the tobacco
settlement to protecting children from the health risks of becoming a
smoker to reviewing marketing and labeling restrictions that were under
consideration at the time.
In 1997, Senator McCain, who then chaired the Commerce Committee,
introduced the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act,
which contained many of the very same safeguards as the measure
currently before us. While on the one hand it is irrefutable that
protecting youth from the harms of smoking and ensuring tobacco
products are manufactured under high standards was the correct course
of action in 1997, how is it conceivable it has taken 12 years to get
this right? Why, after the first warning 25 years ago by the Surgeon
General on the hazards of smoking, has that message not been translated
into law?
Why is Congress taking this action now? What has changed since 1997
to prompt this renewed action? For one, there has been a justifiable
drumbeat of outrage over fraudulent findings that has grown louder by
the decade as the tobacco industry has been less than forthcoming, and
at times deceitful, in providing consumers with information to make
informed decisions about smoking.
In fact, in August of 2006, a district court judge found that several
tobacco companies intentionally manipulated information, lied, and
conspired ``to bring new, young and hopefully long-lived smokers into
the market in order to replace those who die or quit.'' Furthermore,
the Harvard School of Public Health study in 2008 found that cigarette
companies strategically manipulated menthol levels in cigarettes to
attract and addict young people. It is bad enough Congress could have
acted and chose not to do so, but what makes the situation even worse
is that, in the interim, tobacco companies have ratcheted up their
marketing campaigns.
Congress is tackling the tobacco issue again in the wake of
discovering how tobacco manufacturers add substances to cigarettes to
increase their addictiveness, enhance the taste--and this is
unbelievable--making them more palatable to children. Menthol makes an
individual's airways less reactive to the harsh effects of smoking, and
ammonia is often added to speed the delivery of nicotine to the
smoker's brain.
That is not to say we haven't made progress in trying to limit some
of the negative health effects of cigarette smoking. We have. Since
1983, the proportion of Americans who smoke has declined from 30 to 24
percent, and since the landmark 1964 Surgeon General report, our
knowledge of health risks of tobacco has expanded greatly. And yet,
without substantial initiatives by Congress, in the past 10 years the
rate of tobacco use has not dropped but merely stabilized. Today,
approximately 1 in 5 youth and adults smokes regularly.
The first step toward addressing the enormous toll taken on our
Nation by smoking is to equip the Federal Government with the tools it
requires to hold purveyors of tobacco to account. For too long, there
has been a vacuum in authority when it comes to regulating smoking at
the Federal level. Our bill, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act, would create the kind of restrictions that the Food and
Drug Administration unsuccessfully tried to impose on the tobacco
industry in 2000. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court held that Congress
had not yet granted the FDA explicit authority to regulate tobacco. The
purpose of the FDA restrictions was to prevent the tobacco industry
from marketing its products to kids or to create products that are
specifically attractive to children, such as flavored cigarettes.
Granting FDA the authority to protect the children from these
potentially deadly products is paramount. Thus, the legislation before
us would allow regulation of manufacturers of tobacco products in order
to ensure standards of content, label, and marketing.
Under our bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be
authorized to develop regulations that impose guidelines on the
advertising and promotion of a tobacco product consistent with and to
the full extent permitted by the first amendment to the Constitution.
These regulations would be based on whether they would be appropriate
for the protection of public health. It is imperative that we provide
the FDA the flexibility to respond to inevitable tobacco industry
attempts to circumvent restrictions, while acknowledging the rights of
the tobacco industry to sell its products to consenting adults.
While this bill allows that informed adults ought to be able to
purchase tobacco products, we must also understand that many smokers
want to quit smoking. In 2006, 44 percent of smokers stopped smoking at
least 1 day in the preceding year because they were trying to quit
smoking completely. Undoubtedly, for some, cessation is more difficult,
and as they struggle to limit their risk, those individuals will seek
out products which they understand to be less hazardous, such as lower
tar and nicotine products. While these actions are admirable, their
benefits are indisputably limited. That is partially because the
tobacco industry has waged a marketing campaign to convince consumers
that they can continue to smoke and mitigate the negative health
impacts of smoking by choosing alternatives, such as light, low tar,
and low nicotine cigarettes. Again, an FDA with the authority to
regulate the production and marketing of tobacco products is the most
viable answer.
Our approach would also ensure that the scientific expertise of the
FDA is applied to appropriately regulate tobacco. Current smokers
deserve to
[[Page 14308]]
learn more about the products they consume. Additionally, we must have
much improved marketing oversight, so that children and adults are not
targeted with false or deceptive advertising of a dangerous product.
To that end, I was pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg in
sponsoring legislation that would end the fraud of allowing the tobacco
industry to perpetuate the Orwellian idea of the safer cigarette. The
Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act was a bill Senator Lautenberg and I
introduced to prohibit the cigarette companies from using the ``FTC
method'' for measuring tar and nicotine, which had been found to be a
deceptive method of presenting data on tar and nicotine exposure
through smoking.
Thankfully, the Federal Trade Commission agreed to implement the
Lautenberg-Snowe bill by not allowing tobacco companies to label their
products with low tar, low nicotine, and light. To augment that effort,
Senator Lautenberg and I sent a letter to the FTC supporting the
decision to curtail these deceptive marketing tactics and finally
holding cigarette producers to higher standards in advertising their
products.
As I stated at the outset, since 2000, efforts at smoking reduction
have largely atrophied. A Harris poll released just last year
demonstrated that after two decades of reduction in smoking rates,
progress has stalled. In 2009, do we really want to say that one in
four Americans smoking is an acceptable statistic, and that we will
turn a blind eye to the fact that all too many young Americans have
taken up smoking? Do we really want to say that although in the last 12
years America created YouTube, the IPod, the Iphone and more--yet we
can't keep children from smoking altogether or substantially lower the
instances of smoking by adults. Our response must be nothing less than
the bill we are championing today.
And make no mistake, time is of the essence. The reality is the
average smoker begins at age 19. So many individuals take up tobacco
use before they can ever legally purchase the product. And let there be
no mistake about it--our youth are targeted to be the next generation
of tobacco consumers.
In fact, in my home State of Maine, 1 in 7 high school students
currently smokes, and each year, 1,600 youth become new daily smokers.
And most concerning, an estimated 27,000 youth now living in Maine will
die prematurely from health consequences related to cigarette smoking,
and health care costs in Maine directly caused by smoking have reached
a whopping $602 million annually.
Maine has responded with a comprehensive tobacco prevention and
control program known as the Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine which
is funded with proceeds from the tobacco settlement. And I am proud to
say that Maine is among the States that have maximized their tobacco
settlement money for the purpose of reducing smoking rates and easing
related health problems. That is why Maine has established Healthy
Maine Partnerships, including 31 local partnerships that span the
entire geography of Maine, which are engaging in more than 156 policy
and environmental change efforts to reduce tobacco use, increase
physical activity, and encourage healthy eating at local schools,
worksites, hospitals, recreation centers and other community sites.
While I commend the efforts of States such as Maine in attempting to
stem the tide of youth smoking, what we have not yet dealt with is the
known practices of tobacco companies marketing directly to our
children. The fact is, the industry has not only targeted children as
its new customers, but it has designed products for them as well. Even
as one prohibition is imposed--such as restricting the use of cartoon
characters like ``Joe Camel''--we find that the tobacco industry
devises a new scheme. We witnessed the new flavored products in
packaging which was designed to appeal to a new generation. Many
``child-oriented'' flavors have been developed including such varieties
as chocolate, vanilla, berry, lime and the package I am holding--
coconut-and-pineapple-flavored Kauai Koala.
Although State-level bills to ban flavored cigarettes have been
introduced in New York, Minnesota, West Virginia, Connecticut,
Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas--a move in the right direction to
be sure--there is more we must do. It is time for Congress to act to
protect our youth--to safeguard our children and in the process send a
clear message to those in the tobacco industry that we will not permit
them to recruit our children at increasingly younger ages to become
lifelong cigarette smokers.
Our bill will achieve what we failed to accomplish 12 years ago, and
we can ill afford to allow this opportunity to pass. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this timely and necessary
legislation to protect the health of all Americans, especially the
millions of children at risk of becoming cigarette smokers.
I yield the floor.
____________________
COMMENDING ERIK NECCIAI
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding
service Erik Necciai has provided to the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship in his capacity as a professional staff
member and counsel. When Erik joined the Committee staff just--over 2
years ago--in June 2007 I knew that I had selected a top-notch staffer
who cared deeply about making a difference in peoples' lives, and I
will feel a deep loss with his departure from Capitol Hill later this
week.
Indicative of the dedicated person Erik is, he began his work on the
committee the day after he arrived home from his honeymoon in romantic
Italy with his new bride, Tina. During his first weeks here, Erik was
focused on preparing for a committee roundtable regarding legislative
suggestions to improve the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR,
program. He was simultaneously studying for the Maryland bar exam--no
small feat! As if that was not enough, Erik faced a daily commute of
roughly 2 hours each way, coming from his home in Solomon's Island, MD.
After a whirlwind first month, Erik settled in quickly, remaining a
proactive staff member who consistently sought new and critical avenues
to increase contracting opportunities to small businesses and reform
the Small Business Administration's HUBZone program.
Over his 2 years on the Hill, Erik has helped me develop thoughtful
and probing legislation regarding small business contracting and
procurement. Committee Chair Mary Landrieu and I will soon be
introducing crucial legislation to reauthorize and make significant
improvements to the SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR,
programs, and Erik was instrumental in helping us craft this bill.
Additionally, Erik always prepared comprehensive and insightful
background materials for me that included meticulously researched
statistics for committee hearings and roundtables. He has also been
personally responsive to small businesses seeking help navigating the
confusing and difficult maze known as Federal contracting. And Erik has
been an aggressive watchdog, exhorting government agencies to not just
meet but exceed their small business contracting goals.
Prior to joining the committee staff, Erik had already assembled an
impressive and varied resume. A contracting specialist and procurement
technician and Navy acquisitions consultant for the Department of the
Navy, Erik came to the Senate armed with the necessary experience and
knowledge to hit the ground running in procurement. A 2006 dean's list
graduate of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Michigan, Erik has also
interned for the circuit court of his home county in Frederick, MD, in
addition to serving as a law clerk for the District Court of Ingham
County, MI. These experiences all led to the in-depth and extensive
knowledge Erik possess about contract law.
He graduated from Virginia Tech in 2002 with a major in biology and
chemistry. This led to his work in 2003 as a research scientist for the
National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes
[[Page 14309]]
of Health. Prior to taking that position, Erik went overseas to South
Africa to take part in student research. He organized and presented
several lectures on government and conservation issues, including
voting rights and the AIDS epidemic.
Erik has also given generously of his time in the service of others.
He has been a dental assistant at the Virginia Homeless Dental Clinic,
and received the Volunteer of the Year Award for his stellar work as a
hospital operating room assistant. A division I varsity scholarship
athlete in track and field--who was named a 2002 Virginia Tech Athlete
of the Year--Erik has also combined his athletic prowess and engaging
speaking skills to participate as a motivational speaker for Special
Olympics athletes.
Erik's perpetual smile and charming demeanor make him eminently
likeable and easily approachable. His responsible nature and insightful
analytical skills make him a key member of any group, and a talented
Hill staffer. The consummate team player, Erik never seeks credit or
recognition for himself, but always looks for ways that government can
empower people to improve their lot.
A proud native of Maryland, Erik Necciai has already led an exciting
life. But on Thursday, Erik leaves the Senate to begin a new chapter as
the director of an international consulting firm headquartered locally
in Northern Virginia. I only hope that he can find a way to reduce his
commute time. That said, Erik's determination, sincerity,
thoughtfulness, and character will be sorely missed in the halls of the
Russell Building. I wish Erik and his beautiful wife Tina the best in
all of their endeavors, and sincerely thank Erik for his remarkable
commitment to public service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
____________________
HONORING MICHAEL McGOVERN
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to recognize and honor the
significant accomplishments of Special Olympics Rhode Island executive
director Mike McGovern. Mike is retiring this month after 21 years of
working to expand opportunities for Rhode Islanders with disabilities.
He has been a lifelong friend, since grammar school and high school. He
is someone I respect and admire immensely, and this respect and
admiration is shared by the entire community of Rhode Island.
He has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to upholding the mission
and values of the Special Olympics. Mike's special dedication and
enthusiasm have ensured that the Special Olympics Rhode Island remains
one of the most impressive organizations in our State, providing year-
round sports training and competitions to approximately 2,700 young and
adult athletes across the State.
Mike began his involvement with Special Olympics Rhode Island as a
volunteer for 18 years, every year pitching in, helping out. That is
the way he is--a generous heart, a great sense of community and
neighborliness. He then served as assistant executive director for
Special Olympics Rhode Island from 1988 to 1998, when he took over the
role of executive director.
Under his leadership, Special Olympics Rhode Island expanded the
number of sports offered to 20. His athlete-centered approach helped
the program experience a 40-percent increase in competitors.
Mike has also worked hard to ensure that the funding goals of Special
Olympics Rhode Island were achieved. During his time with Special
Olympics Rhode Island, the organization built a budget surplus of over
$1 million. He also helped launch a capital campaign to establish a
permanent home for Special Olympics Rhode Island. His innovative
spirit, which characterized his entire tenure, was evident in many
different ways--particularly 33 years ago, when he and several friends
cofounded the Penguin Plunge, which is an annual New Year's Day ritual
in Jamestown, RI, where hardy souls, hundreds of them, brave the frigid
waters of Narragansett Bay to raise money for Special Olympics Rhode
Island and raise a feeling of camaraderie, fellowship, and good spirits
to begin the year.
Last month, Mike attended his final games as executive director. Held
at the University of Rhode Island in Kingston, Special Olympics Rhode
Island dedicated its 2009 State summer games to Mike McGovern for his
outstanding, long-time commitment to the Special Olympics. Speaking at
the games, he spoke of being inspired by the courage of the athletes
through their ability to defy stereotypes, to compete, to strive--all
of them--to win. We, too, are inspired by his commitment to a very
noble cause.
Through his presence at the organization, he imbued it with a special
spirit. That spirit will be missed. But he will continue to serve
because that is his nature.
Thank you, Mike, for your exemplary service. You have been a strong
advocate for thousands of Special Olympics athletes, both on and off
the playing field. Your dedicated leadership and hard work have helped
thousands of Rhode Islanders with disabilities achieve their goals.
Also, you have been a great success in something as important--as a
husband, as a father, as a friend. I wish you and your lovely family,
your wife and your children, the best in your well-deserved retirement.
Let me conclude by saying Rhode Island's special athletes have never
had a more special friend than Mike McGovern.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Chamber as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING JIM WOOTEN
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, it is a distinct honor and privilege
for me to stand on the floor of the Senate to pay tribute to a
gentleman I went to college with, a gentleman who has reported on
politics and government in Georgia for the better part of the last 35
years, a gentleman who recently announced his retirement at the end of
this month from the associate editorial page responsibilities at the
Atlanta Journal and Constitution.
Mr. Jim Wooten, born and raised in McRae, GA, veteran of Vietnam, 20
years in the Georgia Air National Guard, former President of the
Georgia Press Association, lifetime trustee of the Georgia Press
Association's educational fund, has made a tremendous contribution to
our State and to the public lives of all our people. I rise to pay
tribute to him.
One of the greatest tributes of all that I can share is what happened
on Monday, at lunch this week. I had a luncheon with the Board of Cox
Enterprises. The Cox newspapers own the Atlanta Constitution, as they
do the Palm Beach Post and the Dayton paper. They own many other
businesses. It is a huge privately held company.
At that luncheon, unsolicited by me, the name of Jim Wooten came up
and, one by one, the leaders of Cox Enterprises talked about the
tremendous contributions that Jim Wooten has made to their newspaper.
As one who was first elected in 1976 and has been written about many
times by Jim Wooten, I wanted to add my tribute to his journalistic
talent and the contribution he has made. I am not sure I know of any
other writer I have read who has reported on what is going on in
politics in our State, who has gotten it right more often--in fact
always--than Jim Wooten.
Conservative? Yes, he is conservative. But he is pragmatic. When he
writes his opinions on the editorial page of the Atlanta Constitution,
it makes a difference in the minds and attitudes of Georgia's people.
I say job well done to Jim Wooten. I hope his retirement is
successful and rewarding in every way he wishes it to be, and I thank
him very much for all the contributions he has made to the lives of all
Georgians and, in one case, to this Georgian.
[[Page 14310]]
____________________
HOUSING
Mr. ISAKSON. I would like to talk for a minute, if I can, Madam
President, about a very important issue. I don't come to the floor all
that often, but people will tell you I come to the floor too often to
talk about the housing industry. I am going to do it for a little bit
tonight because it is critically important to our economy and to our
country.
A year and a half ago, I introduced a piece of legislation, in
January of 2008, creating a housing tax credit of $15,000 for any
family who would buy and occupy their home as a principal residence in
the United States. I did so because housing had collapsed, foreclosures
were beginning to become rampant and are rampant today. Standing
inventory proliferated, builders were going out of business, and our
economy was in a downward slide.
The CBO score on that $15,000 tax credit is $34.2 billion, and I was
told last January that was too expensive, we couldn't afford to do it.
By my last count--Senator Coburn is a better counter than I am--we
spent about $5.5 trillion trying to fix an economy that has been in a
continual downward slide.
Fortunately, in July of last year, with the help of Members on both
sides, we did get a tax credit passed, but it was basically an
interest-free loan for $7,500, it was means tested to families who were
first-time home buyers or had incomes under $150,000. It did no good.
Later in the year, I finally convinced this body, and we took off the
limitation in terms of the payback and made it a real tax credit and
raised it from $7,500 to $8,000 and it has made a difference. First-
time home buyers used it and the market stabilized, but we don't have a
recession in first-time home buyers. We have a recession in the move-up
market.
The man who is transferred from Missouri or Georgia who can't sell
his house in Missouri, can't come to Georgia, can't take the transfer.
The corporation can't afford to buy the house and hold it for him
because of the proliferation of inventory that is owned and today in
the United States of America one in two sales made every day is a short
sale or a foreclosure. That is an unhealthy market, and it is
continuing to precipitate a downward spiral in values, loss of equity
by the American people, and a protracted, difficult economic time for
our country.
Tomorrow, joined by a number of Members of this Senate on both sides,
I will reintroduce the $15,000 tax credit that is available to any
family or individual who buys or occupies any home in the United States
of America as their principal residence with no means test for first-
time home buyers, no means test or income limitations. Tomorrow it also
will be announced in New York the Business Roundtable has adopted this
tax credit as its No. 1 suggestion to the U.S. Government as the one
thing we can do to turn around the American economy.
I am getting to be a pretty old guy. I went through the second
recession of my career in 1974. Gerald Ford was President, it was a
Democratic Congress. America had a 3-year standing inventory of new
houses built and unsold. The economy went into a tailspin. Values
started to go down. We were in deep trouble.
That Republican President and that Democratic Congress came together
and passed a $2,000 tax credit for any family who bought and occupied
as its principal residence a new house that was standing and vacant. In
1 year's time, a 3-year inventory was reduced to 1 year; values
stabilized, the economy came back, home sales became healthy, and
America recovered. That is precisely what will happen this time.
I am not so smart that I figured it out, I am lucky enough that I
lived through it in 1974, and 30 years later we need to do the right
thing for America and the right thing for our economy and put in a
time-sensitive, 1-year significant tax credit for anyone who buys and
occupies as their residence a single-family home.
An independent group estimated, when I introduced this last year,
that it would create 700,000 house sales and 684,000 jobs this year. I
think it is ironic that house sales today are at half a million. A
normal to good year in the United States is 1.2 to 1.5 million sales.
If you could get the tax credit and the 700,000 sales that have been
estimated it will introduce and add it to the 500,000 sales we have
today, it will return our housing market to normalcy. It will stabilize
the values of the largest investment of the people of the United States
of America. It will recreate equity lines of credit that have
dissipated and disappeared in the American family. And over time it
will restore our vibrant economy back to the economy we all hope and
pray will come.
So I ask all of the Members of the Senate to reconsider their
positions in the past and consider joining me in the introduction of
this legislation tomorrow. We have three Democrats and three
Republicans who have come on board. I would like to see all 100 of us
because in the end all of our problems will be more easily solved if
the problems of the American taxpayers and citizens are solved, and
their biggest problems today are an illiquid housing market, a decline
in their equity, a decline in their net worth, and a depression in the
housing market that we are obligated to correct if we possibly can.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. COBURN. I wish to take a few minutes this evening to kind of
discuss with the American people what is going to happen on health
care--what it looks like is going to happen.
As a practicing physician, there are things I know that if we start
from ground zero we would do in health care in this country. But as I
was reading some articles, I pulled this quote. This is by Adrian
Rogers, and it really belies what is happening right now with this idea
of transferring the wealth. Here is what he said:
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating
the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without
working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
government does not take first from someone else. When half
of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and
when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to
work because somebody else is going to get what they worked
for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any Nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Those are pretty wise words.
As I think about the trillions of dollars that have gone through
Congress this year and the fact that our spending is totally out of
control, with minimal effect other than things like the Senator from
Georgia--had we actually spent the $35 billion on a tax credit to
stimulate housing rather than spending about $100 billion on true, true
stimulus activities and another $680-some billion on other items, and
the fact that all of a sudden we are now talking about pay-go--that is
about me paying and you going--and we have spent $800 billion in the
last year and avoided pay-go 15 times in the Senate in the last year.
Fifteen times we have said: Oh, time out, pay-go does not count. And we
spent another $800 billion. What that means is we did not have the
money, we borrowed it.
So as we start into the health care debate, there are some things I
believe are critically important that I think most Americans would
agree with.
The first is that individuals ought to be in charge of their health
care. Nothing should stand between you as a patient and your physician.
No bureaucrat, no government-run program should get in between that
relationship.
The second thing I know is you ought to be able to pick what you
want, you ought to be able to afford what you want, and you ought to be
able to do that at the time that is appropriate for your health care
needs. That means you have to be in charge of your health care, you
cannot have someone else. I am reminded of that fact because we have a
Medicaid Program in which 40 percent of physicians in this country do
not participate, and what we are
[[Page 14311]]
really saying to people on Medicare is: We will give you health care,
but we will limit a large number of physicians and providers because we
are not willing to pay what it actually costs to do that.
The third thing is that we cannot assume, which we have, and I am
worried we will, that people cannot manage their own health care, that
they have to have Uncle Sam manage it for them. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
There are some key components. Health care is about people. It is not
about an insurance company, it is not about your employer, and it is
certainly not about the government. It is about you. And if it is about
you, you ought to be in control of that--absolutely, without a fact be
in control. You ought to have a caring professional who will be able to
spend the time with you to truly teach you prevention, to truly work
with you on wellness, to truly manage your chronic disease, and then we
ought to recognize that those services ought to be paid for, not
outlandish fees but appropriate payment.
You recognize that in none of the government-run programs, which is
now 60 percent of health care, do we truly pay for prevention. We will
pay for it when you get sick. That is why we have ``sick care'' in
America. We do not have health care, we have sick care. And we do not
have real insurance. What we have is prepaid health expense, which
about 20 percent, 25 percent of the money that went into that health
insurance doesn't ever come back to help you get well or prevent you
from getting sick.
So we ought to be about the fact that we know there is something
wrong with health care in America today. We all know that. We are
dissatisfied, whether it is the bills you get after you get a test that
you can't read or can't understand or you have to wait or have an
approval to get something. Regardless of what your doctor thinks, you
still may not be able to access that care. There is no question we need
to fix health care, and I will be the first to admit we need to do
that. But how we do it--how we do it is ultimately important, not just
for the health care of Americans, but it will markedly impact our
economy.
The very idea that we have to have another $1.3 trillion to $2
trillion to fix health care does not fit with any realistic set of
facts anywhere else in the world. We spend twice as much per person in
this country as anybody else in the world save Switzerland. We are not
getting value for what we are buying.
Now, why aren't we? One of the reasons we are not is because you are
not in control of your health care. You do not get to see a transparent
price or quality or availability for what you purchased because we have
given over the payment for that to some other organization. So we are
less inclined to be prudent purchasers because it is not coming out of
our pocket, whether it is Medicaid or Medicare or a health insurance
plan. We ought to be about fixing that. And our health care cannot be
about bureaucrats in Washington. It is personal. It is also local.
The trust in a patient-doctor relationship is enhanced by
transparency of the cost and transparency of the quality. You ought to
be able to go and buy a health care service and know what it is going
to cost before you buy it, and you ought to know that you are likely to
get great outcomes based on transparency of quality. That has to be
there.
The second thing that has to be there is you have to know we are
going to spend the dollars in a way to prevent you from getting sick,
not just take care of you once you get sick. Grandmom was right: An
ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Yet we do not
incentivize that in any of the Federal Government programs we have
today. And we do some--especially in the ERISA-based plans or the
company-owned plans, they have learned this.
A great plan that is out there that people are fortunate to have is
Safeway. Safeway's health care costs have risen one-half of 1 percent
in the last 4 years. The average of other plans of other employers has
risen 42 percent. What is the difference? Why is it that Safeway, with
200,000 employees, has been able to have only half a percent, plus they
also have increased satisfaction with the health care they are getting?
What is the difference? The difference is prevention and wellness and
management of chronic disease.
So anything we do that does not address prevention and incentivize
it, wellness and incentivize it, and management of chronic disease and
incentivize it will not make any fix we do here sustainable. We can
cover everybody in the country. We can charge $1.2 trillion or $1.3
trillion to our kids over the next 10 years and we can get everybody
covered, but if we have not fixed the sustainability to where we do not
have a 7.2-percent automatic inflation in health care every year, we
will not have done anything. And it will not be long before we will not
be able to afford it, and then we will take the people in the
government-run option and we will put them into Medicare, and then we
will do a price control.
There is no question that we need to carefully address America's
health care challenge. We need to find immediate measurable ways to
make it more accessible and affordable without jeopardizing quality. We
need to make sure we give individuals choice at every point in the
health care continuum. And we need to make sure we allow personalized
care. We are not a bunch of cattle lining up in the chute. Everybody is
different. Everybody needs to be able to make their own decisions.
On top of that, the No. 1 thing we have to do is protect the doctor-
patient relationship. Half of getting well is having confidence in the
person who is treating you. When you do not get to choose that, as you
do not in Medicaid and oftentimes in Medicare because we are limited to
the doctors who are taking Medicare, you are limiting the outcome.
If you cannot get treatment when you need it, there is a crisis. If
you are denied the ability to choose the doctor or hospital that is
best for you, that is a crisis for you. If you cannot afford the
coverage you need for you and your family, then you have a crisis.
We need to stop looking at it from a global perspective and restore
the humanity to health care. We need to focus more on people and less
on the system.
I have a lot of ideas on health care. I, along with many others, have
introduced the Patient's Choice Act, where we allow everybody to have
insurance in this country. We equalize the tax treatment for everybody
in this country.
All the studies say that any plan Congress puts forward, our plan
will do as well or better with some major differences. We do not raise
the cost at all. It does not cost anything. As a matter of fact, it
saves the States $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years just on Medicaid
alone. And every Medicaid patient out there will have a private
insurance program, and nobody will ever know if they got it through
Medicaid or not. They will be truly accessing and having the care, and
we will not raise taxes on anybody to do that--no one.
The other thing we do is, if you like what you have today, you can
keep it. You absolutely can keep it. If what you have is what you want,
it gives you care when you want it, access to the doctors you want or
to the hospital you want, and you can afford it, you are going to keep
it. But if you would like something different, and not be locked in,
not having to stay at a job because you are afraid you will not have
insurance when you leave, you need to look at what we are talking
about.
There is no preexisting illness exclusion. There is no individual
mandate, although there is an auto enrollment where you can opt out. If
you do not want health insurance, you do not have to take it, but you
do not get the tax credit that goes along with buying it.
So, in fact, of the 46 million people who do not have access to care
today through an insurance program, they will have it under this
program, and they will have prevention, and they will have wellness,
and they will have a medical home or an accountable care organization
to manage their chronic
[[Page 14312]]
disease, help them manage it. And they will get to do that where they
want to do it, not where some bureaucrat tells them they will do it or
where some insurance company tells them where they will do it.
We have a chance to hit a home run for the American people on health
care--not just on their health care, but keeping us globally
competitive, keeping jobs here at home instead of shipping them off
where the labor costs and health care costs are less. We have a chance
to hit two home runs. The question is, Will we do it?
We have before us in the HELP Committee a draft of a bill that has
three big blanks on it. We do not have any analysis by the CBO on what
it is going to cost. We have no knowledge about what it costs, and we
are going to be marking that up in a week. We are supposed to get
health care done in 6 weeks in this country, which is 17 percent of our
GDP, one-sixth of our economy, and we are going to do it without
knowing what we are doing.
The parameters under which this Senate is addressing health care are
a prescription for disaster. What we should do is put out the bills,
have a legitimate debate about what is a proper way to go, and let the
American people hear the debate and see which way to go. I will tell
you, if you allow the American people to decide: Here is a government-
controlled option or here is my option, with me choosing everything, me
not depending on the government, me making the choices for my family--
when I want it, where I want it, and how I want it--individual freedom
and liberty will win every time over a government-mandated program or
a, quote, public government-run insurance company.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator that his time
under morning business has expired.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask for 10 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I do not object. It will be the last extension?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
One of the questions we ought to ask the American people is: Would
you rather pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you
currently receive or would you rather get in line, pay less, not have
the same quality, and not get to choose the health care you are going
to get or your family is going to get--defer the decisionmaking about
you and your family's health care to a government bureaucracy?
All of us agree, Democrats and Republicans, we want to fix health
care. All of us want prevention, wellness, management of chronic
disease. All of us want as much freedom as we can give the American
people. But the difference lies in how we do it and who pays the bill.
That is why I started out with the article from Adrian Rogers. We are
going to spend $2.4 trillion on health care this year, and we are going
to get back $1.7 trillion worth of health care.
We should not be spending a penny more. What we should be saying to
the Senate is: Why aren't you fixing what is wrong with this terrible,
broken system? And the answer is: We need more money. That is the
government's answer every time. Every time: We need more money. We need
a new program.
We do not need a new program. What we need is to allow the individual
entrepreneurship and ingenuity of the American people and give them the
resources with which to buy their health care and make their personal
choices, and what you will see is a dynamic that squeezes $500 billion
to $700 billion out of the cost of health care in this country.
There are a lot of components. Health care is a complex issue.
Everybody who worked on it knows it. It is hard in a 20- or 30-minute
talk on the floor to explain a bill fully. But if you had absolute
access, and you could afford health care, and you got to make the
choices, and it did not cost your kids any more in the future to pay
for that by borrowing against their future, most Americans would say: I
will buy something like that. That is a fix.
And by the way, we are going to incentivize the $40 billion we spend
every year supposedly on prevention to where it is actually making some
difference on cost. We are going to quit paying for food that is
terrible for you through the Food Stamp Program. We are going to fix
the School Lunch Program so we do not feed you high carbohydrates and
fat. And we are going to give you protein, fruits, and vegetables. We
are going to do that which is necessary to put us on a glidepath to
where we have real health care instead of sick care in this country.
People will buy that.
I cannot wait for the real debate to start on health care. When you
hear the talk, and you read the articles that have been written--just
for example, on comparative effectiveness, the director who is involved
in that in England said it was the biggest mistake they ever made. It
explains why people in England die earlier. It explains why they have a
cancer cure rate about a third lower than ours. It explains why people
cannot get care because they have a government option. They have a
government option that eliminates the ability for true choice, true
access, and true affordability.
One of the things our bill will do is make sure, no matter how sick
you are, you get an insurance policy. When it comes time for renewal,
they cannot deny you. Our bill gives everybody insurance in this
country and incentivizes you to the point where you will have extra
money with which you pay for the additional costs associated with that
care.
Our plan does not mandate anything, except the base minimum plan is
the base minimum plan the Members of Congress get. If you want to buy
more than that, you can. But nobody is going to tell you what you have
to buy. You buy what is right for you, what is right for your family.
One of the costs of health care in this country--and it is about 8 or
9 percent of the cost of health care--is doctors like me ordering tests
you do not need because I fear a malpractice lawsuit. We incentivize
the States to make changes--very simple changes--do not eliminate the
right of any individual to go to court, but set up health courts or set
up judge-doctor-lawyer panels or a combination thereof, and we give
them extra money if, in fact, they will do that. It is an easy, cheap
buy. Because if we reform the tort system State by State, we get back
about a hundredfold for every dollar we put out that comes out of
health care that will then go to prevention, wellness, and management
of chronic disease.
We have cost-shifting in this country. If you opt out and you go to
an ER, your State can buy you a high-deductible policy, whereas you are
still covered. You are not going to ever lose your home because you had
an accident or you had a major health complication because you will be
auto enrolled as soon as you hit the ER. So we eliminate about $200
billion in cost-shifting.
I have just outlined $500 billion that can go away under our bill out
of $2.4 trillion--money that does not help anybody get well, money that
does not prevent anybody from getting sick.
I had an orthopedist in my office today and he had a patient who he
thought had a torn anterior cruciate ligament. That is a ligament
connecting the femur to the tibia. And she could not relax. He is a
good orthopedist. By clinical exam, you can tell if somebody has torn
an ACL, anterior cruciate ligament. So he said: Well, you can't relax.
We'll do an MRI. So she comes back a week later and says: Doctor, I
didn't do the MRI. I didn't want to pay for that. And she brought a
glass of wine with her, a glass of chardonnay. She said: I think if I
drink this, about 15 minutes after I drink this, I think I will be
relaxed enough for you to do it. Well, sure enough, she did, and she
relaxed. She had a torn ACL, and she never had to have an MRI. It just
saved us about $1,800. It saved her and us $1,800. He could have given
her xanax and done the same thing.
But the point is, she made a logical decision not to spend $1,800
because there was another way of doing it. Part of that was because she
had a $5,000 deductible health care policy, so she
[[Page 14313]]
made a good economic choice. Multiply that 100,000 times in this
country every month and see how much money we can take out of the
health care system by people acting in their own best health interest
and financial interest.
We have a lot in front of us, and we have a lot that is riding on us.
I hope we get to see the bills, which we have not seen yet, and what
people want to do. The first bill out is: The government does
everything; the government is in control. There is not one government
program that either offers the services or is not bankrupt that we have
on health care today. Medicare is bankrupt. Medicaid--we are bankrupt,
so they are bankrupt. They have $80 billion worth of fraud in Medicare;
$40 billion worth in Medicaid. The Indian Health Service is a sham,
especially on the reservation, because we do not have the quality and
we have not put the money there. Why shouldn't a Native American have
an insurance policy to be able to buy health care wherever they want?
Why shouldn't a veteran be able to get care wherever they want rather
than have to travel 200 miles to a VA health care center? Why can't we
keep the commitment that we would say: If we are going to offer you
access, then we are going to offer you access to the best, the highest
quality health care, with you making the decisions about your care,
when you get that care, and who gives you that care.
The patient has to come first. Senators' egos have to come second.
And we have to fix this program in a way that not only solves the
health care crisis but does not create another crisis for our children
down the road.
With that, I yield the floor.
I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his patience, and I wish
him a good night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to hear the
Senator from Oklahoma discussing health care, which I know is very dear
to him. So I did not feel my time was wasted listening to him speak on
that subject, and I wish him a good evening as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if I may, to speak in morning
business, but to exceed the 10-minute rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
GASPEE DAY
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the Boston Tea Party is one of the
celebrated events in American history. From a young age, Americans
learn the story of the men who crept onto British ships moored in
Boston harbor on December 16, 1773, to toss overboard shipments of tea
that the English sought to tax. These Massachusetts patriots yearned
for liberty, opposed ``taxation without representation,'' and stepped
into history books with this simple act of defiance.
But conspicuously absent from too many of those same history books is
a group of Rhode Island men who took on the British Crown in a bold,
insubordinate gesture matching the temper of their bold and
insubordinate colony more than a year earlier than the Boston Tea
Party. This evening, I would like to share the story of the H.M.S.
Gaspee, a daring group of Rhode Islanders, and the real beginning of
the fight for American independence.
In the early 1770s, as tensions between England and her American
colonies grew increasingly strained, King George III stationed the
H.M.S. Gaspee, under the command of Lieutenant William Dudingston, in
the waters of Rhode Island. Its mission was to search incoming ships
for smuggled goods and contraband and to enforce the payment of taxes.
On June 9, 1772, 237 years ago tonight, the sailing vessel Hannah was
traveling from Newport to Providence, when it was intercepted by the
Gaspee and ordered to stop to allow a search. On board the Hannah, CAPT
Benjamin Lindsey refused and continued on his course, despite warning
shots fired by the Gaspee. Under full sail and into a falling tide, the
Hannah pressed north up Narragansett Bay with the Gaspee in hot
pursuit. Overmatched in size, Captain Lindsey found advantage in guile
and in his greater knowledge of Rhode Island waters. He led the Gaspee
to the shallow water of Pawtuxet Cove. There, the lighter Hannah sped
over the shallows, but the heavier Gaspee ran aground in the shallow
waters off Namquid Point. The Gaspee was stuck, until the higher tides
of the following day would lift her from the mud.
Captain Lindsey proceeded on his course to Providence, where he met
with a group of Rhode Islanders, including John Brown, a community
leader whose family helped found Brown University. The two men arranged
for a meeting of local patriots at Sabin's Tavern, on what is now
Providence's east side, later that evening. At the meeting, the
assembled Rhode Islanders decided to act. The HMS Gaspee was a symbol
of their oppression and she was helplessly stranded in Pawtuxet Cove.
The opportunity was too good to pass up.
That night, there was no moonlight on the waters of Pawtuxet Cove.
The Gaspee lay silent on the sandbar. Down the bay from Providence came
60 men in longboats, led by John Brown and Abraham Whipple, armed and
headed through those dark waters for the Gaspee.
When the men reached the Gaspee and surrounded it, Brown called out
and demanded that Lieutenant Dudingston surrender his vessel.
Dudingston refused and instead ordered his men to fire upon anyone who
attempted to board the Gaspee.
That was all these Rhode Islanders needed to hear, and they rushed
the Gaspee and forced their way aboard her. In the violent melee,
Lieutenant Dudingston was shot in the arm by a musket ball. Rhode
Islanders had drawn the first blood of the conflict that would lead to
American independence, right there in Pawtuxet Cove, 16 months before
the ``Tea Party'' in Boston.
Brown and Whipple's men seized control of the Gaspee from its British
crew and transported the captive Englishman safely to shore. They then
returned to the abandoned Gaspee to set her afire and watched as the
powder magazine exploded, blowing the ship apart and leaving her
remains to burn to the water line. That historic location is now called
Gaspee Point.
Since that night in June, 237 years ago tonight when the Gaspee
burned, Rhode Islanders have marked the event with celebration. This
year, as I do every year, I will march in the annual Gaspee Days Parade
in Warwick, RI. Every year, I think about what it must have been like
to be among those 60 men: muffled oars on dark waters; comrades pulling
with voices hushed; a shouted demand, the indignant response, and then
a pell-mell rush to clamber aboard; the oaths and shouts of struggle,
gun shots and powder smoke, the clash of sword and cutlass; and when it
was over, the bright fire of the ship in the night, the explosion
turning night to day and reverberating across the bay and the hiss and
splash as the pieces fell and the water claimed the flames.
I hope that one day the tale of the brave Rhode Islanders who stormed
the HMS Gaspee will be remembered among the other stories of the
Revolution and that they will be given their due place in our Nation's
history beside the tea partiers of Boston.
I hope, frankly, on an annual basis, to come back to this floor and
relate that story over and over and over again. It is a proud part of
Rhode Island's heritage.
____________________
TORTURE
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to now change the subject and
speak about an incident that is not part of anybody's proud heritage
and that is the evidence we have recently heard about America's descent
into torture. I know it is an awkward subject to talk about, an awkward
subject to think about. On the one hand, we, as Americans, love our
country, we hate the violence that has been done to us, and we want
more than anything to protect our people from attacks. On the other
hand, torture is wrong and
[[Page 14314]]
we have known it and behaved accordingly in far worse circumstances
than now.
When Washington's troops hid in the snows of Valley Forge from a
superior British force bent on their destruction, we did not torture.
When our capital city was occupied and our Capitol burned by troops of
the world's greatest naval power, we did not torture. When Nazi powers
threatened our freedom in one hemisphere and Japanese aircraft
destroyed much of our Pacific fleet in the other, we did not torture.
Indeed, even when Americans took arms against Americans in our bloody
Civil War, we did not torture.
I know this is not easy. Our instincts to protect our country are set
against our historic principles and our knowledge of right versus
wrong. It is all made more difficult by how much that is untrue, how
much that is misleading, and how much that is irrelevant have crowded
into this discussion. It is hard enough to address this issue without
being ensnared in a welter of deception.
To try to clarify it, I wish to say a few things. The first is that I
see three issues we need to grapple with. The first is the torture
itself: What did Americans do? In what conditions of humanity and
hygiene were the techniques applied? With what intensity and duration?
Are our preconceptions about what was done based on the sanitized
descriptions of techniques justified? Or was the actuality far worse?
Were the carefully described predicates for the torture techniques and
the limitations on their use followed in practice? Or did the torture
exceed the predicates and bounds of the Office of Legal Counsel
opinions?
We do know this. We do know that Director Panetta of the CIA recently
filed an affidavit in a U.S. Federal court saying this:
These descriptions--
He is referring to descriptions of EITs--enhanced interrogation
techniques--the torture techniques.
He says in his sworn affidavit:
These descriptions, however, are of EITs as applied in
actual operations and are of a qualitatively different nature
than the EIT descriptions in the abstract contained in the
OLC memoranda.
The words ``as applied'' and ``in the abstract'' are emphasized in
the text.
These descriptions, however, are of EITs as applied in
actual operations and are of a qualitatively different nature
than the EIT descriptions in the abstract contained in the
OLC memoranda.
The questions go on: What was the role of private contractors? Why
did they need to be involved? And did their peculiar motivations
influence what was done? Ultimately, was it successful? Did it generate
the immediately actionable intelligence protecting America from
immediate threats that it had been sold as producing? How did the
torture techniques stack up against professional interrogation?
Well, that is a significant array of questions all on its own, and we
intend to answer them in the Senate Intelligence Committee under the
leadership of Chairman Feinstein, expanding on work already done,
thanks to the previous leadership of Chairman Rockefeller.
There is another set of questions around how this was allowed to
happen. When one knows that America has over and over prosecuted
waterboarding, both as crime and as war crime; when one knows that the
Reagan Department of Justice convicted and imprisoned a Texas sheriff
for waterboarding prisoners; when one sees no mention of this history
in the lengthy opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ that
cleared the waterboarding--no mention whatsoever; when assertions of
fact made in those OLC opinions prove to be not only false but provably
false from open source information available at the time; when one
reads Chairman Levin's excellent Armed Services Committee reports on
what happened at the Department of Defense, it is hard not to wonder
what went wrong. Was a fix put in? And, if so, how? A lot of damage was
done within the American institutions of government to allow this to
happen.
If American democracy is important, damage to her institutions is
important and needs to be understood. Much of this damage was done to
one of America's greatest institutions--the U.S. Department of Justice.
I am confident the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Leahy's
leadership, will assure that we understand and repair that damage and
protect America against it ever happening again.
Finally--and I am very sorry to say this--but there has been a
campaign of falsehood about this whole sorry episode. It has disserved
the American public. As I said earlier, facing up to the questions of
our use of torture is hard enough. It is worse when people are misled
and don't know the whole truth and so can't form an informed opinion
and instead quarrel over irrelevancies and false premises. Much
debunking of falsehood remains to be done but cannot be done now
because the accurate and complete information is classified.
From open source and released information, here are some of the
falsehoods that have been already debunked. I will warn you the record
is bad, and the presumption of truth that executive officials and
agencies should ordinarily enjoy is now hard to justify. We have been
misled about nearly every aspect of this program.
President Bush told us ``America does not torture'' while authorizing
conduct that America itself has prosecuted as crime and war crime, as
torture.
Vice President Cheney agreed in an interview that waterboarding was
like ``a dunk in the water'' when it was actually a technique of
torture from the Spanish Inquisition to Cambodia's killing fields.
John Yoo, who wrote the original torture opinions, told Esquire
magazine that waterboarding was only done three times. Public reports
now indicate that just two detainees were waterboarded 83 times and 183
times. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed reportedly was waterboarded 183 times. A
former CIA official had told ABC News: ``KSM lasted the longest on the
waterboard--about a minute and a half--but once he broke, it never had
to be used again.''
We were told that waterboarding was determined to be legal, but we
were not told how badly the law was ignored and manipulated by the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, nor were we told how
furiously government and military lawyers tried to reject the defective
OLC opinions.
We were told we couldn't second guess the brave CIA officers who did
this unpleasant duty, and then we found out that the program was led by
private contractors with no real interrogation experience.
Former CIA Director Hayden and former Attorney General Mukasey wrote
that military interrogators need the Army Field Manual to restrain
abuse by them, a limitation not needed by the experienced experts at
the CIA.
Let's look at that. The Army Field Manual is a code of honor, as
reflected by General Petraeus' May 10, 2000, letter to the troops in
Iraq. He wrote this:
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we
sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain
information from the enemy. They would be wrong. . . . In
fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards
laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . shows that the
techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in
eliciting information from detainees.
We are indeed warriors. . . . What sets us apart from our
enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In
everything we do, we must observe the standards and values
that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with
dignity and respect.
Military and FBI interrogators, such as Matthew Alexander, Steve
Keinman, and Ali Soufan, it appears, are the true professionals. We
know now that the ``experienced interrogators'' referenced by Hayden
and Mukasey had actually little to no experience.
Philip Zelikow, who served in the State Department under the Bush
administration, testified in a subcommittee that I chaired. He said the
CIA ``had no significant institutional capability to question enemy
captives'' and ``improvised'' their program of ``cooly calculated
dehumanizing abuse and physical torment.'' In fact, the CIA cobbled its
program together from techniques used by the SERE Program,
[[Page 14315]]
designed to prepare captured U.S. military personnel for interrogation
by tyrant regimes who torture not to generate intelligence but to
generate propaganda.
Colonel Kleinman submitted testimony for our hearing, in which he
stated:
These individuals were retired military psychologists who,
while having extensive experience in SERE (survival, evasion,
resistance, and escape) training, collectively possessed
absolutely no firsthand experience in the interrogation of
foreign nationals for intelligence purposes.
To the proud, experienced, and successful interrogators of the
military and the FBI, I believe Judge Mukasey and General Hayden owe an
apology.
Finally, we were told that torturing detainees was justified by
American lives saved--saved as a result of actionable intelligence
produced on the waterboard. That is the clincher, they stay--lives
saved at the price of a little unpleasantness. But is it true? That is
far from clear.
FBI Director Mueller has said he is unaware of any evidence that
waterboarding produced actionable information. Nothing I have seen
convinces me otherwise. The examples we have been able to investigate--
for instance, of Abu Zubaida providing critical intelligence on Khalid
Shaik Mohammed and Jose Padilla--turned out to be false. The
information was obtained by regular professional interrogators before
waterboarding was even authorized.
As recently as May 10, our former Vice President went on a television
show to relate that the interrogation process we had in place produced
from certain key individuals, such as Abu Zubaida--he named him
specifically--actionable information. Well, we had a hearing inquiring
into that, and we produced the testimony of the FBI agent who actually
conducted those interrogations.
Here is what happened. Abu Zubaida was injured in a firefight and
captured in Afghanistan. He was flown to an undisclosed location for
interrogation. The first round of interrogation conducted
professionally by Soufan and his assistant from the CIA produced such
significant intelligence information that a jet with doctors on it was
scrambled from Langley--from this area--and flown to the undisclosed
location so that the best medical care could be provided to Abu Zubaida
so he could continue to talk. That was the first round of information.
In the second interrogation, conducted consistent with professional
interrogation techniques, Abu Zubaida disclosed that the mastermind of
the
9/11 attacks was Khalid Shaik Mohammed. That may be the apex piece of
intelligence information we have obtained during the course of the
conflict.
At that point, the private contractors arrived, and for some reason
Abu Zubaida was handed over to them so they could apply their enhanced
interrogation techniques. Ali Soufan testified that at that point they
got no further information. What triggered the first round of
information was that Soufan knew about Zubaida's pet name that his
mother used for him. When he used that nickname, Zubaida fell apart. He
didn't know how to defend himself, and he began to disclose this very
important information.
Knowledge, outwitting people, playing on mental weaknesses, taking
advantage of our skills as Americans--that is what worked and got the
information about Mohammed. He was turned over to the private
contractors for enhanced techniques and they got nothing.
It was then determined that because the interrogation had become
unproductive, he should be returned to the FBI agent and CIA agent who
had twice interrogated him. It was in the third round that he disclosed
information about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber, which was
so important that Attorney General Ashcroft held a press conference, I
believe in Moscow, to celebrate the discovery of this information.
Again, for some reason, he was turned back again to the private
contractors for the application of more abusive techniques, and again
the flow of information stopped.
For a third time, he was returned to the FBI and CIA agents again for
professional interrogation, but by now he had been so compromised by
the techniques, even they were unsuccessful in getting further
information.
As best as I have been able to determine, for the remaining sessions
of 83 waterboardings that have been disclosed as being associated with
this interrogation, no further actionable information was obtained. Yet
the story has been exactly the opposite. The story over and over has
been that once you got these guys out of the hands of the FBI and the
military amateurs and into the hands of the trained CIA professionals,
who can use the tougher techniques, that is when you get the
information. In this case, at least, the exact opposite was the truth,
and this was a case cited by the Vice President by name.
The costs of this could be high. There has been no accounting of the
wild goose chases our national security personnel may have been sent on
by false statements made by torture victims seeking to end their agony;
no accounting of intelligence lost if other sources held back from
dealing with us after our dissent into what Vice President Cheney
refers to as the ``dark side''; no accounting of the harm to our
national standing or our international good will from this program; no
accounting of the benefit to our enemies' standing--particularly as
measured in militant recruitment or fundraising; and no accounting of
the impact this program had on information sharing with foreign
governments whose laws prohibit such mistreatment.
At the heart of all these falsehoods lies a particular and specific
problem: The ``declassifiers'' in the U.S. Government are all in the
executive branch. No Senator can declassify, and the procedure for the
Senate as an institution to declassify something is so cumbersome that
it has never been used. Certain executive branch officials, on the
other hand, are at liberty to divulge classified information. When it
comes out of their mouth, it is declassified because they are
declassified. Its very utterance by those requisite officials is a
declassification. What an institutional advantage. The executive branch
can use, and has used, that one-sided advantage to spread assertions
that either aren't true at all or may be technically true but only on a
strained, narrow interpretation that is omitted, leaving a false
impression, or that sometimes simply supports one side of an argument
that has two sides--but the other side is one they don't want to face
up to and don't declassify.
One can hope the Obama administration will be more honorable. I
suspect and believe they will be. But the fact is that a cudgel that so
lends itself to abuse will some day again be abused, and we should find
a way to correct that imbalance. It is intensely frustrating to have
access to classified information that proves a lie and not be able to
prove that lie. It does not serve America well for Senators to be in
that position.
Chairman Levin has already done excellent work in the Armed Services
Committee, and there is no reason to believe that good work won't
continue. Chairman Rockefeller has done excellent work in the
Intelligence Committee, and his successor, Senator Feinstein, has
picked up the mantle and continues forward with energy and
determination. We can be proud of what she is doing. Chairman Leahy has
begun good work in the Judiciary Committee, and more will ensue when we
see the report of the Department of Justice Office of Professional
Responsibility about what went wrong in the Office of Legal Counsel.
The new administration, I hope and expect, is itself drilling down to
the details of this sordid episode and not letting themselves be fobbed
off with summaries or abridged editions. In short, a lot is going on,
and a lot should be going on.
While it is going on, I want my colleagues and the American public to
know that measured against the information I have been able to gain
access to, the story line we have been led to believe--the story line
about waterboarding we have been sold--is false in every one of its
dimensions.
[[Page 14316]]
I ask that my colleagues be patient and be prepared to listen to the
evidence when all is said and done before they wrap themselves in that
story line.
I thank the Presiding Officer. I know the hour is late. I appreciate
his courtesy.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
major matthew philip houseal
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the
life of MAJ Matthew Philip Houseal, from Amarillo, TX. Matthew was 54
years old when he lost his life on May 11, 2009, from injuries
sustained from a noncombat related incident in Baghdad, Iraq. He was a
member of the 55th Medical Company, U.S. Army Reserve, Indianapolis,
IN.
Today, I join Matthew's family and friends in mourning his death.
Matthew will forever be remembered as a loving husband, father, son,
and friend to many. He is survived by his wife Dr. Luzma Houseal; seven
children, Teresa, Catherine, David, Isabel, Patrick, Monica and Kelly;
his parents, William and Helen Houseal; eight siblings, Dr. Timothy
Houseal and wife Leslie, U.S. Army Retired LTC Stephen Houseal and wife
Julie, Joseph Houseal, Friar David Houseal, John Houseal and wife Gail,
U.S. Air Force COL Anne T. Houseal and husband Paul Houser, Elizabeth
Nightingale, and Maria Johnston and husband Jeff; 26 nieces and
nephews; and a host of other friends and relatives.
Matthew, a native of Washington, DC, grew up in St. Joseph, MI, and
received a bachelor's degree, master's degree, and medical degree from
the University of Michigan. He spent his surgical internship at Henry
Ford Hospital and went through the Officers Training School in the U.S.
Navy. He served his psychiatry residency at Texas Tech University in
Lubbock, TX, and spent over a decade at the Texas Panhandle Mental
Health Mental Retardation, where he was a beloved member of the staff.
He joined the Army Reserve as a major in 2007.
Matthew had many passions in life: known as a brilliant physician and
an insatiable learner, Matthew held a private pilot license and was a
certified flight instructor with more than 10,000 hours of flight time
in different types of aircraft. His extraordinary accomplishments were
only rivaled by his passion for his family, especially his seven
children.
While we struggle to express our sorrow over this loss, we can take
pride in the example Matthew set as a soldier and as a father. Today
and always, he will be remembered by family and friends as a true
American hero, and we cherish the legacy of his service and his life.
As I search for words to do justice to this valiant fallen soldier, I
recall President Abraham Lincoln's words as he addressed the families
of soldiers who died at Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot
consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we
say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' This statement
is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as we can take
some measure of solace in knowing that Matthew's heroism and memory
will outlive the record of the words here spoken.
It is my sad duty to enter the name of MAJ Matthew Philip Houseal in
the official Record of the Senate for his service to this country and
for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. I pray
that Matthew's family can find comfort in the words of the prophet
Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord
God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''
May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God be
with all of you, as I know He is with Matthew.
____________________
TIMETABLE FOR SOTOMAYOR HEARING
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today, Chairman Leahy announced
July 13 as the start date for the Judiciary Committee hearings on
Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I am extremely
disappointed with this unilateral decision on the part of my Democratic
colleagues. In the past, the decision of when to start these Supreme
Court hearings has been a bipartisan one. With the Roberts and Alito
nominations, Republicans worked with our colleagues to accommodate
Democrat concerns about the timing of the hearings for the highest
court in the land. Senators Leahy and Specter held joint press
conferences announcing the Roberts and Alito hearings.
I would have hoped that Ranking Member Sessions and Judiciary
Committee Republicans would have gotten the same courtesy for President
Obama's nominee. Yet I understand that Ranking Member Sessions had no
idea that Chairman Leahy was going to the floor to make this July 13
announcement, and that he was not consulted about this decision.
Clearly the July 13 date is not a bipartisan decision.
Moreover, July 13 is just not enough time to prepare for a thorough
and careful review of Judge Sotomayor's record and qualifications to be
a Supreme Court Justice. First, July 13 is a mere 48 days from the
nomination announcement to the hearing, which is shorter than the
timeframe for Justices Roberts and Alito. Moreover, Justice Roberts had
just a few hundred decisions for the Judiciary Committee to analyze.
Judge Sotomayor has over 3,000 cases over a 17-year period on the
Federal bench for us to study. The Alito confirmation hearing timeframe
is probably a better comparison since Justice Alito had a similar large
number of decisions.
With respect to concerns that criticisms have been lodged against the
nominee, we don't control what outside groups say, but I do I know that
Senate Republican members have treated Judge Sotomayor fairly and have
not engaged in personal attacks. So the idea that Judge Sotomayor needs
a hearing scheduled as soon as possible to respond to criticisms by
outside groups just doesn't hold water.
In addition, the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive everything we
need from Judge Sotomayor. I understand that her questionnaire is not
complete, that we have yet to receive all her documentation, memos,
speeches and unpublished opinions, that we still don't have her ABA
review and FBI background report. It seems like the rushed nature of
the process has contributed to the deficiencies in the questionnaire
and the number of documents that are still missing. We need all this
stuff in order to fully vet the nominee.
Judge Sotomayor has an extensive record, and the July 13 timetable
that Chairman Leahy wants to impose will force us to consider a Supreme
Court nominee with one of the lengthiest records in recent history in
the shortest time in recent history. Republican members got no serious
consideration to address concerns about timing, and no consultation or
bipartisanship on setting the start date as has been done in the past.
I and my Republican colleagues are committed to give Judge Sotomayor
a fair hearing, but we need to thoroughly review her extensive legal
record and that takes time. It is important that we do the job right
because this is a lifetime appointment and we are talking about the
highest court of the land. As my Democrat colleagues have said before,
the Senate cannot be a rubberstamp. We have a constitutional
responsibility to carefully vet Judge Sotomayor and not rush the
process. We owe this to the American people.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEBERING RONALD TAKAKI
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor
the life of Professor Ronald Takaki, a pioneer and leader in the field
of ethnic studies. Professor Takaki passed away on May 26, 2009, at the
age of 70.
Ronald Takaki, the grandson of Japanese immigrants, was born and
raised
[[Page 14317]]
in Hawaii. In his youth he was an avid surfer, earning the nickname
``Ten Toes Takaki'' because of his ability to perform one of the most
impressive and iconic stunts a surfer can do on a surfboard. Though
uninterested in school when he was younger, Takaki applied to and was
accepted at the College of Wooster in Ohio; he was the first in his
family to attend college. After earning a bachelor's degree in history,
he attended UC Berkeley, where he received a master's and doctorate in
history. It was at UC Berkeley, doing a dissertation on the history of
American slavery, that Takaki found his passion.
In 1967, Takaki was hired by UCLA, where he taught the University of
California's first Black history course following the tumultuous Watts
riots. Though an unlikely candidate to teach the course, students
quickly came to respect and admire him, and he and his class became one
of the most popular on campus. In 1971, Professor Takaki returned to UC
Berkeley, where he served as the first full-time teacher in the
Department of Ethnic Studies.
In addition to teaching Black history, Professor Takaki also
established UC Berkeley's PhD program in ethnic studies, the first of
its kind in the Nation. During the 30 years he taught at UC Berkeley,
Professor Takaki succeeded in his desire to make the school's
curriculum more multicultural and diverse. He inspired and engaged
thousands of students with his thought-provoking and insightful
perspectives on race and ethnicity in the United States.
Professor Takaki was also a distinguished and prolific writer. Among
his most well-known books were Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th-
Century America; A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural
America, which won the American Book Award, and Strangers from a
Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans, which was nominated for
a Pulitzer Prize.
Professor Takaki is survived by his wife Carol; his children Troy,
Todd, and Dana; his brother Michael; his sister Janet; and his seven
grandchildren. I extend my deepest sympathies to his entire family.
Professor Takaki was widely considered to be the father of
multiculturalism. His trailblazing spirit and love of life was evident
in everything that he did, and his many years of service as an
educator, writer, and activist will not be forgotten. We take comfort
in knowing that future generations will benefit from his tireless
efforts to make America a better place to live.
____________________
COMMENDING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OMAHA DISTRICT
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I wish to
recognize the 75th anniversary year of the establishment of the Omaha
District as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Established on January 2, 1934, the immediate mission of the Omaha
District was the creation of Fort Peck Dam in Montana, which was the
first of six multipurpose main stem dams operating as part of a flood
control system on the upper Missouri River. After completing the Fort
Peck Dam, the Corps, operating under the Pick-Sloan Plan, went on to
build the other five main stem structures on the Upper Missouri River.
The Plan called for a coordinated effort with the Bureau of Reclamation
for irrigation projects, flood control, navigation, and recreation
facilities.
In the early 1940s, the Omaha District added military construction to
its mission. Its first task was construction of Lowry Field in
Colorado. Since then, the Omaha District has been involved in the
construction of several historic projects, such as the Northern Area
Defense Command in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado; various missile control
and launch facilities throughout the Midwest; and facilities for Space
Command.
As the Cold War ended in the 1980s, the national focus switched to a
stronger set of environmental principles. The Omaha District readily
adopted a ``green'' program, providing outstanding leadership in
environmental remediation. Today, the Omaha District is managing one of
the largest base realignment and closure and ``Grow the Army''
initiatives in the Nation.
For more than 75 years, the men and women of the Omaha District have
served their country by harnessing the mighty Missouri River basin,
building state-of-the-art facilities to serve our military, and
recovering the earth from hazardous toxic and radioactive waste.
It is only fitting that we in the Senate recognize the impressive
achievements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Omaha District during
its 75th year.
____________________
2009 NEW HAMPSHIRE EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AWARDS
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I congratulate the
recipients of the 2009 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards.
The New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards, or ``ED''ies, honor
the best and the brightest among New Hampshire's educators and schools.
For the past 16 years, the ``ED''ies have been presented to teachers,
administrators, schools, and school boards who demonstrate the highest
level of excellence in education. Outstanding individuals have been
compared against criteria set by others in their discipline through
their sponsoring organization. Experienced educators and community
leaders select outstanding elementary, middle, and secondary schools
based upon guidelines established by the New Hampshire Excellence in
Education Board of Directors.
It is critical that all of our children receive a high quality
education so that they can succeed in today's global economy. I am
proud to recognize this year's recipients who will receive this
prestigious award on June 13, 2009 for the positive examples they set
for their peers and the lasting impact they have made on our children
and communities.
I ask that the names of the 2009 New Hampshire Excellence in
Education Award winners be printed in the Record.
2009 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award Recipients
Diane Beaman, Nora L. Beaton, Doug Brown, Michelle
Carvalho, Cathy Chase, Mary K. Coltin, Anne Delaney, Arthur
R. Deleault, Irene M. Derosier, Kenneth Dugal, Denise Dunlap,
Katherine J. Engstrom, Deborah A. Fogg, Venera Gattonini,
Doris Grady, Nathan S. Greenberg, Gerri Harvey, Cathy
Higgins.
Kathleen Collins McCabe, Eric ``Chip'' McGee, Dorothy M.
Morin, Jackie Moulton, Sean P. Moynihan, Dorothy A. Peters,
Marge Polak, Patricia Popieniek, Richard Provencher, Meagan
Reed, Roberto Rodriguez, Fern Seiden, John J. Stone, Lyonel
B. Tracy, Jacqueline R. Verville, Sheila A. Ward, Suzette
Wilson, Otis E. Wirth, Joseph L. Wright.
Bicentennial Elementary School, Boynton Middle School,
Inter-Lakes Elementary School, Kennett High School, Matthew
Thornton Elementary School, Monadnock Community Connections
School, Newfound Regional High School, Northwood School,
Raymond School Board, Virtual Learning Center.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL RELATIVE TO THE ``STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF
2009,'' OR ``PAYGO,'' TOGETHER WITH A SECTIONAL ANALYSIS--PM 22
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
[[Page 14318]]
report; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget:
To the Congress of the United States:
Today I am pleased to submit to the Congress the enclosed legislative
proposal, the ``Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009,'' or ``PAYGO,''
together with a sectional analysis.
The deficits that my Administration inherited reflect not only a
severe economic downturn but also years of failing to pay for new
policies--including large tax cuts that disproportionately benefited
the affluent. This failure of fiscal discipline contributed to
transforming surpluses projected at the beginning of this decade into
trillions of dollars in deficits. I am committed to returning our
Government to a path of fiscal discipline, and PAYGO represents a key
step back to the path of shared responsibility.
PAYGO would hold us to a simple but important principle: we should
pay for new tax or entitlement legislation. Creating a new non-
emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion would require offsetting
revenue increases or spending reductions.
In the 1990s, statutory PAYGO encouraged the tough choices that
helped to move the Government from large deficits to surpluses, and I
believe it can do the same today. Both houses of Congress have already
taken an important step toward righting our fiscal course by adopting
congressional rules incorporating the PAYGO principle. But we can
strengthen enforcement and redouble our commitment by enacting PAYGO
into law.
Both the Budget I have proposed and the Budget Resolution approved by
the Congress would cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term,
while laying a new foundation for sustained and widely shared economic
growth through key investments in health, education, and clean energy.
Enacting statutory PAYGO would complement these efforts and represent
an important step toward strengthening our budget process, cutting
deficits, and reducing national debt. Ultimately, however, we will have
to do even more to restore fiscal sustainability.
I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of this proposal.
Barack Obama.
The White House, June 9, 2009.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 2:15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Zapata, 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. 466. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for certain rights and benefits for persons who are
absent from positions of employment to receive medical
treatment for service-connected disabilities.
H. R. 1709. An act to establish a committee under the
National Science and Technology Council with the
responsibility to coordinate science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education activities and
programs of all Federal agencies, and for other purposes.
H. R. 1736. An act to provide for the establishment of a
committee to identify and coordinate international science
and technology cooperation that can strengthen the domestic
science and technology enterprise and support United States
foreign policy goals.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 466. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for certain rights and benefits for persons who are
absent from positions of employment to receive medical
treatment for service-connected disabilities; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 1709. An act to establish a committee under the
National Science and Technology Council with the
responsibility to coordinate science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education activities and
programs of all Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 1736. An act to provide for the establishment of a
committee to identify and coordinate international science
and technology cooperation that can strengthen the domestic
science and technology enterprise and support United States
foreign policy goals; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
H.R. 31. An act to provide for the recognition of the
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes.
____________________
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 Lt. Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, to be
General.
*Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, to be
General.
*Navy nomination of Adm. James G. Stavridis, to be Admiral.
By Mr. BINGAMAN for the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
*Catherine Radford Zoi, of California, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Energy (Energy, Efficiency, and Renewable
Energy).
*William F. Brinkman, of New Jersey, to be Director of the
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
*Anne Castle, of Colorado, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Interior.
*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.
____________________
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. SCHUMER:
S. 1211. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard
Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building'';
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1212. A bill to amend the antitrust laws to ensure
competitive market-based fees and terms for merchants' access
to electronic payment systems; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 1213. 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 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bond, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse,
and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1214. A bill to conserve fish and aquatic communities in
the United States through partnerships that foster fish
habitat conservation, to improve the quality of life for the
people of the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1215. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Nelson of
Florida):
S. 1216. A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to
require residential carbon monoxide detectors to meet the
applicable ANSI/UL standard by treating that standard as a
consumer product safety rule, to encourage States to require
the installation of such detectors in homes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr.
Begich):
S. 1217. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to improve and protect rehabilitative services and case
management services provided under Medicaid to improve the
health and welfare of the nation's most vulnerable seniors
and children; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1218. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to preserve access to urban Medicare-dependent hospitals;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 1219. A bill to amend subtitle A of the Antitrust
Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend
the operation of such subtitle for a 1-year period ending
June 22, 2010; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1220. A bill to require that certain complex diagnostic
laboratory tests performed
[[Page 14319]]
by an independent laboratory after a hospital outpatient
encounter or inpatient stay during which the specimen
involved was collected shall be treated as services for which
payment may be made directly to the laboratory under part B
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1221. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to ensure more appropriate payment amounts for drugs and
biologicals under part B of the Medicare Program by excluding
customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers from
the manufacturer's average sales price; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Gillibrand,
Mr. Burris, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1222. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend and expand the benefits for business operating in
empowerment zones, enterprise communities, or renewal
communities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. Durbin):
S.J. Res. 17. A joint resolution approving the renewal of
import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes; 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. CRAPO:
S. Res. 173. A resolution supporting National Men's Health
Week; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Brownback,
and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. Res. 174. A resolution recognizing the region from
Manhattan, Kansas to Columbia, Missouri as the Kansas City
Animal Health Corridor; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska:
S. Res. 175. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that the Federal Government is a reluctant shareholder
in the ownership of General Motors and Chrysler; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Burris, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Brownback):
S. Res. 176. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on United States policy during the political
transition in Zimbabwe, and for other purposes; considered
and agreed to.
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. Res. 177. A resolution recognizing the 10th anniversary
of the International Labour Organization's unanimous adoption
of Convention 182, ``Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child
Labour''; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Burris, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Hatch):
S. Res. 178. A resolution supporting Olympic Day on June
23, 2009, and encouraging the International Olympic Committee
to select Chicago, Illinois as the host city for the 2016
Olympic and Paralympic Games; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. KAUFMAN:
S. Res. 179. A resolution congratulating the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers on its 125 years of codes and
standards development; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. Res. 180. A resolution to authorize testimony and legal
representation in United States v Edward Bloomer, Frank
Cordaro, Elton Davis, Chester Guinn, and Renee Espeland;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. Con. Res. 25. A concurrent resolution recognizing the
value and benefits that community health centers provide as
health care homes for over 18,000,000 individuals, and the
importance of enabling health centers and other safety net
providers to continue to offer accessible, affordable, and
continuous care to their current patients and to every
American who lacks access to preventive and primary care
services; to the Committee on Finance.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 214
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 214, a bill to amend
title XXI of the Social Security Act to permit qualifying States to use
their allotments under the State Children's Health Insurance Program
for any fiscal year for certain Medicaid expenditures.
S. 254
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Risch) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as
cosponsors of S. 254, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for the coverage of home infusion therapy under
the Medicare Program.
S. 292
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 292, a bill to repeal
the imposition of withholding on certain payments made to vendors by
government entities.
S. 301
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 301, a bill to
amend title XI of the Social Security Act to provide for transparency
in the relationship between physicians and manufacturers of drugs,
devices, biologicals, or medical supplies for which payment is made
under Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP.
S. 316
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. 316, 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.
S. 500
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 500, a bill to
amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish a national usury rate for
consumer credit transactions.
S. 535
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 535, a bill
to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal requirement for
reduction of survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by
veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation, and for other
purposes.
S. 538
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 538, a bill to
increase the recruitment and retention of school counselors, school
social workers, and school psychologists by low-income local
educational agencies.
S. 547
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 547, a bill to amend
title XIX of the Social Security Act to reduce the costs of
prescription drugs for enrollees of Medicaid managed care organizations
by extending the discounts offered under fee-for-service Medicaid to
such organizations.
S. 572
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 572, a bill to provide for the issuance of a ``forever stamp'' to
honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women of the armed forces who
have been awarded the Purple Heart.
S. 655
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 655, a bill to amend
the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to ensure adequate
funding for conservation and restoration of wildlife, and for other
purposes.
S. 688
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 688, a bill to require
that health plans provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for
mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node dissection for the treatment
of breast cancer and coverage for secondary consultations.
[[Page 14320]]
S. 700
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 700, 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. 711
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 711, a bill to require mental health screenings for members of the
Armed Forces who are deployed in connection with a contingency
operation, and for other purposes.
S. 823
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) were added as
cosponsors of S. 823, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a 5-year carryback of operating losses, and for other
purposes.
S. 831
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 831, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to include
service after September 11, 2001, as service qualifying for the
determination of a reduced eligibility age for receipt of non-regular
service retired pay.
S. 841
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 841, a bill to direct the
Secretary of Transportation to study and establish a motor vehicle
safety standard that provides for a means of alerting blind and other
pedestrians of motor vehicle operation.
S. 908
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Barrasso) was added as a cosponsor of S. 908, a bill to amend the Iran
Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with
respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.
S. 910
At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 910, a bill to amend the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, to provide for additional
monitoring and accountability of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
S. 941
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) were added as cosponsors
of S. 941, a bill to reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, modernize firearm laws and regulations, protect the
community from criminals, and for other purposes.
S. 990
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 990, a bill to amend the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to expand access to
healthy afterschool meals for school children in working families.
S. 1023
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the names of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Leahy) were added as cosponsors of S. 1023, a bill to establish a non-
profit corporation to communicate United States entry policies and
otherwise promote leisure, business, and scholarly travel to the United
States.
At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1023, supra.
S. 1034
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1034, a bill to amend titles
XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure payment under Medicaid
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program for covered items and
services furnished by school-based health clinics.
S. 1136
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1136, a bill to establish a chronic care improvement
demonstration program for Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental
illnesses.
S. 1156
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1156, a bill to
amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users to reauthorize and improve the safe routes to
school program.
S. 1185
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1185, a bill to amend
titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure that low-
income beneficiaries have improved access to health care under the
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
S. 1203
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1203, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the research credit through
2010 and to increase and make permanent the alternative simplified
research credit, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1203, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 1230
At the request of Mr. Johanns, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1230 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 1256, to protect the public health by providing
the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate
tobacco products, to amend title 5, United States Code, to make certain
modifications in the Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement
System, and the Federal Employees' Retirement System, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 1256
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the names of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator
from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1256 proposed to H.R.
1256, to protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug
Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products, to
amend title 5, United States Code, to make certain modifications in the
Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement System, and the
Federal Employees' Retirement System, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 1270
At the request of Mr. Corker, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1270 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 1256, to protect the public health by providing
the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate
tobacco products, to amend title 5, United States Code, to make certain
modifications in the Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement
System, and the Federal Employees' Retirement System, and for other
purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1212. A bill to amend the antitrust laws to ensure competitive
market-based fees and terms for merchants' access to electronic payment
systems; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page 14321]]
S. 1212
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 ``Credit Card Fair Fee Act of
2009''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Access.--The term ``access''--
(A) when used as a verb means to use to conduct transaction
authorization, clearance, and settlement involving the
acceptance of credit cards or debit cards from consumers for
payment for goods or services and the receipt of payment for
such goods or services; and
(B) when used as a noun means the permission or authority
to use to conduct transactions described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Access agreement.--The term ``access agreement'' means
an agreement between 1 or more merchants and 1 or more
providers giving the merchant access to a covered electronic
payment system, conditioned solely upon the merchant
complying with the fees and terms specified in the agreement.
(3) Acquirer.--The term ``acquirer''--
(A) means a financial institution that provides services
allowing merchants to access an electronic payment system to
accept credit cards or debit cards for payment; and
(B) does not include an independent third party processor
that may act as the agent of a financial institution
described in subparagraph (A) in processing general-purpose
credit card or debit card transactions.
(4) Adjudication.--The term ``adjudication'' has the
meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United
States Code, and does not include mediation.
(5) Antitrust laws.--The term ``antitrust laws''--
(A) has the meaning given that term in subsection (a) of
the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)); and
(B) includes--
(i) section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 45) to the extent section 5 applies to unfair methods
of competition; and
(ii) State antitrust laws.
(6) Chairman.--The term ``Chairman'' means the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission.
(7) Covered electronic payment system.--The term ``covered
electronic payment system'' means an electronic payment
system that routes information and data to facilitate
transaction authorization, clearance, and settlement for not
less than 10 percent of the combined dollar value of credit
card or debit card payments processed in the United States in
the most recent full calendar year.
(8) Credit card.--The term ``credit card'' means any
general-purpose card or other credit device issued or
approved for use by a financial institution for use in
allowing the cardholder to obtain goods or services on credit
on terms specified by that financial institution.
(9) Debit card.--The term ``debit card'' means any general-
purpose card or other device issued or approved for use by a
financial institution for use in debiting the account of a
cardholder for the purpose of that cardholder obtaining goods
or services, whether authorization is signature-based or PIN-
based.
(10) Electronic payment system.--The term ``electronic
payment system'' means the proprietary services,
infrastructure, and software that route information and data
to facilitate transaction authorization, clearance, and
settlement and that merchants are required to access in order
to accept a specific brand of general-purpose credit cards or
debit cards as payment for goods or services.
(11) Electronic payment system judges.--The term
``Electronic Payment System Judges'' means the Electronic
Payment System Judges appointed under section 4(a).
(12) Fees.--The term ``fees'' means any monetary charges,
rates, assessments, or other payments imposed by a provider
upon a merchant for the merchant to access an electronic
payment system.
(13) Financial institution.--The term ``financial
institution'' has the meaning given that term in section
603(t) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(t)).
(14) Issuer.--The term ``issuer''--
(A) means a financial institution that issues credit cards
or debit cards or approves the use of other devices for use
in an electronic payment system; and
(B) does not include an independent third party processor
that may act as the agent of a financial institution
described in subparagraph (A) in processing general-purpose
credit or debit card transactions.
(15) Market power.--The term ``market power'' means the
ability to profitably raise prices above those that would be
charged in a perfectly competitive market.
(16) Merchant.--The term ``merchant'' means any person who
accepts or who seeks to accept credit cards or debit cards in
payment for goods or services provided by the person.
(17) Negotiating party.--The term ``negotiating party''
means 1 or more providers of a covered electronic payment
system or 1 or more merchants who have access to or who are
seeking access to that covered electronic payment system, as
the case may be, and who are in the process of negotiating or
who have executed a voluntarily negotiated access agreement
that is still in effect.
(18) Normal rate of return.--The term ``normal rate of
return'' means the average rate of return that a firm would
receive in an industry when conditions of perfect competition
prevail.
(19) Proceeding party.--The term ``proceeding party'' means
collectively all providers of a covered electronic payment
system or collectively all merchants who have access to or
who are seeking access to that covered electronic payment
system, as the case may be, during the period in which the
Electronic Payment System Judges are conducting a proceeding
under this Act relating to that covered electronic payment
system.
(20) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given
that term in subsection (a) of the first section of the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)).
(21) Provider.--The term ``provider'' means any person who
owns, operates, controls, serves as an issuer for, or serves
as an acquirer for a covered electronic payment system.
(22) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given that
term in section 4G(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15g(2)).
(23) Terms.--The term ``terms'' means any and all rules and
conditions that are applicable to providers of an electronic
payment system or to merchants, as the case may be, and that
are required in order for merchants to access that electronic
payment system.
(24) Voluntarily negotiated access agreement.--The term
``voluntarily negotiated access agreement'' means an access
agreement voluntarily negotiated between 1 or more providers
of a covered electronic payment system and 1 or more
merchants that sets the fees and terms under which the
merchant can access that covered electronic payment system.
(25) Written direct statements.--The term ``written direct
statements'' means witness statements, testimony, and
exhibits to be presented in proceedings under this Act, and
such other information that is necessary to establish fees
and terms for access to covered electronic payment systems as
set forth in regulations issued by the Electronic Payment
System Judges under section 5(b)(4).
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO COVERED ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS; LIMITED
ANTITRUST IMMUNITY FOR THE NEGOTIATION AND
DETERMINATION OF FEES AND TERMS; STANDARDS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES AND TERMS.
(a) Access to Covered Electronic Payment Systems.--Access
by a merchant to any covered electronic payment system and
the fees and terms of such access shall be subject to this
Act.
(b) Authority and Limited Antitrust Immunity for
Negotiations of Fees and Terms and Participation in
Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of the
antitrust laws--
(A) in negotiating fees and terms and participating in any
proceedings under subsection (c), any providers of a covered
electronic payment system and any merchants who have access
to or who are seeking access to that covered electronic
payment system may jointly negotiate and agree upon the fees
and terms for access to the covered electronic payment
system, including through the use of common agents that
represent the providers of the covered electronic payment
system or the merchants on a nonexclusive basis; and
(B) any providers of a single covered electronic payment
system also may jointly determine the proportionate division
among such providers of paid fees.
(2) Limitations.--The immunity from the antitrust laws
conferred under this subsection shall not apply to a provider
of a covered electronic payment system or to a merchant
during any period in which such provider, or such merchant,
is engaged in--
(A) any unlawful boycott;
(B) any allocation with a competitor of a geographical
area;
(C) any unlawful tying arrangement; or
(D) any exchange of information with, or agreement with, a
competitor that is not reasonably required to carry out the
negotiations and proceedings described in subsection (c).
(c) Establishment of Fees and Terms.--
(1) Voluntarily negotiated access agreements.--
(A) Agreements between negotiating parties.--A voluntarily
negotiated access agreement may be executed at any time
between 1 or more providers of a covered electronic payment
system and 1 or more merchants. With respect to the
negotiating parties, such executed voluntarily negotiated
access agreement shall supersede any fees or terms
established by the Electronic Payment System Judges under
paragraph (3) relating to that covered electronic payment
system.
(B) Filing agreements with the electronic payment system
judges.--The negotiating parties shall jointly file with the
Electronic Payment System Judges--
(i) any voluntarily negotiated access agreement that
affects any market in the United States or elsewhere;
[[Page 14322]]
(ii) any documentation relating to a voluntarily negotiated
access agreement evidencing any consideration being given or
any marketing or promotional agreement between the
negotiating parties; and
(iii) any amendment to that voluntarily negotiated access
agreement or documentation.
(C) Timing and availability of filings.--The negotiating
parties to any voluntarily negotiated access agreement
executed after the date of enactment of this Act shall
jointly file the voluntarily negotiated access agreement, and
any documentation or amendment described in subparagraph (B),
with the Electronic Payment System Judges not later than 30
days after the date of execution of the voluntarily
negotiated access agreement or amendment or the date of the
creation of the documentation, as the case may be. The
Electronic Payment System Judges shall make publicly
available any voluntarily negotiated access agreement,
amendment, or accompanying documentation filed under this
paragraph.
(2) Initiation of proceedings.--The proceedings under this
subsection to establish fees and terms for access to a
covered electronic payment system shall be initiated in
accordance with section 6.
(3) Proceedings.--
(A) In general.--The Electronic Payment System Judges shall
conduct proceedings as specified under this Act to establish
fees and terms for access to a covered electronic payment
system. Except as specifically provided in a voluntarily
negotiated access agreement, a provider of a covered
electronic payment system may not directly or indirectly
charge fees or set terms for access to a covered electronic
payment system that are not in accordance with the fees and
terms established by the Electronic Payment System Judges
pursuant to proceedings under this Act.
(B) Period of applicability.--Except as provided in section
6, the fees and terms established under this paragraph with
respect to a covered electronic payment system shall apply
during the 3-year period beginning on January 1 of the second
year following the year in which the proceedings to establish
such fees and terms are commenced.
(C) Standard for establishment of fees and terms by the
electronic payment system judges.--
(i) In general.--In establishing fees and terms for access
to a covered electronic payment system under subparagraph
(A), the Electronic Payment System Judges--
(I) shall be limited to selecting, without modification, 1
of the 2 final offers of fees and terms filed by the
proceeding parties pursuant to section 5(c)(2)(A); and
(II) shall select the final offer of fees and terms that
most closely represent the fees and terms that would be
negotiated in a hypothetical perfectly competitive
marketplace for access to an electronic payment system
between a willing buyer with no market power and a willing
seller with no market power.
(ii) Standards.--In determining which final offer of fees
and terms to select, the Electronic Payment System Judges--
(I) shall consider the costs of transaction authorization,
clearance, and settlement that are necessary to operate and
to access an electronic payment system;
(II) shall consider a normal rate of return in a
hypothetical perfectly competitive marketplace;
(III) shall avoid selecting a final offer of fees and terms
that would have anticompetitive effects within the issuer
market, the acquirer market, or the merchant market;
(IV) may select a final offer that is a schedule of fees
and terms that varies based upon cost-based differences in
types of credit card and debit card transactions (which may
include whether a transaction is of a signature-based, PIN-
based, or card-not-present type);
(V) may select a final offer that is a schedule of fees and
terms that provides alternative fees and terms for those
acquirers or issuers that are regulated by the National
Credit Union Administration or that, together with affiliates
of the acquirer or issuer, have assets in a total amount of
less than $1,000,000,000; and
(VI) may not select a final offer that is a schedule of
fees and terms that varies based on type of merchant or
volume of transactions (either in number or dollar value).
(D) Use of existing fees and terms as evidence.--In
establishing fees and terms for access to a covered
electronic payment system under this paragraph, the
Electronic Payment System Judges--
(i) shall decide the weight to be given to any evidence
submitted by a proceeding party regarding the fees and terms
for access to comparable electronic payment systems,
including fees and terms in voluntarily negotiated access
agreements filed under paragraph (1); and
(ii) shall give significant weight to fees in a voluntarily
negotiated access agreement that are substantially below the
fees reflective of the market power of the covered electronic
payment systems that existed before the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 4. ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEM JUDGES.
(a) Appointment.--The Attorney General and the Chairman
shall jointly appoint 3 full-time Electronic Payment System
Judges, and shall appoint 1 of the 3 Electronic Payment
System Judges as the Chief Electronic Payment System Judge.
(b) Duties.--The Electronic Payment System Judges shall
establish fees and terms for access to covered electronic
payment systems in accordance with this Act.
(c) Rulings.--The Electronic Payment System Judges may make
any necessary procedural or evidentiary ruling in a
proceeding under this Act and may, before commencing a
proceeding under this Act, make any procedural ruling that
will apply to a proceeding under this Act.
(d) Administrative Support.--The Attorney General and
Chairman shall provide the Electronic Payment System Judges
with the necessary administrative services related to
proceedings under this Act.
(e) Location.--The offices of the Electronic Payment System
Judges and staff shall be located in the offices of the
Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission.
(f) Qualifications of Electronic Payment System Judges.--
Each Electronic Payment System Judge shall be an attorney who
has at least 7 years of legal experience. The Chief
Electronic Payment System Judge shall have at least 5 years
of experience in adjudications, arbitrations, or court
trials. At least 1 Electronic Payment System Judge who is not
the Chief Electronic Payment System Judge shall have
significant knowledge of electronic payment systems. At least
one Electronic Payment System Judge shall have significant
knowledge of economics. An individual may serve as an
Electronic Payment System Judge only if the individual is
free of any financial conflict of interest under the
standards established under subsection (m).
(g) Staff.--The Chief Electronic Payment System Judge shall
hire, at minimum, 3 full-time staff members to assist the
Electronic Payment System Judges in performing the duties of
the Electronic Payment System Judges under this Act.
(h) Terms.--
(1) Initial appointments.--For the first appointments of
Electronic Payment System Judges after the date of enactment
of this Act--
(A) the Chief Electronic Payment System Judge shall be
appointed for a term of 6 years;
(B) 1 Electronic Payment System Judge who is not the Chief
Electronic Payment System Judge shall be appointed for a term
of 4 years; and
(C) 1 Electronic Payment System Judge who is not the Chief
Electronic Payment System Judge shall be appointed for a term
of 2 years.
(2) Subsequent appointment.--After the appointments under
paragraph (1), an Electronic Payment System Judge shall be
appointed for a term of 6 years.
(3) Reappointment.--An individual serving as an Electronic
Payment System Judge may be reappointed to subsequent terms.
(4) Start and end of terms.--The term of an Electronic
Payment System Judge shall begin on the date on which the
term of the predecessor of that Electronic Payment System
Judge ends. If a successor Electronic Payment System Judge
has not been appointed as of the date on which the term of
office of an Electronic Payment System Judge ends, the
individual serving that term may continue to serve as an
interim Electronic Payment System Judge until a successor is
appointed.
(i) Vacancies or Incapacity.--
(1) Vacancies.--The Attorney General and the Chairman shall
act expeditiously to fill any vacancy in the position of
Electronic Payment System Judge, and may appoint an interim
Electronic Payment System Judge to serve until an Electronic
Payment System Judge is appointed to fill the vacancy under
this section. An Electronic Payment System Judge appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term
for which the predecessor of that individual was appointed
shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.
(2) Incapacity.--If an Electronic Payment System Judge is
temporarily unable to perform the duties of an Electronic
Payment System Judge, the Attorney General and Chairman may
appoint an interim Electronic Payment System Judge to perform
such duties during the period of such incapacity.
(j) Compensation.--
(1) Judges.--The Chief Electronic Payment System Judge
shall receive compensation at the rate of basic pay payable
for level AL-1 for administrative law judges under section
5372(b) of title 5, United States Code, and each Electronic
Payment System Judge who is not the Chief Electronic Payment
System Judge shall receive compensation at the rate of basic
pay payable for level AL-2 for administrative law judges
under such section. The compensation of the Electronic
Payment System Judges shall not be subject to any regulations
adopted by the Office of Personnel Management under its
authority under section 5376(b)(1) of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) Staff members.--Of the 3 staff members appointed under
subsection (g)--
[[Page 14323]]
(A) the rate of pay of 1 staff member shall be not more
than the basic rate of pay payable for level 10 of GS-15 of
the General Schedule;
(B) the rate of pay of 1 staff member shall be not less
than the basic rate of pay payable for GS-13 of the General
Schedule and not more than the basic rate of pay payable for
level 10 of GS-14 of such Schedule; and
(C) the rate of pay of 1 staff member shall be not less
than the basic rate of pay payable for GS-8 of the General
Schedule and not more than the basic rate of pay payable for
level 10 of GS-11 of such Schedule.
(3) Locality pay.--All rates of pay established under this
subsection shall include locality pay.
(k) Independence of Electronic Payment System Judges.--
(1) In making determinations.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Electronic Payment System Judges--
(i) shall have full independence in establishing fees and
terms for access to covered electronic payment systems and in
issuing any other ruling under this Act; and
(ii) may consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman
on any matter other than a question of fact.
(B) Consultation.--The Electronic Payment System Judges
shall consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman
regarding any determination or ruling that would require that
any act be performed by the Attorney General or the Chairman,
and any such determination or ruling shall not be binding
upon the Attorney General or the Chairman.
(2) Performance appraisals.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any regulation of the Department of Justice or Federal
Trade Commission, and subject to subparagraph (B), the
Electronic Payment System Judges shall not receive
performance appraisals.
(B) Relating to sanction or removal.--To the extent that
the Attorney General and the Chairman adopt regulations under
subsection (m) relating to the sanction or removal of an
Electronic Payment System Judge and such regulations require
documentation to establish the cause of such sanction or
removal, the Electronic Payment System Judge may receive an
appraisal related specifically to the cause of the sanction
or removal.
(l) Inconsistent Duties Barred.--No Electronic Payment
System Judge may undertake duties that conflict with the
duties and responsibilities of an Electronic Payment System
Judge under this Act.
(m) Standards of Conduct.--The Attorney General and the
Chairman shall adopt regulations regarding the standards of
conduct, including financial conflict of interest and
restrictions against ex parte communications, which shall
govern the Electronic Payment System Judges and the
proceedings under this Act.
(n) Removal or Sanction.--The Attorney General and the
Chairman acting jointly may sanction or remove an Electronic
Payment System Judge for violation of the standards of
conduct adopted under subsection (m), misconduct, neglect of
duty, or any disqualifying physical or mental disability. Any
such sanction or removal may be made only after notice and
opportunity for a hearing. The Attorney General and the
Chairman may suspend an Electronic Payment System Judge
during the pendency of such a hearing. The Attorney General
and the Chairman shall appoint an interim Electronic Payment
System Judge during the period of any suspension under this
subsection.
SEC. 5. PROCEEDINGS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEM JUDGES.
(a) Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--The Electronic Payment System Judges shall
act in accordance with regulations issued by the Electronic
Payment System Judges, the Attorney General, and the
Chairman, and on the basis of a written record, prior
determinations and interpretations of the Electronic Payment
System Judges under this Act, and decisions of the court of
appeals of the United States.
(2) Judges acting as panel and individually.--The
Electronic Payment System Judges shall preside over hearings
in proceedings under this Act en banc. The Chief Electronic
Payment System Judge may designate an Electronic Payment
System Judge to preside individually over such collateral and
administrative proceedings as the Chief Judge considers
appropriate.
(b) Procedures.--
(1) Commencement.--The Electronic Payment System Judges
shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice
of commencement of proceedings under section 3(c) to
establish fees and terms for access to a covered electronic
payment system.
(2) Mandatory negotiation period.--
(A) In general.--Promptly after the commencement of a
proceeding under section 3(c) to establish fees and terms for
access to a covered electronic payment system, the Electronic
Payment System Judges shall initiate a period for
negotiations for the purpose of achieving a voluntarily
negotiated access agreement. Nothing in this paragraph shall
preclude the proceeding parties or any members thereof from
conducting negotiations before or after the mandatory
negotiation period for the purpose of achieving a voluntarily
negotiated access agreement.
(B) Length.--The period for negotiations initiated under
subparagraph (A) shall be 3 months.
(C) Determination of need for further proceedings.--At the
close of the period for negotiations initiated under
subparagraph (A), the Electronic Payment System Judges shall
determine if further proceedings under this Act are
necessary.
(3) Proceeding parties in further proceedings.--
(A) In general.--In any further proceeding ordered by the
Electronic Payment System Judges under paragraph (2)(C),
there shall be only 2 proceeding parties, 1 consisting of all
providers of the covered electronic payment system and the
other consisting of all merchants that have access to or seek
access to the covered electronic payment system. Each
proceeding party shall bear its own costs. A provider of a
covered electronic payment system or a merchant that has
access to or seeks access to the covered electronic payment
system may choose not to participate in the proceeding as a
member of a proceeding party, but unless such provider or
merchant executes a voluntarily negotiated access agreement,
such provider or merchant shall be bound by the determination
of the Electronic Payment System Judges with regard to the
fees and terms for access to the covered electronic payment
system.
(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph may be
construed to prohibit the proceeding parties or any members
thereof in a proceeding under subparagraph (A) from
negotiating and entering into a voluntarily negotiated access
agreement at any other time.
(4) Regulations.--
(A) Authorization.--
(i) In general.--The Electronic Payment System Judges may
issue regulations to carry out the duties of the Electronic
Payment System Judges under this Act. All regulations issued
by the Electronic Payment System Judges are subject to the
approval of the Attorney General and the Chairman. Not later
than 120 days after the date on which all Electronic Payment
System Judges are appointed under section 4(h)(1), the
Electronic Payment System Judges shall issue regulations to
govern proceedings under this subsection. In setting these
regulations, the Electronic Payment System Judges shall
consider the regulations issued by the Copyright Royalty
Judges under section 803(b)(6) of title 17, United States
Code.
(ii) Scope.--The regulations issued under clause (i) shall
include regulations regarding the procedures described in
subparagraph (B).
(B) Procedures.--
(i) Written direct statements.--The written direct
statements of the proceeding parties shall be filed by a date
specified by the Electronic Payment System Judges, which may
be not earlier than 4 months, and not later than 5 months,
after the end of the voluntary negotiation period under
paragraph (2). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the
Electronic Payment System Judges may allow a proceeding party
to file an amended written direct statement based on new
information received during the discovery process, not later
than 15 days after the end of the discovery period specified
in clause (ii).
(ii) Discovery schedule.--Following the submission to the
Electronic Payment System Judges of written direct statements
by the proceeding parties, the Electronic Payment System
Judges shall meet with the proceeding parties to set a
schedule for conducting and completing discovery. Such
schedule shall be determined by the Electronic Payment System
Judges. Discovery in such proceedings shall be permitted for
a period of not longer than 60 days, except for discovery
ordered by the Electronic Payment System Judges in connection
with the resolution of motions, orders, and disputes pending
at the end of such period.
(iii) Initial disclosures.--
(I) In general.--In a proceeding under this Act to
determine fees and terms for access to a covered electronic
payment system, certain persons shall make initial
disclosures not later than 30 days after the date of
commencement of the proceeding, in accordance with this
clause.
(II) Issuers, acquirers, and owners.--Any person who is 1
of the 10 largest issuers for a covered electronic payment
system in terms of number of cards issued, any person who is
1 of the 10 largest acquirers for a covered electronic
payment system based on dollar amount of transactions made by
merchants they serve, and any person who owns or controls the
relevant covered electronic payment system and establishes
the terms and conditions through which issuers and acquirers
participate in the covered electronic payment system, shall
produce to the Electronic Payment System Judges and to both
proceedings parties--
(aa) an itemized list of the costs necessary to operate the
covered electronic payment system that were incurred by the
person during the most recent full calendar year before the
initiation of the proceeding; and
(bb) any access agreement between that person and 1 or more
merchants with regard to that covered electronic payment
system.
(III) Merchants.--Any person who is 1 of the 10 largest
merchants using the relevant
[[Page 14324]]
covered electronic payment system, determined based on dollar
amount of transactions made with the covered electronic
payment system, shall produce to the Electronic Payment
System Judges and to both proceeding parties--
(aa) an itemized list of the costs necessary to access the
electronic payment system during the most recent full
calendar year prior to the initiation of the proceeding; and
(bb) any access agreement between that person and 1 or more
providers with regard to that covered electronic payment
system.
(IV) Disagreement.--Any disagreement regarding whether a
person is required to make an initial disclosure under this
clause, or the contents of such a disclosure, shall be
resolved by the Electronic Payment System Judges.
(iv) Depositions.--
(I) In general.--In a proceeding under this Act to
determine fees and terms for access to a covered electronic
payment system, each proceeding party shall be permitted to
take depositions of every witness identified by the other
proceeding party. Except as provided in subclause (III), each
proceeding party also shall be permitted to take 5 additional
depositions in the entire proceeding.
(II) Organizational entities.--A deposition notice or
subpoena may name as the deponent a person who is an
individual or a person who is not an individual. Such
deposition notice or subpoena shall describe with reasonable
particularity the matters on which examination is requested.
If the deposition notice or subpoena names a person who is
not an individual, the deponent person so named shall
designate 1 or more officers, directors, or managing agents,
or other individual persons who consent to testify on behalf
of the deponent person, and may set forth, for each
individual person designated, the matters on which the
individual person will testify. A subpoena shall advise a
nonparty deponent person of the duty of the deponent person
to make such a designation. An individual person designated
under this subclause shall testify as to matters known or
reasonably available to the deponent person.
(III) Additional depositions.--The Electronic Payment
System Judges may increase the permitted number of
depositions for good cause in exceptional circumstances, and
shall resolve any disputes among persons within either
proceeding party regarding the allocation of the depositions
permitted under this clause.
(v) Written discovery.--In a proceeding under this Act to
determine fees and terms for access to a covered electronic
payment system, each proceeding party shall be permitted to
serve written discovery requests on 10 persons. These written
discovery requests may include requests for production or
inspection, a total of no more than 10 requests for admission
in the entire proceeding, and a total of no more than 25
interrogatories in the entire proceeding. The Electronic
Payment System Judges may increase the permitted number of
requests for admission or interrogatories for good cause in
exceptional circumstances, and shall resolve any disputes
among persons within either proceeding party regarding the
allocation of the requests for admission or interrogatories
permitted under this clause.
(vi) Subpoenas.--Upon the request of a party to a
proceeding to determine fees and terms for access to a
covered electronic payment system, the Electronic Payment
System Judges may issue a subpoena commanding a person to
appear and give testimony, or to produce and permit
inspection of documents or tangible things, if the resolution
of the proceeding by the Electronic Payment System Judges may
be substantially impaired by the absence of such testimony or
production of documents or tangible things. A subpoena under
this clause shall specify with reasonable particularity the
materials to be produced or the scope and nature of the
required testimony. Nothing in this clause shall preclude the
Electronic Payment System Judges from requesting the
production by a person of information or materials relevant
to the resolution by the Electronic Payment System Judges of
a material issue of fact.
(vii) Objections to discovery requests.--
(I) In general.--Any objection to a request or subpoena
under clause (v) or (vi) shall be resolved by a motion or
request to compel production made to the Electronic Payment
System Judges in accordance with regulations adopted by the
Electronic Payment System Judges. Each motion or request to
compel discovery shall be determined by the Electronic
Payment System Judges, or by an Electronic Payment System
Judge when permitted under subsection (a)(2). Upon such
motion or request to compel discovery, the Electronic Payment
System Judges may order discovery under regulations
established under this paragraph.
(II) Considerations.--In determining whether discovery will
be granted under this clause, the Electronic Payment System
Judges may consider--
(aa) whether the burden or expense of producing the
requested information or materials outweighs the likely
benefit, taking into account the needs and resources of the
proceeding parties, the importance of the issues at stake,
and the probative value of the requested information or
materials in resolving such issues;
(bb) whether the requested information or materials would
be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or are obtainable
from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
or less expensive; and
(cc) whether the proceeding party seeking discovery has had
ample opportunity by discovery in the proceeding or by other
means to obtain the information sought.
(viii) Voluntarily negotiated access agreements.--In
proceedings to determine fees and terms for access to a
covered electronic payment system, the Electronic Payment
System Judges shall make available to the proceeding parties
all documents filed under section 3(c)(1).
(ix) Settlement conference.--The Electronic Payment System
Judges shall order a settlement conference between the
proceeding parties to facilitate the presentation of offers
of settlement between the parties. The settlement conference
shall be held during the 21-day period beginning on the date
on which the discovery period ends and shall take place
outside the presence of the Electronic Payment System Judges.
(x) Direct and rebuttal hearings.--At the conclusion of the
21-day period described in clause (ix), the Electronic
Payment System Judges shall determine if further proceedings
under this Act are necessary. If the Electronic Payment
System Judges determine further proceedings under this Act
are necessary, the Electronic Payment System Judges shall
schedule a direct hearing of not more than 30 court days and
a rebuttal hearing of not more than 20 court days during
which both proceeding parties will be allowed to offer
witness testimony and documents.
(xi) Sponsoring witnesses.--No evidence, including
exhibits, may be submitted in the written direct statement or
written rebuttal statement of a proceeding party without a
sponsoring witness, except for--
(I) requests for admission that have been admitted by the
receiving proceeding party;
(II) evidence of which the Electronic Payment System Judges
have taken official notice;
(III) incorporation by reference of past records; or
(IV) good cause shown.
(xii) Hearsay.--Hearsay may be admitted in proceedings
under this Act to the extent determined relevant and reliable
by the Electronic Payment System Judges.
(xiii) Applicability of the federal rules of evidence.--To
the extent not inconsistent with this subparagraph, the
Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to proceedings under
this Act.
(5) Penalties for failure to comply with a discovery
request.--
(A) Failure to comply.--A person has failed to comply with
a discovery request if the person, or an employee or agent of
the person, fails, without substantial justification, to--
(i) make initial disclosures required under paragraph
(4)(B)(iii);
(ii) be sworn or answer a question as a deponent after
being directed to do so by the Electronic Payment System
Judges under clause (iv) or (vi) of paragraph (4)(B);
(iii) answer an interrogatory submitted under paragraph
(4)(B)(v);
(iv) produce nonprivileged documents requested under clause
(v) or (vi) of paragraph (4)(B); or
(v) admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of
any matter as requested under paragraph (4)(B)(v), and the
person requesting the admissions thereafter proves the
genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter.
(B) False or misleading responses.--For purposes of this
Act, any disclosure, answer, or response that is false or
substantially misleading, evasive, or incomplete shall be
deemed a failure to comply with a discovery request.
(C) Negative inference in current proceeding.--If any
person fails to comply with a discovery request, the
Electronic Payment System Judges may issue an order that the
matters regarding which the order was made or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the current proceeding in accordance with the
claim of the proceeding party seeking discovery and obtaining
the order.
(D) Civil penalty.--
(i) Generally.--Any person who fails to comply with a
discovery request under this Act shall be subject to a civil
penalty, which shall be assessed by the Electronic Payment
System Judges, of not more than $25,000 for each violation.
Each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(ii) Notice and hearings.--No civil penalty may be assessed
under this subparagraph except under an order of the
Electronic Payment System Judges and unless the person
accused of the violation was given prior notice and
opportunity to request and participate in a hearing before
the Electronic Payment System Judges with respect to the
violation.
(iii) Determining amount.--In determining the amount of any
penalty assessed under this subparagraph, the Electronic
Payment System Judges shall take into account the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of
[[Page 14325]]
the violation or violations and, with respect to the
violator, ability to pay, any prior history of such
violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or
savings (if any) resulting from the violation, and such other
matters as justice may require.
(iv) Review.--Any person who requested a hearing with
respect to a civil penalty under this subparagraph and who is
aggrieved by an order assessing the civil penalty may file a
petition for judicial review of such order with the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Such a petition may be filed not later than 30 days after the
date on which the order making such assessment was issued.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit shall have jurisdiction to enter a judgment
affirming, modifying, or setting aside in whole or in part,
an order of the Electronic Payment System Judges under this
subparagraph, or the court may remand the proceeding to the
Electronic Payment System Judges for such further action as
the court may direct. The Attorney General shall represent
the Electronic Payment System Judges before the court.
(v) Enforcement.--If any person fails to pay an assessment
of a civil penalty after the civil penalty has become a final
and unappealable order or after the appropriate court has
entered final judgment, the Electronic Payment System Judges
shall request the Attorney General to institute a civil
action in an appropriate district court of the United States
to collect the penalty, and such court shall have
jurisdiction to hear and decide any such action. In hearing
such action, the court shall have authority to review the
violation and the assessment of the civil penalty on the
record.
(c) Determination of Electronic Payment System Judges.--
(1) Timing.--The Electronic Payment System Judges shall
issue a determination in a proceeding not later than the
earlier of--
(A) 11 months after the end of the 21-day settlement
conference period under subsection (b)(4)(B)(ix); or
(B) 15 days before the date on which the fees and terms in
effect for the relevant covered electronic payment system
expire.
(2) Determination.--
(A) Filing of final offer.--Before the commencement of a
direct hearing in a proceeding under subsection (b)(4)(B)(x),
each proceeding party shall file with the Electronic Payment
System Judges and with the other proceeding party a final
offer of fees and terms for access to the covered electronic
payment system. A proceeding party may not amend a final
offer submitted under this subparagraph, except with the
express consent of the Electronic Payment System Judges and
the other proceeding party.
(B) Selection between final offers.--After the conclusion
of the direct hearing and rebuttal hearing, the Electronic
Payment System Judges shall make their determination by
selecting 1 of the 2 final offers filed by the proceeding
parties. The Electronic Payment System Judges shall make
their selection in accordance with the standards described in
section 3(c)(3)(C).
(C) Voting and dissenting opinions.--A final determination
of the Electronic Payment System Judges in a proceeding under
this Act shall be made by majority vote. An Electronic
Payment System Judge dissenting from the majority on any
determination under this Act may issue a dissenting opinion,
which shall be included with the determination.
(3) Rehearings.--
(A) In general.--The Electronic Payment System Judges may,
in exceptional cases, upon motion of a proceeding party,
order a rehearing, after the determination in the proceeding
is issued under paragraph (2), on such matters as the
Electronic Payment System Judges determine to be appropriate.
(B) Timing for filing motion.--Any motion for a rehearing
under subparagraph (A) shall be filed not later than 15 days
after the date on which the Electronic Payment System Judges
deliver to the parties in the proceeding their initial
determination concerning fees and terms.
(C) Participation by opposing party not required.--In any
case in which a rehearing is ordered under this paragraph,
any opposing proceeding party shall not be required to
participate in the rehearing, except that nonparticipation
may give rise to the limitations with respect to judicial
review provided for in subsection (d)(1).
(D) No negative inference.--The Electronic Payment System
Judges may not draw a negative inference from lack of
participation in a rehearing.
(E) Continuity of fees and terms.--
(i) In general.--If the decision of the Electronic Payment
System Judges on any motion for a rehearing is not rendered
before the expiration of the fees and terms in effect for the
relevant covered electronic payment system, in the case of a
proceeding to determine successor fees and terms for fees and
terms that expire on a specified date, the initial
determination of the Electronic Payment System Judges that is
the subject of the rehearing motion shall be effective as of
the day following the date on which the fees and terms that
were previously in effect expire.
(ii) Fee payments.--The pendency of a motion for a
rehearing under this paragraph shall not relieve a person
obligated to make fee payments for access to a covered
electronic payment system who would be affected by the
determination on that motion from paying the fees required
and complying with the terms under the relevant
determination.
(iii) Overpayments and underpayments.--Notwithstanding
clause (ii), if fees described in clause (ii) are paid--
(I) the recipient of such fees shall, not later than 60
days after the date on which the motion for rehearing is
resolved or, if the motion is granted, 60 days after the date
on which the rehearing is concluded, return any excess fees
described in clause (ii), to the extent necessary to comply
with the final determination by the Electronic Payment System
Judges of fees and terms for access to the covered electronic
payment system; and
(II) a person obligated to make fee payments shall, not
later than 60 days after the date on which the motion for
rehearing is resolved or, if the motion is granted, 60 days
after the date on which the rehearing is concluded, pay the
recipient the amount of any underpayment of fees described in
clause (ii), to the extent necessary to comply with the final
determination by the Electronic Payment System Judges of fees
and terms for access to the covered electronic payment
system.
(4) Contents of determination.--A determination of the
Electronic Payment System Judges shall establish the fees and
terms for access to the relevant covered electronic payment
system, shall be supported by the written record, and shall
set forth the findings of fact relied on by the Electronic
Payment System Judges. The Electronic Payment System Judges
shall make publicly available in their entirety all
determinations issued under this paragraph.
(5) Continuing jurisdiction.--The Electronic Payment System
Judges may, with the approval of the Attorney General and the
Chairman, issue an amendment to a written determination to
correct any technical or clerical errors in the determination
in response to unforeseen circumstances that would frustrate
the proper implementation of such determination. Such
amendment shall be set forth in a written addendum to the
determination that shall be distributed to the proceeding
parties and shall be published in the Federal Register.
(6) Protective order.--The Electronic Payment System Judges
may issue such orders as may be appropriate to protect
confidential information, including orders excluding
confidential information from the record of the determination
that is published or made available to the public, except
that any fees and terms of an access agreement, including
voluntarily negotiated access agreements filed under section
3(c)(1), may not be excluded from publication.
(7) Publication of determination.--Not later than 60 days
after the date on which the Electronic Payment System Judges
issue a determination under this subsection, the Attorney
General and the Chairman shall cause the determination, and
any corrections thereto, to be published in the Federal
Register. The Electronic Payment System Judges also shall
publicize the determination and any corrections in such other
manner as the Attorney General and the Chairman consider
appropriate, including publication on the Internet. The
Electronic Payment System Judges also shall make the
determination, corrections, and the accompanying record
available for public inspection and copying.
(8) Late payment.--A determination of Electronic Payment
System Judges--
(A) may include terms with respect to late payment; and
(B) may not include any provision in such terms described
in subparagraph (A) that prevents a provider of a covered
electronic payment system from asserting other rights or
remedies provided under this Act.
(d) Judicial Review.--
(1) Appeal.--Any determination of the Electronic Payment
System Judges under subsection (c) may, not later than 30
days after the date of publication of the determination in
the Federal Register, be appealed, to the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by any
aggrieved member of a proceeding party under this Act who
would be bound by the determination. Any proceeding party
that did not participate in a rehearing may not raise any
issue that was the subject of that rehearing at any stage of
judicial review of the hearing determination. If no appeal is
brought within the 30-day period under this paragraph, the
determination of the Electronic Payment System Judges shall
be final, and shall take effect as described in paragraph
(2).
(2) Effect of fees and terms.--
(A) Fee payments.--The pendency of an appeal under this
subsection shall not relieve a person obligated to make fee
payments for access to a covered electronic payment system
who would be affected by the determination on appeal from
paying the fees required and complying with the terms under
the relevant determination or regulations.
(B) Overpayments and underpayments.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), if fees described in subparagraph (A) are
paid--
[[Page 14326]]
(i) the recipient of such fees shall, not later than 60
days after the date on which the appeal is resolved return
any excess fees described in subparagraph (A) (and interest
thereon, if ordered under paragraph (3)), to the extent
necessary to comply with the final determination of fees and
terms on appeal; and
(ii) a person obligated to make fee payments shall, not
later than 60 days after the date on which the appeal is
resolved, pay the recipient the amount of any underpayment of
fees described in subparagraph (A) (and interest thereon, if
ordered under paragraph (3)), to the extent necessary to
comply with the final determination of fees and terms on
appeal.
(3) Jurisdiction of court.--If the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, under section
706 of title 5, United States Code, modifies or vacates a
determination of the Electronic Payment System Judges, the
court may enter its own determination with respect to the
amount or distribution of fees and costs, and order the
repayment of any excess fees, the payment of any underpaid
fees, and the payment of interest pertaining respectively
thereto, in accordance with its final judgment. The court
also may vacate the determination of the Electronic Payment
System Judges and remand the case to the Electronic Payment
System Judges for further proceedings.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this Act.
SEC. 6. INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ELECTRONIC PAYMENT
SYSTEM JUDGES.
(a) Initial Proceedings.--
(1) Timing.--Proceedings under this Act shall be commenced
as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this
Act to establish fees and terms for access to covered
electronic payment systems under section 3(c), which shall be
effective during the period beginning on January 1, 2011, and
ending on December 31, 2012. The Electronic Payment System
Judges shall cause notice of commencement of such proceedings
to be published in the Federal Register.
(2) Procedures specific to the initial proceedings.--
(A) Discovery period.--Notwithstanding section
5(b)(4)(B)(ii), discovery in the initial proceedings
described in paragraph (1) shall be permitted for a period of
90 days, except for discovery ordered by the Electronic
Payment System Judges in connection with the resolution of
motions, orders, and disputes pending at the end of such
period.
(B) Consideration of changes in fees and terms between date
of enactment and initial determination.--In establishing the
fees and terms under section 3(c) for access to covered
electronic payment systems, to be effective during the period
beginning on January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31,
2012, the Electronic Payment System Judges shall consider
changes in fees and terms made by a covered electronic
payments system between the date of enactment of this Act and
such initial determination. Based upon such consideration,
the Electronic Payment System Judges may adjust the fees
established for the period beginning on January 1, 2011, and
ending on December 31, 2012, to reflect the economic impact
such changes had on the parties.
(b) Subsequent Proceedings.--After completion of the
proceedings required under subsection (a), proceedings under
section 3(c) to establish fees and terms for access to
covered electronic payment systems shall be commenced in
2011, and every 3 years thereafter.
SEC. 7. GENERAL RULE FOR VOLUNTARILY NEGOTIATED ACCESS
AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any fees or terms described in subsection
(b) shall remain in effect for such period of time as would
otherwise apply to fees and terms established under this Act,
except that the Electronic Payment System Judges shall adjust
any such fees to reflect inflation during any additional
period the fees remain in effect beyond that contemplated in
the voluntarily negotiated access agreement.
(b) Fees and Terms.--The fees or terms described in this
subsection are fees or terms for access to a covered
electronic payment system under this Act that--
(1) are agreed upon as part of a voluntarily negotiated
access agreement for a period shorter than would otherwise
apply under a determination under this Act; and
(2) are adopted by the Electronic Payment System Judges as
part of a determination under this Act.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 1213. 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 Patient-Centered
Outcomes Research Trust Fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, America spent $2.4 trillion on
health care. That is 1/6 of our economy. Yet we ranked last among major
industrialized nations in the Commonwealth Fund's National Scorecard on
Health System Performance, which ranks the number of deaths that could
be prevented before age 75 through effective health care.
Some analysts estimate that as much as 30 percent of our spending is
for ineffective, redundant, or inappropriate care. That's care that
does nothing to improve the health of Americans.
Our system also leaves nearly 50 million Americans without health
coverage and 25 million more with inadequate coverage. Most
bankruptcies and foreclosures in America are related to medical costs.
Our system needs reform.
Today, along with Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Budget
Committee, I am proud to introduce a bill that would improve health
care in America by helping doctors and patients to make better, more-
informed health care decisions.
This legislation would increase the chances that Americans receive
the right care. This bill would provide for research that can help
physicians and patients know more about what works best in medicine,
and what does not.
Some patients, receive medical treatments that work well. Some
patients receive treatments that do not. In many cases, doctors simply
don't have enough reliable evidence to decide which treatments are best
for which patients.
Rapid innovation and advancements in medicine have 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, both patients and
physicians can face great difficulty in choosing among treatment
options.
Patients and physicians need more credible information about how
treatments for a specific condition compare to each other. Today, the
vast majority of medical information shows how treatments work compared
to placebos. Most medical information does not show how treatments work
compared to each other.
For example, men with prostate cancer have a choice among 3 common
treatments surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Each approach yields
different outcomes in terms of survival, ability to return to work, and
other measures of quality of life.
Comparative effectiveness research would compare each approach in a
systematic way. That way, doctors and patients would have more
information about how options work, and for whom. The bill that I
introduce today would do just that.
This bill would facilitate comparisons across a broad spectrum of
health care interventions and health care strategies that are used to
prevent, treat, diagnose and manage health conditions. By evaluating
and comparing what works best, patients and providers can make more
informed decisions about care.
More specifically, this bill would create a nonprofit institute that
would be responsible for setting national health care research
priorities. The institute, called the Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute, would be a private entity. It would be governed by
a multi-stakeholder, public-private sector Board of Governors. It would
not be an agency of the Federal Government.
Keeping the Institute a private, nonprofit entity would shelter it
from potential political influence from both the executive and
legislative branches of Government. The independence and expertise of
the Institute would result in more credible and more useful research
for Americans.
The Institute would set national priorities for comparative
effectiveness research and facilitate studies that would help to answer
the most pressing questions about what works, and what doesn't.
The Institute would have the authority to contract with experienced
Federal agencies--such as the National Institutes of Health and the
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, or with private
researchers--to carry out the actual research. The Institute would also
be responsible for disseminating the findings of the research in
[[Page 14327]]
ways that make sense to both patients and providers.
The Institute's work would not happen behind closed doors. The bill
would provide opportunities for public input and scientific review of
the integrity of the research being conducted. The Institute's meetings
would be accessible to the public, and open forums would help to
solicit and obtain input on the Institute's activities and agenda.
Also, public comment periods would be made available to discuss
research findings.
The Institute's work would benefit all Americans who receive health
care. So both public and private payers would fund the Institute. After
an initial investment from general revenues, the Institute would be
funded by an all-payer system, drawing from both public and private
sources.
Comparative effectiveness research would not be the ultimate decision
maker. Instead, it would provide an additional tool to improve health
quality. The Institute would be a health care resource, a scientific
entity, a source of knowledge, and a provider of information.
According to the Institute of Medicine, this research would provide
better evidence--objective information--so that doctors and patients
could make better decisions.
If we are truly to reform our health care system, then we must get
more evidence into the hands of the people making medical decisions.
This research is not only about reducing health care costs. It is
focused on addressing significant gaps in knowledge.
It is not just the academics and economists who agree. Patient
advocates like the National Breast Cancer Coalition, provider groups
like the American Medical Association, and consumer groups like AARP
can see the benefits of this research quite clearly. They have all
extended their support.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made a significant
investment towards this type of research. But that was just a first
step. We must ensure that this research will be sustained in the years
to come.
From cars to toasters, Americans are able to readily view and
evaluate information about the quality and effectiveness of so many of
the items that they buy. It seems only logical that they should have
information on what works and what does not when it comes to their
health, especially with one in every 6 of this country's dollars leing
spent on health care.
It is time for Americans and their doctors to be wield the world's
most advanced science, so that the most personal health care decisions,
like so many of the other decisions we make, are made with access to
the best available information.
I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.
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. 1213
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 ``Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Act of 2009''.
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, care management, and delivery, procedures, medical
devices, diagnostic tools, pharmaceuticals (including drugs
and biologicals), and any other strategies or items being
used in the treatment, management, 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 for specific patient populations.
``(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 `Patient-
Centered Outcomes Research Institute' established under
subsection (b)(1).
``(b) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is authorized to be established
a nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``Patient-
Centered Outcomes 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 2010 and each subsequent fiscal year, amounts in
the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (referred
to in this section as the `PCORTF') 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 assist
patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers in making
informed health decisions by advancing the quality and
relevance of evidence concerning the manner in which
diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can
effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed,
treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence
synthesis that considers variations in patient
subpopulations, and the dissemination of research findings
with respect to the relative clinical outcomes, clinical
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;
``(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;
``(vi) the effect or potential for an effect on patient
needs, outcomes, and preferences, including quality of life;
and
``(vii) the relevance to assisting patients and clinicians
in making informed health decisions.
``(B) Establishing research project agenda.--
``(i) In general.--The Institute shall establish and update
a research project agenda for comparative clinical
effectiveness research to address the priorities identified
under subparagraph (A), taking into consideration the types
of such 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 the
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 (10), using methods, including the following:
``(i) Systematic reviews and assessments of existing
research and evidence.
[[Page 14328]]
``(ii) Primary research, such as randomized clinical
trials, molecularly informed trials, and observational
studies.
``(iii) Any other methodologies recommended by the
methodology committee established under paragraph (7) that
are adopted by the Board under paragraph (10).
``(B) Contracts for the management and conduct of
research.--
``(i) In general.--The Institute may enter into contracts
for the management and conduct of research in accordance with
the research project agenda established under paragraph
(1)(B) with the following:
``(I) 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, to the extent that such
contracts are authorized under the governing statutes of such
agencies and instrumentalities.
``(II) Appropriate private sector research or study-
conducting entities that have demonstrated the experience and
capacity to achieve the goals of comparative effectiveness
research.
``(ii) 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 (10) with respect to such research;
``(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; and
``(IV) in the case where the agency, instrumentality, or
other entity is managing or conducting a comparative
effectiveness research study for a rare disease, consult with
the expert advisory panel for rare disease appointed under
paragraph (5)(A)(iii) with respect to such research study.
``(iii) 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.
``(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, evolving evidence, advances
in medical technology, and changes in the standard of care 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,
age, and groups of individuals with different comorbidities,
genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life
preferences; and
``(ii) include members of such subpopulations as subjects
in the research as feasible and appropriate.
``(E) Differences in treatment modalities.--Research shall
be designed, as appropriate, to take into account different
characteristics of treatment modalities that may affect
research outcomes, such as the phase of the treatment
modality in the innovation cycle and the impact of the skill
of the operator of the treatment modality.
``(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,
including data from clinical databases and registries.
``(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 expert advisory panels.--
``(A) Appointment.--
``(i) In general.--The Institute shall, as appropriate,
appoint expert advisory panels to assist in identifying
research priorities and establishing the research project
agenda under paragraph (1). Panels shall advise the Institute
in matters such as identifying gaps in and updating medical
evidence 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.
``(ii) Expert advisory panels for primary research.--The
Institute shall appoint expert advisory panels in carrying
out the research project agenda under paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
Such expert advisory panels shall, upon request, advise the
Institute and the agency, instrumentality, or entity
conducting the research on the research question involved and
the research design or protocol, including the appropriate
comparator technologies, important patient subgroups, and
other parameters of the research, as necessary. Upon the
request of such agency, instrumentality, or entity, such
panels shall be available as a resource for technical
questions that may arise during the conduct of such research.
``(iii) Expert advisory panel for rare disease.--In the
case of a comparative effectiveness research study for rare
disease, the Institute shall appoint an expert advisory panel
for purposes of assisting in the design of such research
study and determining the relative value and feasibility of
conducting such research study.
``(B) Composition.--
``(i) In general.--An expert advisory panel appointed under
subparagraph (A) shall include individuals who have
experience in the relevant topic, project, or category for
which the panel is established, including--
``(I) practicing and research clinicians (including
relevant specialists and subspecialists), patients, and
representatives of patients; and
``(II) experts in scientific and health services research,
health services delivery, and evidence-based medicine.
``(ii) Inclusion of representatives of manufacturers of
medical technology.--An expert advisory panel appointed under
subparagraph (A) may include a representative of each
manufacturer of each medical technology that is included
under the relevant topic, project, or category for which the
panel is established.
``(6) Supporting patient and consumer representatives.--The
Institute shall provide support and resources to help patient
and consumer representatives on the Board and expert advisory
panels appointed by the Institute under paragraph (5) to
effectively participate in technical discussions regarding
complex research topics. Such support shall include initial
and continuing education to facilitate effective engagement
in activities undertaken by the Institute and may include
regular and ongoing opportunities for patient and consumer
representatives to interact with each other and to exchange
information and support regarding their involvement in the
Institute's activities. The Institute shall provide per diem
and other appropriate compensation to patient and consumer
representatives for their time spent participating in the
activities of the Institute under this paragraph.
``(7) 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.--The methodology
committee established under subparagraph (A) shall be
composed of not more than 17 members appointed 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,
genomics, 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 and methods of comparative effectiveness research by
undertaking, directly or through subcontract, the following
activities:
``(i) Not later than 2 years after the date on which the
members of the methodology committee are appointed under
subparagraph (B), developing and periodically updating the
following:
``(I) Establish and maintain methodological standards for
comparative clinical effectiveness research on major
categories of interventions to prevent, diagnose, or treat a
clinical condition or improve the delivery of care. Such
methodological standards shall provide specific criteria for
internal validity, generalizability, feasibility, and
timeliness of such research and for clinical outcomes
measures, risk adjustment, and other relevant aspects of
research and assessment with respect to the design of such
research. Any methodological standards developed and updated
under this subclause shall be scientifically based and
include methods by which new information, data, or advances
in technology are considered and incorporated
[[Page 14329]]
into ongoing research projects by the Institute, as
appropriate. The process for developing and updating such
standards shall include input from relevant experts,
stakeholders, and decision makers, and shall provide
opportunities for public comment. Such standards shall also
include methods by which patient subpopulations can be
accounted for and evaluated in different types of research.
As appropriate, such standards shall build on existing work
on methodological standards for defined categories of health
interventions and for each of the major categories of
comparative effectiveness research methods (determined as of
the date of enactment of the Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Act of 2009).
``(II) A translation table that is designed to provide
guidance and act as a reference for the Board to determine
research methods that are most likely to address each
specific comparative clinical effectiveness research
question.
``(ii) Not later than 3 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, information
communication, 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 efficiency and value (including the
full range of harms and benefits, such as quality of life)
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.
``(IV) Academic, non-profit, or other private entities with
relevant expertise.
``(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.
``(8) Providing for a peer-review process for primary
research.--
``(A) In general.--The Institute shall ensure that there is
a process for peer review of the research conducted under
paragraph (2)(A)(ii). Under such process--
``(i) evidence from research conducted under such paragraph
shall be reviewed to assess scientific integrity and
adherence to methodological standards adopted under paragraph
(10); 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 (12)(D).
``(B) Composition.--Such peer-review process shall be
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.--
``(i) Processes of another entity.--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).
``(ii) Processes of appropriate medical journals.--The
Institute may utilize the peer-review process of appropriate
medical journals if such process meets the requirements under
subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(9) 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 (10). 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, coverage
recommendations, 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 timely decisions regarding medical treatments,
services, and items. In developing and adopting such
protocols and strategies, the Institute shall consult with
stakeholders, including practicing clinicians and patients,
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 or
assessment.
``(10) 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 (7)(C)(i), any peer-review process provided
under paragraph (8), and dissemination protocols and
strategies developed under paragraph (9)(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.
``(11) 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 methodologies, including research training and
development of data resources (such as clinical registries),
through appropriate activities, including using up to 20
percent of the amounts appropriated or credited to the PCORTF
under section 9511(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
with respect to a fiscal year to fund extramural efforts of
organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration (or a
successor organization) and other organizations that develop
and maintain a data network to collect, link, and analyze
data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources,
including electronic health records.
``(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 (12)(E).
``(12) 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 PCORTF 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 (9)(B), and
methodological standards developed and updated by the
methodology committee under paragraph (7)(C)(i) that are
adopted under paragraph (10) during the preceding year;
``(D) the names of individuals contributing to any peer-
review process provided under paragraph (8) during the
preceding year or years, in a manner such that those
individuals cannot be identified with a particular research
project; and
[[Page 14330]]
``(E) a description of efforts by the Institute under
paragraph (11) 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, expert advisory panels
appointed under paragraph (5), the methodology committee
established under paragraph (7), and the executive staff of
the Institute, any conflicts of interest with respect to the
members of such Board, expert 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)(10) 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
diagnostic 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;
``(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 expert advisory panel
appointed under subsection (d)(5), members of the methodology
committee established under subsection (d)(7), and
individuals selected to contribute to any peer-review process
under subsection (d)(8); 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 through public notice at least 7 days
prior to the meeting.
``(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
[[Page 14331]]
``(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 PCORTF 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, or whether other sources of funding not described
in clauses (i) through (iii) would be appropriate:
``(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 PCORTF under section 1183.
``(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 45 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)(7)(C)(i), the
peer-review process generally provided under subsection
(d)(8), and dissemination protocols and strategies developed
by the Institute under subsection (d)(9)(B) in accordance
with subsection (d)(10).
``(ii) Prior to the finalization of individual study
designs.
``(iii) After the release of draft findings with respect to
a systematic review and assessment of existing research and
evidence under subsection (d)(2)(A)(i).
``(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 input and feedback through media (such as
an Internet website) on the following:
``(A) The identification of research priorities, including
research topics, 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) with respect to each medical treatment, service,
and item described in subsection (a)(2)(B);
``(v) any key decisions made by the Institute and any
appropriate committees of the Institute;
``(vi) the identity of investigators conducting such
research and any conflicts of interest of such investigators;
and
``(vii) any progress reports the Institute determines
appropriate.
``(B) Notice of each of the public comment periods under
paragraph (1)(A), including deadlines for public comments for
such periods.
``(C) Public comments submitted during each of the public
comment periods under paragraph (1)(A), including such public
comments submitted on draft findings under clause (iii) of
such paragraph.
``(D) Bylaws, processes, and proceedings of the Institute,
to the extent practicable and as the Institute determines
appropriate.
``(E) 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 expert advisory panel
under subsection (d)(5) and the methodology committee under
subsection (d)(7), and in selecting individuals to contribute
to any peer-review process under subsection (d)(8) 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)(12), 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, or
recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment.
``limitations on use of comparative effectiveness research by the
secretary
``Sec. 1182. The Secretary may only use evidence and
findings from comparative effectiveness research conducted
under section 1181 to make a determination regarding coverage
under title XVIII if such use is through an iterative and
transparent process which meets the following requirements:
``(1) Stakeholders and other individuals have the
opportunity to provide informed and relevant information with
respect to the determination.
``(2) Stakeholders and other individuals have the
opportunity to review draft proposals of the determination
and submit public comments with respect to such draft
proposals.
``(3) In making the determination, the Secretary
considers--
``(A) all other relevant evidence, studies, and research in
addition to such comparative effectiveness research; and
``(B) evidence and research that demonstrates or suggests a
benefit of coverage with respect to a specific subpopulation
of individuals, even if the evidence and findings from the
comparative effectiveness research demonstrates or suggests
that, on average, with respect to the general population the
benefits of coverage do not exceed the harm.
``trust fund transfers to patient-centered outcomes research trust fund
``Sec. 1183. (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 Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Trust Fund (referred to in this section as the
`PCORTF') under section 9511 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, the following:
``(1) For fiscal year 2013, an amount equal to $1
multiplied by the average number of individuals entitled to
benefits under part A,
[[Page 14332]]
or enrolled under part B, of title XVIII during such fiscal
year.
``(2) For each of fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
2018, and 2019, an amount equal to $2 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,
2014, 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
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute established
under section 1181'' before the period at the end.
(c) Patient-Centered Outcomes 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. PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES 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
`Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund' (hereafter in
this section referred to as the `PCORTF'), 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 2010, $10,000,000.
``(B) For fiscal year 2011, $50,000,000.
``(C) For fiscal year 2012, $150,000,000.
``(D) For fiscal year 2013--
``(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) $150,000,000.
``(E) For each of fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
2018, and 2019--
``(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) $150,000,000.
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 PCORTF the amounts transferred under section 1183 of the
Social Security Act.
``(3) American recovery and reinvestment funds.--In
addition to the amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) and
the amounts credited under paragraph (2), of amounts
appropriated for comparative effectiveness research to be
allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under the heading Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality under the heading Department of Health
and Human Services under title VIII of Division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5), $10,000,000 shall be transferred to the Trust Fund.
``(4) Limitation on transfers to pcortf.--No amount may be
appropriated or transferred to the PCORTF on and after the
date of any expenditure from the PCORTF 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 PCORTF.
``(d) Expenditures From Fund.--Amounts in the PCORTF are
available, without further appropriation, to the Patient-
Centered Outcomes Research Institute established by section
2(a) of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Act of 2009
for carrying out part D of title XI of the Social Security
Act (as in effect on the date of enactment of the Patient-
Centered Outcomes Research Act of 2009).
``(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 PCORTF after September 30, 2019, 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. Patient-Centered Outcomes 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, 2012, a fee equal to the product of $2
($1 in the case of policy years ending during fiscal year
2013) 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, 2014, 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, 2019.
``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, 2012, there is hereby imposed a fee equal to $2
($1 in the case of plan years ending during fiscal year 2013)
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--
``(i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more
employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more
employee organizations,
[[Page 14333]]
``(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, 2014, 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, 2019.
``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. COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR
COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
Section 804 of Division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 299b-8) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) provide support to the Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute established under section 1181(b)(1) of
the Social Security Act (referred to in this section as the
`Institute').'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Inclusion of chairperson of the board of governors of
the patient-centered outcomes research institute.--In the
case where the Chairperson of the Board of Governors of the
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute established
under section 1181(f) of the Social Security Act is a senior
Federal officer or employee with responsibility for a health-
related program, the members of the council shall include
such Chairperson.''.
(3) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``regarding its
activities'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``containing--
``(A) an inventory of its activities with respect to
comparative effectiveness research conducted by relevant
Federal departments and agencies; and
``(B) recommendations concerning better coordination of
comparative effectiveness research by such departments and
agencies.'';
(4) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(5) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Coordination With the Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute.--The Council shall coordinate with the
Institute in carrying out its duties under this section.''.
SEC. 4. 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 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Act of 2009. This proposal builds on the legislation we introduced
during the last Congress. Our legislation is the product of months of
careful deliberations regarding the best way to expand the quality and
quantity of evidence available to patients, physicians, and other
health care decision-makers 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. People have come to us with many
constructive suggestions, many of which are reflected in the bill that
we are introducing today. I am proud of the result. This legislation
lays the groundwork for improving health care quality
[[Page 14334]]
and patient 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 17.6 percent of GDP in 2009--
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. Skyrocketing health care costs are hurting families,
businesses, and State and Federal budgets. In a speech before the
Business Roundtable on March 12th, President Obama emphasized this
point: ``Medicare costs are consuming our Federal budget. Medicaid is
overwhelming our State budgets. At the fiscal summit we held in the
White House a few weeks ago, the one thing on which everyone agreed was
that the greatest threat to America's fiscal health is not the
investments we've made to rescue our economy. It is the skyrocketing
cost of our health care system.''
Health care reform is about achieving three important goals: choice,
quality, and affordability. To achieve these three goals, we must
confront the fact that our health care system does not deliver care as
effectively or efficiently as it should. There is widespread agreement
that Americans are not getting good value for the money we are already
spending on health care. According to work by the Dartmouth Atlas
Project, nearly 30 percent of total spending in our health care system,
or $700 billion per year, is wasteful and does nothing to improve
health outcomes.
Despite our high level of health care spending, health outcomes in
the United States are no better than health outcomes in the other OECD
countries. Indeed, the U.S. spends twice as much as other OECD nations
on health care, yet Americans have shorter average life expectancies
and higher average mortality rates than residents of other OECD
countries. OECD data show that the U.S. has one of the highest rates of
medical errors among industrialized nations and that U.S. patients are
more likely to receive duplicate tests and more likely to visit an
emergency room for a condition that could have been treated in a
regular office visit than most other nations in the comparison.
Similarly, a 2008 Commonwealth Fund report found that the U.S. is last
among 19 industrialized nations in preventable mortality, or deaths
that could have been prevented if individuals had access to timely and
effective care.
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
clinical effectiveness of alternative health strategies--and encourage
patients and providers to use that information to make better choices
about their health. Many 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. Generating more
comparative clinical effectiveness research is one of the keys to
transforming our health care system away from a system based on volume
toward a system that focuses on evidence-based medicine and improving
patient outcomes.
The Federal Government currently funds some comparative effectiveness
research through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ,
the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Veterans Health
Administration. For example, the Effective Health Care Program at AHRQ
has been a successful initiative. But comparative effectiveness
research is not the primary focus of any Federal agency--nor is this
Federal funding occurring permanently on a large scale.
Provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
ARRA, temporarily expanded existing Federal efforts by providing $1.1
billion to AHRQ, NIH, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
HHS, for such research through 2010. Important work is currently
underway to develop recommendations for how best to utilize some of
these resources. In particular, I would like to commend the work being
done by the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, to convene a panel of experts
that is tasked with making recommendations on how to spend the $400
million provided to the HHS Secretary through ARRA. The IOM panel has
been doing extraordinary work in gathering ideas and input from a very
broad group of stakeholders under a very tight timeline. I look forward
to seeing the results of its work at the end of the month. It is this
model of allowing for input from a broad set of stakeholders and of
conducting priority-setting activities in a transparent way that we are
hoping to advance in the legislation we are introducing today.
The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, MedPAC, and the 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 report, entitled,
``Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments:
Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role,'' former 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 creating a long-term vision for expanding
comparative clinical 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 patients and physicians with
objective and credible evidence about which health care treatments and
services are most clinically effective for particular patient
populations. The research conducted under our bill would evaluate
[[Page 14335]]
and compare the clinical effectiveness of two or more health care
interventions, protocols for treatment, care management, and delivery,
procedures, medical devices, diagnostic tools, and pharmaceutical,
including biologicals
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 empowering patients
and doctors with information about treatments and services that may be
clinically ineffective, while at the same time improving health care
outcomes and quality.
Specifically, our bill creates a private, nonprofit corporation,
known as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which would
be responsible setting national research priorities and carrying out a
comparative clinical effectiveness research agenda. In conducting the
research, the Institute would contract with AHRQ, the VA, 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 leading experts on this issue, such as MedPAC, have 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 HHS Secretary and the Directors of AHRQ and NIH. The
remaining 18 board members would be appointed by the Comptroller
General of the U.S. and would include a balanced mix of patients,
physicians, public and private payers, academic researchers,
philanthropic organizations, quality improvement entities, and medical
technology manufacturers.
To ensure further credibility, the Institute is also required to
appoint expert advisory panels of patients, clinicians, researchers and
other stakeholders that would assist in the development and carrying
out of the research agenda; establish a methodology committee that
would help create methodological standards by which all research
commissioned by the Institute must be conducted; create a peer review
process through which all primary 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 and focused on the needs of patients.
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 research priorities and
individual study designs. In addition, the bill calls for public forums
to seek input, requires that all proceedings of the Institute be made
public at least seven days in advance and be made 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 $2 per beneficiary annually, and amounts from a $2 fee
per-covered life assessed annually on insured and self-insured health
plans. Funding will ramp up over a series of years. By the 5th year, we
expect the Institute's total annual funding to reach nearly $600
million per year and continue to grow thereafter.
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 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 simply not the case. Our proposal explicitly
prohibits the Institute from making coverage decisions or setting
practice guidelines. It will be up to medical 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 informed
choices.
We have been working with colleagues on the other side of the aisle
who have concerns about the impact this research could have on patient
safety and access to health care treatments and services. For several
months, we have been engaged in an active dialogue to address these
concerns. While I am disappointed that those discussions did not result
in co-sponsorships for this legislation at this time, I look forward to
continuing that dialogue in a constructive manner as we work to include
a long-term vision for comparative effectiveness research in a
comprehensive health reform bill.
In the meantime, we have made a number of meaningful changes to our
legislation that address the concerns voiced by our colleagues. For
example, we have placed a greater focus on aspects of personalized
medicine and included new patient safeguards to ensure that when CMS
uses this research it does so through a process that is transparent,
allows for public comment, and takes into account the benefits to
particular subpopulations.
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
immediately ramp up and sustain a major comparative clinical
effectiveness research initiative 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 as part of a comprehensive health reform bill. I
urge all of my colleagues to join our effort and cosponsor the Patient-
Centered Outcomes Research Act of 2009. There is no time to waste.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bond, Ms. Stabenow,
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1214. A bill to conserve fish and aquatic communities in the
United States through partnerships that foster
[[Page 14336]]
fish habitat conservation, to improve the quality of life for the
people of the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish
Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my
colleagues Senators Bond, Casey, Stabenow, Cardin, Whitehouse, and
Sanders. This legislation will significantly advance ongoing efforts to
restore and protect fish habitat, improve the health of our waterways
and ensure that we have robust fish populations far into the future.
Today, nearly half of our fish populations are in decline and half of
our waters are impaired, which is why it is especially important that
we work together to protect and restore remaining habitat. The National
Fish Habitat Conservation Act will leverage federal, state and private
funds to support voluntary regional conservation partnerships, which in
turn will allow federal and state governments, the recreational and
commercial fishing industries, the conservation community, and
businesses to work together--for the first time--to effectively
conserve aquatic habitats.
Our legislation authorizes $75 million annually for fish habitat
projects. Based on the highly successful North American Wetlands
Conservation Act model, the bill establishes a multi-stakeholder
National Fish Habitat Board to recommend science-based conservation
projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional partners
will then work to implement those conservation projects to protect,
restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations.
The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will go a long way toward
ensuring the viability of our fish and their habitats for generations
to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this
important legislation and reverse the decline of our ailing waterways
and fisheries.
______
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1215. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a
certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fracturing
Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals, FRAC, Act along with my
colleague, Senator Schumer, that protects drinking water and public
health from the risks associated with an oil and gas extraction process
called hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, our bill does two things.
First, it repeals an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act that was
granted to oil and gas companies four years ago. Second, it requires
oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in
hydraulic fracturing.
The regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water
Act is supported by 77 groups, including 14 groups from Pennsylvania.
The oil and gas industry uses hydraulic fracturing in 90 percent of
wells. The process, which is also called ``fracking,'' involves
injecting tens of thousands of gallons of water mixed with sand and
chemical additives deep into the rock under extremely high pressure.
The pressure breaks open the rock releasing trapped natural gas, which
is then captured. Fracking often occurs near underground sources of
drinking water. Unfortunately, a provision included in the 2005 Energy
Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry to
have this exemption.
The Casey-Schumer legislation is extremely important to people living
in Pennsylvania, especially those living in communities along a
geological formation called the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus is a
geological formation covering 34 million acres extending from southern
New York, through central and western Pennsylvania, into the eastern
half of Ohio and across most of West Virginia. The deepest layer of the
Marcellus formation--the Marcellus Shale--contains a significant amount
of natural gas trapped in deep rock formations up to 9,000 feet below
ground. Last year, a professor at Penn State estimated that there was
168 million cubic feet of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. In the
industry it is what is known as a ``Super Giant gas field.'' It is
enough natural gas to provide for the entire country for 7 years. This
vast amount of natural gas combined with a more complete knowledge of
the natural fractures in the Marcellus Shale through which the gas can
be easily extracted, has led to what Pennsylvanians are calling a gas
rush.
As I have mentioned, fracking involves injecting water mixed with
chemicals. My major concern is that the chemicals added to the water to
create fracking fluids are highly toxic. We're talking about chemicals
like formaldehyde, benzene, and toluene. These chemicals are injected
right below underground drinking water. This is especially important to
Pennsylvania because our state has the second highest number of private
wells for drinking water in the nation, second only to Michigan. Three
million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells to provide safe
drinking water to their homes. So massive drilling to get to the
natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is not required to comply with the
Safe Drinking Water Act, but drilling is happening right next to
drinking water supplies. You can see why Pennsylvanians are concerned
about their future access to safe drinking water.
Now, the oil and gas industry would have you believe that there is no
threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. But the fact is we
are already seeing cases in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, West
Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and New Mexico
where residents have become ill or groundwater has become contaminated
after hydraulic fracturing operations began in the area. This is not
simply anecdotal evidence; scientists have found enough evidence to
raise concerns as well. In a recent letter supporting our bill, 23
health professionals and scientists wrote the following:
. . . Oil and gas operations are known to release
substances into the environment that are known to be very
hazardous to human health, including benzene, arsenic,
mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and radioactive materials. The
demonstrated health effects caused by these substances
include cancers, central nervous system damage, skin and eye
irritation, and lung diseases. For example, fluids used in
the hydraulic fracturing process may contain toxic chemicals
such as 2-butoxyethanol, formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide,
glycol ethers, and naphthalene. For these reasons, we support
regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and the disclosure of all chemical constituents in
hydraulic fracturing fluids to public agencies, including the
disclosure of constituent formulas in cases of medical need.
Moreover, we support full regulation of stormwater runoff,
which can pollute drinking water supplies, under the Clean
Water Act.
There are growing reports of individuals living near oil
and gas operations who suffer illnesses that are linked to
these activities, yet there has been no systemic attempt to
gather the necessary data, establish appropriate monitoring,
analyze health exposure or assess risk related to any of
these activities. This should be done, in addition to full
Health Impact Assessments to inform future planning and
policy efforts.
In Dimock, Pennsylvania, we have a recent example of the risks
involved with hydraulic fracturing. On New Year's Day, Norma
Fiorentino's drinking water well exploded. It literally blew up. Stray
methane leaked and migrated upward through the rock and into the
aquifer as natural gas deposits were drilled nearby. An investigation
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shows that a spark created when the
pump in the well house turned on may have led to the explosion. The
blast cracked in half the several-thousand-pound concrete slab at the
drilling pad on Ms. Fiorentino's property and tossed it aside.
Fortunately, no one was hurt in the explosion. But throughout the town,
several drinking water wells have exploded and nine wells have been
found to contain so much natural gas that one homeowner was advised to
open a window if he plans to take a bath. Tests of the well water show
high amounts of aluminum and
[[Page 14337]]
iron, which leads researchers to believe that drilling fluids are
contaminating the water along with the gas. So this is a real concern.
We are talking about serious implications if we don't develop the
Marcellus Shale carefully and responsibly.
I would point out that Pennsylvania has a long history of developing
our natural resources to power the region and the nation. In fact,
Pennsylvania is home to the Drake Well near Titusville, Pennsylvania,
which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. The Drake Well was
the first commercial oil well in the United States and it launched the
modern petroleum industry. In addition to oil, Western Pennsylvania has
long produced natural gas. Pennsylvania also mines coal which we use to
provide electricity to many of our neighboring states. Pennsylvanians
are proud of the contributions we have made to the growth of our
nation. Contributions that were made because we developed our abundant
natural resources. But we also bear the burden of some environmental
legacies, most created in previous generations when we were not as
concerned with responsible development. We have old natural gas wells
that were not capped and leak methane into homes in Versailles, PA. We
have acid mine drainage that we spend millions of dollars every year to
try and remediate. These examples are the lessons from which we need to
learn.
Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. We
are doing it right now, and we will see more drilling over the next few
years. But we must develop the Marcellus Shale using the best
environmental practices to protect our communities and our state. That
is why I am introducing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of
Chemicals Act. This legislation will ensure that hydraulic fracturing
does not unnecessarily jeopardize our groundwater. There are affordable
alternatives that oil and gas companies can use so that they are not
risking contaminating drinking water wells with potentially hazardous
chemicals.
I think Norma Fiorentino from Dimock, Pennsylvania, summed it up best
when she told a reporter, ``You can't buy a good well.''
So I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure
that our groundwater is protected as we responsibly develop our natural
resources.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1215
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 ``Fracturing Responsibility
and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act''.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
(a) Underground Injection.--Section 1421(d) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Underground injection.--
``(A) In general.--The term `underground injection' means
the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `underground injection' includes
the underground injection of fluids or propping agents
pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations relating to oil
or gas production activities.
``(C) Exclusion.--The term `underground injection' does not
include the underground injection of natural gas for the
purpose of storage.''.
(b) Disclosure.--Section 1421(b) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including a requirement that any person
using hydraulic fracturing disclose to the State (or to the
Administrator in any case in which the Administrator has
primary enforcement responsibility in a State) the chemical
constituents (but not the proprietary chemical formulas) used
in the fracturing process''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Disclosures of chemical constituents.--
``(A) In general.--The State (or the Administrator, as
applicable) shall make available to the public the
information contained in each disclosure of chemical
constituents under paragraph (1)(C), including by posting the
information on an appropriate Internet website.
``(B) Immediate disclosure in case of emergency.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the regulations
promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) shall require that, in
any case in which the State (or the Administrator, as
applicable) or an appropriate treating physician or nurse
determines that a medical emergency exists and the
proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of
a trade-secret chemical used in hydraulic fracturing is
necessary for emergency or first-aid treatment, the
applicable person using hydraulic fracturing shall
immediately disclose to the State (or the Administrator) or
the treating physician or nurse the proprietary chemical
formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret
chemical, regardless of the existence of--
``(I) a written statement of need; or
``(II) a confidentiality agreement.
``(ii) Requirement.--A person using hydraulic fracturing
that makes a disclosure required under clause (i) may require
the execution of a written statement of need and a
confidentiality agreement as soon as practicable after the
determination by the State (or the Administrator) or the
treating physician or nurse under that clause.''.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 1219. A bill to amend subtitle A of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such
subtitle for a 1-year period ending June 22, 2010; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Antitrust
Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act.
This legislation extends a critical component of the Antitrust Criminal
Penalty Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, set to expire on June 22,
which encourages participation in the Antitrust Division's leniency
program. As a result, the Justice Department will be able to continue
to detect, investigate and aggressively prosecute price-fixing cartels
which harm consumers.
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has long
considered criminal cartel enforcement a top priority, and its
Corporate Leniency Policy is an important tool in that enforcement.
Criminal antitrust offenses are generally conspiracies among
competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets of customers.
The Leniency Policy creates incentives for corporations to report their
unlawful cartel conduct to the Division, by offering the possibility of
immunity from criminal charges to the first-reporting corporation, as
long as there is full cooperation. For more than 15 years, this policy
has allowed the Division to uncover cartels affecting billions of
dollars worth of commerce here in the U.S., which has led to
prosecutions resulting in record fines and jail sentences.
An important part of the Division's Leniency Policy, added by the
Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004, limits
the civil liability of leniency participants to the actual damages
caused by that company--rather than triple the damages caused by the
entire conspiracy, which is the typical in civil antitrust lawsuits.
This removed a significant disincentive to participation in the
leniency program--the concern that, despite immunity from criminal
charges, a participating corporation might still be on the hook for
treble damages in any future antitrust lawsuits.
Maintaining strong incentives to make use of the Leniency Policy
provides important benefits to the victims of antitrust offenses, often
consumers who paid artificially high prices. It makes it more likely
that criminal antitrust violations will be reported and, as a result,
consumers will be able to identify and recover their losses from paying
illegally inflated prices. The policy also requires participants to
cooperate with plaintiffs in any follow-on civil lawsuits, which makes
it more likely that the plaintiff consumers will be able to build
strong cases against all members of the conspiracy.
Since the passage of ACPERA, the Antitrust Division has uncovered a
number of significant cartel cases through its leniency program,
including the air cargo investigation, which so far has yielded over a
billion dollars in criminal fines. In that investigation, several
airlines pled guilty to conspiring to fix international air cargo rates
and international passenger fuel surcharges. Not only were criminal
[[Page 14338]]
fines levied, but one high-ranking executive pled guilty and agreed to
serve eight months in prison. In fiscal year 2004, before the passage
of ACPERA, criminal antitrust fines totaled $350 million. Criminal
antitrust fines in fiscal year 2009 have already surpassed $960
million. Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
Criminal Enforcement in the Antitrust Division, has stated that the
damages limitation has made its Corporate Leniency Program ``even more
effective'' at detecting and prosecuting cartels.
ACPERA's damages limitation is set to expire later this month, so we
must act quickly to extend it. Otherwise, the Justice Department will
lose an important tool that it uses to investigate and prosecute
criminal cartel activity. This bill extends that provision for 1 year.
Over the next year, we will fully review ACPERA, and consider potential
changes to make it more effective.
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. 1219
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 ``Antitrust Criminal Penalties
Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act''.
SEC. 2. DELAY OF SUNSET.
Section 211(a) of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is
amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT.
The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect
immediately before June 22, 2009.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1220. A bill to require that certain complex diagnostic laboratory
tests performed by an independent laboratory after a hospital
outpatient encounter or inpatient stay during which the specimen
involved was collected shall be treated as services for which payment
may be made directly to the laboratory under part B of title XVIII of
the Social Security Act; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce The Patient Access to Critical Lab Tests Act. The legislation
would modernize Medicare billing rules to improve beneficiary access to
important, life-saving advanced diagnostic technologies.
Mapping the human genome has enabled revolutionary advances in
understanding a wide variety of diseases, and ushered in an era where
treatments can be tailored to individual patients based on their DNA
and specific molecular character of their disease. Complex diagnostic
laboratory tests make such ``personalized medicine'' possible. By
understanding the molecular nature of disease, these new technologies
increasingly allow clinicians and patients to pick individualized
treatment options, rather than basing treatment choices on broad
assessments of what works best for a population.
Unfortunately Medicare payment, coding and coverage practices are
harming Medicare beneficiary access to specialized diagnostic tests. In
particular is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS,
Medicare ``date of service'' regulation. Under the regulation, any test
furnished within 14 days after the patient's discharge from a hospital
is deemed to have been performed on the day of collection, when the
patient was in or at the hospital, even though the patient may no
longer be at the hospital when the test is ordered, and the test is not
used to guide treatment during the patient's hospital encounter. A
laboratory test that is deemed to coincide with the date on which the
patient was a hospital patient becomes a service furnished by the
hospital, even though the hospital may have nothing to do with the
ordering, performance, or use of the test.
The combination of these rules creates a host of administrative and
financial disincentives for hospitals to embrace these tests.
Hospitals are required to exercise professional responsibility over
these services, but are unwilling to do so for tests that are not
offered by the hospital, and which are, in fact, offered by
laboratories that are otherwise unaffiliated with and unfamiliar to the
hospital.
Hospitals are required to bill for the service; the laboratories may
not bill Medicare directly, and instead must bill the hospital for the
services they provide, which means the hospital assumes the financial
risk that the service is covered and that Medicare will pay for it.
In light of these administrative and financial disincentives,
hospitals are encouraging physicians to delay ordering the tests until
after the 14 days; others are cancelling orders altogether. These
disincentives create obstacles for physicians and their patients, and
genuine barriers to access these beneficial tests.
These rules also create substantial hardship for the laboratories
that are seeking to develop these tests. In order for the tests to be
covered, hospitals must enter into agreements with the laboratories
furnishing the tests. It is administratively overwhelming for these
small laboratories to seek to enter into agreements with all potential
originating hospitals, which may number in the thousands when
considering sites where tissue may be stored.
The legislation that I am introducing today with Senator Wyden would
require CMS to take a small, but important step toward facilitating
Medicare beneficiary access to innovative, life-saving diagnostic tests
by updating the ``date of service'' regulation. Specifically, the
Patient Access to Critical Lab Tests Act would permit independent
laboratories offering complex diagnostic laboratory tests to bill
Medicare directly for tests performed anytime following a patient's
hospital stay, without forcing the hospital into an unnecessary
middleman role.
Given the promise of these new technologies, it is important that all
regulatory regimes keep pace with the rapidly evolving world of science
and technology, and operate to promote innovation. Out-dated
regulations and calcified regulatory agencies can stifle innovation and
prevent new life-saving diagnostics and therapies from ever coming to
market. They can also serve as a drag on our economy.
Fixing this rule is a matter of critical importance to Medicare
beneficiaries, as well as to the laboratories developing these
technologies.
I encourage colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in cosponsoring
this bill. I likewise urge Senators Baucus and Grassley to consider
this important measure as part of health care reform.
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. 1220
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 ``Patient Access to Critical
Lab Tests Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Timely access to laboratory testing is essential to
ensure quality of care for patients.
(2) Genetic and molecular laboratory testing are the new
cornerstones of high quality, cost-effective preventive
medicine.
(3) The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003
paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of
disease causation, which has contributed to the advent of
``personalized medicine''.
(4) Personalized medicine is the application of genomic and
molecular data to better target the delivery of health care,
facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new
products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a
particular disease or condition.
(5) Personalized medicine offers the promise of smarter,
more effective, and safer care as physicians and patients
become equipped with better information to guide treatment
decisions.
(6) Some of the most encouraging personalized medicine
developments involve highly specialized laboratory tests
that, using biomarkers and vast stores of historical data,
provide individualized information that enable physicians and
patients to develop personalized treatment plans.
[[Page 14339]]
(7) Several outdated Medicare regulations for laboratory
billing are obstructing access to highly specialized
laboratory tests and delaying patients' diagnoses and
treatments. These same rules are discouraging investments in
development of new tests.
(8) Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will
require improved regulation that appropriately encourages
development of and access to these specialized tests.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) where practical, Medicare regulations and policies
should be written to promote development of and access to the
highly specialized laboratory tests referred to in subsection
(a)(6); and
(2) the Medicare regulation described in section 414.510 of
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, is one such regulation
that should be revised to permit laboratories furnishing
certain specialized tests to bill for and be paid directly by
Medicare for furnishing such tests.
SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN COMPLEX DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY
TESTS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 1862(a)(14) and
1866(a)(1)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395y(a)(14) and 1395cc(a)(1)(H)(i)), in the case that a
laboratory performs a covered complex diagnostic laboratory
test, with respect to a specimen collected from an individual
during a period in which the individual is a patient of a
hospital, if the test is performed after such period the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall treat such test,
for purposes of providing direct payment to the laboratory
under section 1833(h) or 1848 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(h)
or 1395w-4), as if such specimen had been collected directly
by the laboratory.
(b) Covered Complex Diagnostic Laboratory Test Defined.--
For purposes of this section, the term ``covered complex
diagnostic laboratory test'' means an analysis--
(1) of DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, or metabolites that
detects, identifies, or quantitates genotypes, mutations,
chromosomal changes, biochemical changes, cell response,
protein expression, or gene expression or similar method or
is a cancer chemotherapy sensitivity assay or similar method,
but does not include methods principally comprising routine
chemistry or routine immunology;
(2) that is described in section 1861(s)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(3));
(3) that is developed and performed by a laboratory which
is independent of the hospital in which the specimen involved
was collected and not under any arrangements (as defined in
section 1861(w)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(w)(1)); and
(4) that is not furnished by the hospital where the
specimen was collected to a patient of such hospital,
directly or under arrangements (as defined in section
1861(w)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(w)(1)) made by such
hospital.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of section 3 shall apply to tests furnished
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1221. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
ensure more appropriate payment amounts for drugs and biologicals under
part B of the Medicare Program by excluding customary prompt pay
discounts extended to wholesalers from the manufacturer's average sales
price; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce legislation that will help ensure Medicare beneficiaries'
access to cancer drugs provided by community-based cancer clinics.
Cancer takes a great toll on our families, friends, and our Nation.
On average, one American dies from cancer each minute and the overall
cost of cancer to the U.S. is $220 billion annually. While these
statistics are daunting, the rate of cancer deaths in the U.S. has
decreased since 1993. This decrease is the result of earlier detection
and diagnosis, more effective and targeted cancer therapies, and
greater accessibility to quality care provided by oncologists. These
vital services have allowed millions of individuals to lead healthy and
productive lives after successfully battling cancer.
Leading the treatment against cancer, community cancer clinics treat
84 percent of Americans with cancer. Community cancer clinics are
freestanding outpatient facilities that provide comprehensive cancer
care in physician's office settings located in patients' communities.
These clinics are especially critical in rural areas where access to
larger cancer clinics is not available.
In 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization
Act was signed into law. This legislation contained numerous provisions
that were beneficial to America's seniors and medical facilities;
however, it also provided a reduction in Medicare's reimbursement for
cancer treatment. The new Medicare drug reimbursement rates, based on
average sales price or ASP, are artificially lowered by the inclusion
of prompt payment discounts. These discounts are provided by the
pharmaceutical manufacturer to the distributor and are a financing
mechanism between the manufacturer and the distributor for prompt
payment of invoices. As such, they are not passed on to community
oncology clinics, which purchase drugs from distributors. However,
pharmaceutical manufacturers are required by statute to include all
discounts and rebates in the calculation of ASP, including prompt
payment discounts that are not provided to community oncology clinics.
The inclusion of these prompt payment discounts results in the
artificially lowering of Medicare drug reimbursement rates by
approximately 2 percent. Community cancer clinics are reporting that
they are finding more cancer drugs reimbursed by Medicare at a rate
less than their cost.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare
reimbursements to oncologists would be reduced by $4.2 billion from
2004-2013. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that reductions will reach
$14.7 billion over that time. This increased reduction will have a
debilitating effect on oncologists' ability to provide cancer treatment
to Medicare beneficiaries, especially those in the community setting.
This legislation will remove manufacturer to distributor prompt
payment discounts from the calculation of ASP to provide a more
appropriate Medicare drug reimbursement and will help ensure Medicare
beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment. I encourage
my colleagues to work with me to move this legislation forward
promptly.
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. 1221
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF CUSTOMARY PROMPT PAY DISCOUNTS
EXTENDED TO WHOLESALERS FROM MANUFACTURER'S
AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR PAYMENTS FOR DRUGS AND
BIOLOGICALS UNDER MEDICARE PART B.
(a) In General.--Section 1847A(c)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3a(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than
customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)''
after ``prompt pay discounts''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``(other than
customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)''
after ``other price concessions''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to drugs and biologicals that are furnished on or
after January 1, 2010.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, and
Mr. Durbin:)
S.J. Res. 17. A joint resolution approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the annual renewal
of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Once again, I am
joined by Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin who have been steadfast
and longtime advocates for the Burmese people.
This resolution extends for another year the sanctions that are
currently in place against the illegitimate Burmese regime, the State
Peace and Development Council, SPDC. This bill would keep those
sanctions in place unless and until the regime takes a number of clear
steps towards democracy and reconciliation. This measure also includes
renewal of the enhanced sanctions enacted last year as part of the
[[Page 14340]]
Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008.
As many of my colleagues know, the news from Burma has been
particularly troubling of late. Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for 13 of the last 19 years,
was charged last month with permitting a misguided American to enter
her home. As a result, she faces up to 5 years in prison. My colleagues
in the Senate and I remain deeply concerned about the outcome of her
``trial.'' I was pleased that the Senate responded to this outrageous
prosecution by unanimously passing S. Res. 160, which condemned the
``trial'' of Suu Kyi and the dubious actions taken by the SPDC against
her.
The Obama administration has indicated that a new strategy on Burma
is forthcoming, and I look forward to reviewing it. Whatever the
content of this strategy, it appears from correspondence between my
House colleagues and the State Department that the administration will
continue to support sanctions against the Burmese regime, even as it
considers additional means of effecting positive change in the troubled
country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 17
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF
2003.
Section 9(b)(3) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-61; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by
striking ``six years'' and inserting ``nine years''.
SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER BURMESE FREEDOM
AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003.
(a) In General.--Congress approves the renewal of the
import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section
3A (b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act
of 2003.
(b) Rule of Construction.--This joint resolution shall be
deemed to be a ``renewal resolution'' for purposes of section
9 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This joint resolution and the amendments made by this joint
resolution shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution or July 26, 2009, whichever occurs
first.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McConnell to
introduce a joint resolution renewing the ban on all imports from Burma
for another year.
I regret that we must take this action once again.
I had hoped that since we last took up this resolution last year, the
ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC,
would have, at long last, heeded the voices of the people of Burma and
the international community and put Burma on a path to democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law.
Sadly, the regime responded to these calls in true fashion, by trying
yet again to break the will of Burma's democratic opposition and stifle
any movement for change.
Just last month, the military junta arrested and detained Nobel Peace
Prize Laureate and Burma's democratically elected leader Aung San Suu
Kyi on trumped-up charges of violating her house arrest.
Currently standing trial--behind closed doors and without due
process--she faces up to 5 years in prison if convicted. This will come
on top of spending the better part of the past 19 years isolated and
alone under house arrest.
The regime's actions should come as no surprise. They represent yet
another attempt to hold on to power and crush any opposition.
Almost 20 years ago, it annulled parliamentary election results
overwhelmingly won by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy.
Six years ago government-sponsored thugs attempted to assassinate Suu
Kyi and other members of her National League for Democracy by attacking
her motorcade in northern Burma.
Two years ago, the regime brutally put down pro-democracy
demonstrations of the Saffron Revolution led by Buddhist monks.
And last year, we saw the regime ignore offers made by the
international community and international humanitarian organizations to
help Burma respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis, leading
to countless deaths of innocent civilians.
In addition, they imposed a new constitution on the people of Burma,
one that was negotiated behind closed doors without the input of the
democratic opposition and one that will entrench the military's grip on
power.
The SPDC understands all too well that the vast majority of Burmese
citizens embrace Suu Kyi's call for freedom and democracy and reject
the junta's oppressive rule.
That is why they are trying once again to silence her voice.
We cannot allow this brutal dictatorship to succeed.
For those of my colleagues who are disappointed with the lack of
progress in bringing freedom and democracy to Burma since we first
enacted this ban in 2003, I share their disappointment.
But now is not the time to turn back. Now is not the time to reward
the regime for its oppressive tactics by lifting any part of our
sanctions regime on Burma.
It has not made ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards:
ending violations of internationally recognized human rights;
releasing all political prisoners;
allowing freedom of speech and press;
allowing freedom of association;
permitting the peaceful exercise of religion and;
bringing to a conclusion an agreement between the SPDC and the
National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic nationalities on the
restoration of a democratic government.
By renewing the import ban we express our solidarity with Aung San
Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition who bravely stand up to the
regime and reject their abuses.
They understand that the import ban is not directed at the people of
Burma, but at the military junta that dominates economic and political
activity in their country and denies them their rights.
And I remind my colleagues that this import ban renewal is good for 1
year and we will have the opportunity to revisit this issue again next
year.
I am hopeful that the United Nations Security Council and the
international community will follow our example and put additional
pressure on the SPDC to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political
prisoners immediately and unconditionally and engage in a true dialogue
on national reconciliation, one that will lead to a truly democratic
constitution.
I urge my colleagues to pass this Joint Resolution as soon as
possible.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 173--SUPPORTING NATIONAL MEN'S HEALTH WEEK
Mr. CRAPO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
S. Res. 173
Whereas despite advances in medical technology and
research, men continue to live an average of more than 5
years less than women, and African-American men have the
lowest life expectancy;
Whereas 9 of the 10 leading causes of death, as defined by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, affect men at
a higher percentage than women;
Whereas between ages 45 and 54, men are 3 times more likely
than women to die of heart attacks;
Whereas men die of heart disease at 1\1/2\ times the rate
of women;
Whereas men die of cancer at almost 1\1/2\ times the rate
of women;
Whereas testicular cancer is 1 of the most common cancers
in men aged 15 to 34, and when detected early, has a 96
percent survival rate;
Whereas the number of cases of colon cancer among men will
reach almost 75,590 in 2009, and almost \1/2\ of those men
will die from the disease;
Whereas the likelihood that a man will develop prostate
cancer is 1 in 6;
Whereas the number of men developing prostate cancer in
2009 will reach more than 192,280, and an estimated 27,360 of
them will die from the disease;
[[Page 14341]]
Whereas African-American men in the United States have the
highest incidence in the world of prostate cancer;
Whereas significant numbers of health problems that affect
men, such as prostate cancer, testicular cancer, colon
cancer, and infertility, could be detected and treated if
men's awareness of such problems was more pervasive;
Whereas more than \1/2\ of the elderly widows now living in
poverty were not poor before the death of their husbands, and
by age 100, women outnumber men 8 to 1;
Whereas educating both the public and health care providers
about the importance of early detection of male health
problems will result in reducing rates of mortality for these
diseases;
Whereas appropriate use of tests such as prostate specific
antigen exams, blood pressure screenings, and cholesterol
screenings, in conjunction with clinical examination and
self-testing for problems such as testicular cancer, can
result in the detection of many problems in their early
stages and increase the survival rates to nearly 100 percent;
Whereas women are twice as likely as men to visit the
doctor for annual examinations and preventive services;
Whereas men are less likely than women to visit their
health center or physician for regular screening examinations
of male-related problems for a variety of reasons, including
fear, lack of health insurance, lack of information, and cost
factors;
Whereas National Men's Health Week was established by
Congress in 1994 and urges men and their families to engage
in appropriate health behaviors, and the resulting increased
awareness has improved health-related education and helped
prevent illness;
Whereas the governors of more than 45 States issue
proclamations annually declaring Men's Health Week in their
States;
Whereas since 1994, National Men's Health Week has been
celebrated each June by dozens of States, cities, localities,
public health departments, health care entities, churches,
and community organizations throughout the Nation that
promote health awareness events focused on men and family;
Whereas the National Men's Health Week Internet website has
been established at www.menshealthweek.org and features
governors' proclamations and National Men's Health Week
events;
Whereas men who are educated about the value that
preventive health can play in prolonging their lifespan and
their role as productive family members will be more likely
to participate in health screenings;
Whereas men and their families are encouraged to increase
their awareness of the importance of a healthy lifestyle,
regular exercise, and medical checkups; and
Whereas June 15 through June 21, 2009, is National Men's
Health Week, which has the purpose of heightening the
awareness of preventable health problems and encouraging
early detection and treatment of disease among men and boys:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the annual National Men's Health Week in 2009;
and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States and
interested groups to observe National Men's Health Week with
appropriate ceremonies and activities.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 174--RECOGNIZING THE REGION FROM MANHATTAN, KANSAS TO
COLUMBIA, MISSOURI AS THE KANSAS CITY ANIMAL HEALTH CORRIDOR
Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Brownback, and Mrs.
McCaskill) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
S. Res. 174
Whereas a 34 percent of the $16,800,000,000 annual global
animal health industry is based in the Kansas City region;
Whereas more than 120 companies involved in the animal
health industry are located in Kansas and Missouri, including
4 of the 10 largest global animal health companies and 1 of
the 5 largest animal nutrition companies;
Whereas several leading veterinary colleges and animal
research centers are located in Kansas and Missouri,
including the College of Veterinary Medicine and the
$54,000,000 Biosecurity Research Institute of Kansas State
University and the College of Veterinary Medicine, the
College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources' Division
of Animal Sciences, the $60,000,000 Life Sciences Center, the
National Swine Resource and Research Center, and the Research
Animal Diagnostic Laboratory of the University of Missouri;
Whereas Kansas City, Missouri, is centrally located in the
United States and is close to many of the food animal end
customers;
Whereas the Department of Homeland Security selected
Manhattan, Kansas, as the future location for the National
Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF);
Whereas the $750,000,000 NBAF project will provide area
economic development opportunities by employing 300 people
with an annual payroll of up to $30,000,000, and will provide
an additional 1,500 construction jobs;
Whereas NBAF enhances Kansas' leadership role in the Nation
as the animal health research and biosciences center for the
United States;
Whereas more than 45 percent of the fed cattle in the
United States, 40 percent of the hogs produced, and 20
percent of the beef cows and calves are located within 350
miles of Kansas City;
Whereas there are nationally-recognized publishers in the
animal health industry located in Kansas and Missouri;
Whereas Kansas and Missouri have historic roots in the
livestock industry, including the cattle drives in the 1860s
from Texas to the westward railhead in Sedalia, Missouri;
Whereas Kansas and Missouri are home to many prominent
national and international associations within the animal
health industry; and
Whereas retaining and growing existing animal health
companies, attracting new animal health companies, increasing
animal health research capacity, and developing
commercialization infrastructure will create quality jobs and
wealth for Kansas and Missouri: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the region from Manhattan, Kansas to
Columbia, Missouri, including the metropolitan Kansas City
area and St. Joseph, Missouri, as the ``Kansas City Animal
Health Corridor'';
(2) recognizes the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor as
the national center of the animal health industry, based on
the unmatched concentration of animal health and nutrition
businesses and educational and research assets; and
(3) expresses its commitment to establishing a favorable
business environment and supporting animal health research to
foster the continued growth of the animal health industry for
the benefit of the economy, universities, businesses, and
young people hoping to pursue an animal health career in the
Kansas City Animal Health Corridor.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 175--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A RELUCTANT SHAREHOLDER IN THE OWNERSHIP OF
GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
S. Res. 175
Whereas the United States is facing a deep economic crisis
that has caused millions of American workers to lose their
jobs;
Whereas the collapse of the American automotive industry
would have dealt a devastating blow to an already perilous
economy;
Whereas the Federal Government, under President George W.
Bush and President Barack Obama, intervened in the American
automotive industry in order to prevent additional job losses
in the industry that would have resulted in a ripple effect
across the entire economy;
Whereas any investment of taxpayer dollars in the American
automotive industry should be temporary;
Whereas the Federal Government is a reluctant shareholder
in General Motors Corporation and Chrysler Motors LLC, as any
involvement is only to protect the investment of taxpayer
dollars;
Whereas the Federal Government, as the primary shareholder,
will not be involved in the day-to-day management of General
Motors; and
Whereas the Federal Government shall closely monitor
General Motors and Chrysler to ensure that they are being
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and are taking all
possible steps to expeditiously return to solvency: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Federal Government is only a temporary stakeholder
in the American automotive industry and should take all
possible steps to protect American taxpayer dollars and
divest its ownership interests in such companies as
expeditiously as possible; and
(2) the Comptroller General of the United States should
conduct a study to determine the period of time it may take
General Motors and Chrysler to return to solvency and for the
Federal Government to complete divestiture.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 176--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON UNITED
STATES POLICY DURING THE POLITICAL TRANSITION IN ZIMBABWE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
[[Page 14342]]
Burris, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cardin,
and Mr. Brownback) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 176
Whereas, over the course of the last decade, the Zimbabwean
African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), led by
Robert Mugabe, increasingly turned to violence and
intimidation to maintain power amidst government-directed
economic collapse and a growing humanitarian crisis;
Whereas the Department of State's 2008 Country Report on
Human Rights Practices states that the Government of Zimbabwe
``continued to engage in the pervasive and systematic abuse
of human rights, which increased during the year,'' including
unlawful killings, politically-motivated abductions, state-
sanctioned use of excessive force and torture by security
forces against opposition, student leaders, and civil society
activists;
Whereas Zimbabwe held presidential and parliamentary
elections on March 29, 2008, with official results showing
that Mr. Mugabe won 43.2 percent of the vote, while Morgan
Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition party Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), won 47.9 percent of the vote;
Whereas, in the wake of those elections, Mr. Mugabe and his
allies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members
and supporters of the MDC, voters and journalists, and other
citizens of Zimbabwe, leading Mr. Tsvangirai to withdraw from
the June 27, 2008, runoff presidential election, which Mr.
Mugabe, the only remaining candidate, then won with 85
percent of the vote;
Whereas, on September 15, 2008, ZANU-PF and the MDC signed
a ``Global Political Agreement'' (GPA) to form a transitional
government under which Mr. Mugabe would remain President, Mr.
Tsvangirai would become Prime Minister, and the parties would
divide control of the ministries;
Whereas the Global Political Agreement, as written,
included provisions to restore the rule of law and economic
stability and growth, establish a new constitution, end
violence by state and non-state actors, and promote freedom
of assembly, association, expression, and communication;
Whereas the installation of the transitional government
stalled for five months as Mr. Mugabe and his allies refused
to compromise on control of key ministries and security
agencies and continued to use the state security apparatus to
intimidate and commit violence against political opponents;
Whereas, according to the United Nations, the humanitarian
situation during that time deteriorated to unprecedented
levels, with an estimated 5,000,000 people in Zimbabwe
susceptible to food insecurity, and collapsing water and
sewerage services giving rise to a cholera epidemic that has
resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 people;
Whereas, on February 11, 2009, the parties finally formed
the transitional government;
Whereas there has since been some progress toward the
implementation of the Global Political Agreement, including
positive steps by the Ministry of Finance, such as the
issuance of a Short Term Economic Recovery Program (STERP)
and the abandonment of the Zimbabwe dollar in favor of
foreign currencies;
Whereas many of the reform-minded individuals within the
new transitional government are limited by a severe lack of
qualified personnel and material resources;
Whereas the full implementation of the Global Political
Agreement continues to be obstructed by hardliners in the
government, and important issues regarding senior government
appointments remain unresolved, notably the status of the
current Reserve Bank Governor and the Attorney General;
Whereas ZANU-PF officials have made efforts to obstruct
implementation of the Global Political Agreement as they
continue to arrest legitimate journalists and human rights
activists and delay the swearing into office of properly
designated officials nominated by MDC; and
Whereas the security forces continue to operate outside the
rule of law, condoning land invasions, restrictions on media
access and freedoms, and harassment, arbitrary arrests, and
detention of civil society activists in Zimbabwe: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States Government, in coordination with other
democratic governments and international institutions
desiring to help the people of Zimbabwe, should--
(1) continue to provide humanitarian assistance to meet the
urgent needs of the people of Zimbabwe;
(2) make available increased resources for nongovernmental
entities to provide assistance and to pay salaries or fees to
appropriately qualified people in Zimbabwe to enable progress
to be made in the critical areas of education, health, water,
and sanitation;
(3) welcome and encourage responsible efforts by the
international community to support, strengthen, and extend
reforms made by ministries within the Government of Zimbabwe,
especially the Ministry of Finance;
(4) provide concrete financial and technical assistance in
response to requests from the people of Zimbabwe and civil
society organizations in their efforts to draft and enact a
new constitution based on democratic values and principles
that would enable the country to hold fair and free elections
at an early date;
(5) work with and encourage regional governments and
leaders to promote human rights, the restoration of the rule
of law, and economic growth in Zimbabwe;
(6) maintain the existing ban on the transfer of defense
items and services and the suspension of most non-
humanitarian government-to-government assistance until there
is demonstrable progress toward restoring the rule of law,
civilian control over security forces, and respect for human
rights in Zimbabwe; and
(7) support the continuation and updating of financial
sanctions and travel bans targeted against those individuals
responsible for the deliberate breakdown of the rule of law,
politically motivated violence, and other ongoing illegal
activities in Zimbabwe.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 177--RECOGNIZING THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION'S UNANIMOUS ADOPTION OF CONVENTION
182, ``CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOUR''
Mr. HARKIN submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 177
Whereas on June 17, 1999, the International Labour
Organization (ILO) unanimously adopted Convention 182,
``Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour'', done at
Geneva (T. Doc. 106-5) (in this preamble referred to as the
``Convention'');
Whereas on August 5, 1999, President William Jefferson
Clinton submitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice
and consent;
Whereas on October 21, 1999, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, under the chairmanship of Senator
Jesse Helms, considered the Convention, and on November 3,
1999, reported it out of committee;
Whereas on November 5, 1999, the Senate unanimously agreed
to the resolution of advice and consent to the ratification
of the Convention;
Whereas on December 2, 1999, President Clinton signed the
instruments of ratification of the Convention, as the United
States became the third country to ratify the Convention;
Whereas the terms of the Convention apply to all children
under 18 years of age and define the worst forms of child
labor to include slavery and practices similar to slavery
(including the sale and trafficking of children), forced or
compulsory labor, debt bondage and serfdom, child
prostitution and child pornography, the use of children in
illegal activities (including drug production and
trafficking), and work that is likely to jeopardize the
health, safety, or morals of children;
Whereas the stated goals of the Convention include the
effective elimination of the worst forms of child labor,
ensuring that the parties take into account the importance of
free basic education, removal of children from all work that
is in violation of the Convention, and provision of
rehabilitation and social integration for children who have
engaged in work that it is in violation of the Convention;
Whereas since 1995, the United States has become the
largest contributor to the ILO's International Program for
the Elimination of Child Labor;
Whereas the Department of Labor has funded 220 projects
through the International Program for the Elimination of
Child Labor that have affected 1,300,000 children in 82
countries who were rescued from or prevented from entering
the worst forms of child labor;
Whereas in May 2000, the United States Government enacted
the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200),
which included a provision that requires countries receiving
duty-free access to the United States marketplace to take
steps to implement the terms of the Convention in order to
retain such trade privileges;
Whereas between 2000 and 2004, the worst forms of child
labor declined worldwide, as the overall number of child
laborers fell by 11 percent, from 246,000,000 to 218,000,000,
and the number of young child laborers was reduced by 33
percent;
Whereas between 2000 and 2004, the number of children
between 5 and 17 years of age who performed hazardous work
fell by 26 percent, from 171,000,000 to 126,000,000; and
Whereas on the 10th anniversary of its adoption, a total of
183 countries have ratified the Convention: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
[[Page 14343]]
(1) the worst forms of child labor should not be tolerated,
whether they occur in the United States or other countries;
and
(2) on the 10th anniversary of its adoption, all parties to
Convention 182, ``Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child
Labour'', done at Geneva June 17, 1999 (T. Doc. 106-5),
should work toward its full implementation to realize the
goal of eliminating the worst forms of child labor.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 178--SUPPORTING OLYMPIC DAY ON JUNE 23, 2009, AND
ENCOURAGING THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE TO SELECT CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS AS THE HOST CITY FOR THE 2016 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Burris, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Hatch) submitted the following resolution;
which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 178
Whereas Olympic Day, June 23, 2009, celebrates the Olympic
ideal of developing peace through sport;
Whereas June 23 marks the anniversary of the founding of
the modern Olympic movement, the date on which the Congress
of Paris approved the proposal of Pierre de Coubertin to
found the modern Olympics;
Whereas for more than 100 years, the Olympic movement has
built a more peaceful and better world by educating young
people through amateur athletics, by bringing together
athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and by
forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity,
and fair play;
Whereas the United States and Chicago, Illinois advocate
the ideals of the Olympic movement;
Whereas hundreds of local governments from across the
United States are joining together to show their support for
bringing the Olympic Games to Chicago, Illinois in 2016;
Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the development of
Olympic and Paralympic Sport in the United States;
Whereas Olympic Day encourages the participation of youth
of the United States in Olympic and Paralympic sport;
Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the teaching of Olympic
history, health, arts, and culture among the youth of the
United States;
Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the youth of the United
States to support the Olympic movement and the selection of
Chicago, Illinois as the host city for the 2016 Olympic and
Paralympic Games; and
Whereas enthusiasm for Olympic and Paralympic sport is at
an all-time high: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports Olympic Day 2009 and the goals that Olympic
Day pursues; and
(2) encourages the International Olympic Committee to
select Chicago, Illinois as the host city for the 2016
Olympic and Paralympic Games.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 179--CONGRATULATING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS ON ITS 125 YEARS OF CODES AND STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. KAUFMAN submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 179
Whereas the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), which was founded in 1880 and currently includes more
than 127,000 members worldwide, is a premier professional
organization serving the engineering and technical community
through high-quality programs in the development and
maintenance of codes and standards, continuing education,
research, conferences, publications, and government
relations;
Whereas in 2009, ASME is celebrating its 125th anniversary
of codes and standards development, commemorating a rich
history of engineering progress, technological safety, and
service to industry and government;
Whereas the ASME codes and standards activity began in a
period of rising industrialization in the United States and
grew in stature and influence as technology advanced and new
industries were born;
Whereas a significant achievement in the history of ASME
includes the issuance of the first ASME Boiler Code in 1914;
Whereas the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has since
been incorporated into the laws of all 50 States and is also
referenced in Canada and other parts of the world;
Whereas since the publication of its first performance test
code 125 years ago, titled ``Code for the Conduct of Trials
of Steam Boilers'', ASME has developed more than 500
technical standards for pressure vessel technology, electric
and nuclear power facilities, elevators and escalators, gas
pipelines, engineering drawing practices, and numerous other
technical and engineered products and processes;
Whereas ASME codes and standards and conformity assessment
programs are presently used in more than 100 countries;
Whereas ASME's celebration of its 125 years of codes and
standards development is a tribute to the dedicated service
of technical experts and staff whose efforts result in
internationally accepted standards that enhance public safety
and provide lifelong learning and technical exchange
opportunities that benefit the global engineering and
technology community; and
Whereas ASME honors the dedicated volunteers who
participate in their codes and standards and conformity
assessment programs, which today are a global operation
involving more than 4,000 individuals: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates ASME on the 125th anniversary of its
renowned codes and standards activity;
(2) recognizes and celebrates the achievements of all ASME
volunteer members and staff who participate in the codes and
standards programs;
(3) expresses the gratitude of the people of the United
States for the contributions provided by ASME's codes and
standards to the health, safety, and economic well-being of
the citizenry of this Nation;
(4) recognizes ASME's focus on global and accessible
standards development and their vision for technical
competence and innovation;
(5) recognizes ASME's mission to be the essential resource
for mechanical engineers and other technical professionals
throughout the world for solutions that benefit humankind;
and
(6) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to the president of ASME.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 180--TO AUTHORIZE TESTIMONY AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION
IN UNITED STATES v. EDWARD BLOOMER, FRANK CORDARO, ELTON DAVIS, CHESTER
GUINN, AND RENEE ESPELAND
Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 180
Whereas, in the cases of United States v. Edward Bloomer
(CVB# H5049055), Frank Cordaro (CVB# H5049056), Elton Davis
(CVB# H5049058), Chester Guinn (CVB# H5049093), and Renee
Espeland (CVB# H5049095), pending in federal district court
in the Southern District of Iowa, the prosecution has sought
testimony from Dianne Liepa, a former employee of Senator Tom
Harkin;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a)
and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to
represent former employees of the Senate with respect to any
subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their
official responsibilities;
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
may, by the judicial or administrative 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 may promote the
administration 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 Dianne Liepa is authorized to testify in the
cases of United States v. Edward Bloomer, Frank Cordaro,
Elton Davis, Chester Guinn, and Renee Espeland, except
concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent
Dianne Liepa, and any other employee from whom evidence may
be sought, in connection with the testimony authorized in
section one of this resolution.
[[Page 14344]]
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 25--RECOGNIZING THE VALUE AND BENEFITS
THAT COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS PROVIDE AS HEALTH CARE HOMES FOR OVER
18,000,000 INDIVIDUALS, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ENABLING HEALTH CENTERS
AND OTHER SAFETY NET PROVIDERS TO CONTINUE TO OFFER ACCESSIBLE,
AFFORDABLE, AND CONTINUOUS CARE TO THEIR CURRENT PATIENTS AND TO EVERY
AMERICAN WHO LACKS ACCESS TO PREVENTIVE AND PRIMARY CARE SERVICES
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Ms. Stabenow) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance:
S. Con. Res. 25
Whereas a strong system of health care safety net providers
is vital to ensuring that any health care system address
access, cost, and quality challenges while providing care for
the most vulnerable individuals and communities;
Whereas community health centers currently form the
backbone of the health care safety net for the United States,
caring for more than 1 out of every 5 uninsured low-income
Americans and providing almost 1 out of every 5 office visits
under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program;
Whereas more than 60,000,000 individuals in the United
States are medically disenfranchised, lacking access to
primary care services like those provided by health centers
and other safety net providers, regardless of insurance
coverage;
Whereas health centers effectively remove barriers to care
by providing cost-effective, high-quality, and comprehensive
preventive and primary health care, as well as effective care
management for individuals with chronic conditions;
Whereas health centers have compiled a well-documented
record of reducing health disparities and improving patient
health outcomes, lowering the overall cost of care for their
patients by 41 percent as compared to individuals who receive
care elsewhere, and generating $18,000,000,000 in savings
each year for the health care system;
Whereas an expansion of the highly effective Health Centers
Program to provide a health care home for all 60,000,000
medically disenfranchised Americans would increase the
overall savings that health centers generate for the health
care system to up to $80,000,000,000 each year;
Whereas Congress has recognized the value of the care that
health centers provide to those enrolled in Medicaid and the
Children's Health Insurance Program by making their services
a guaranteed benefit and establishing a mechanism to
appropriately reimburse health centers for the quality care
that they provide;
Whereas private insurance often does not appropriately
reimburse safety net providers like health centers for the
full spectrum of care they provide, forcing health centers to
subsidize under-payments for their privately insured patients
by diverting funds intended to support care for those in
need; and
Whereas millions of Americans in underserved communities
are in need of a health care home like those provided by
health centers, which serve as a proven model of health care
delivery that assures high-quality and cost-effective health
care in every State of the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That--
(1) all individuals should have the choice of a community
health center as their health care home and every health
center should be appropriately reimbursed for the high-value
preventive and primary care they provide;
(2) health care reform should include measures to expand
community health centers in order to reach more individuals
who need a health care home;
(3) the current payment mechanisms for Federally-qualified
health centers through Medicaid and the Children's Health
Insurance Program are essential to ensuring access to
affordable and high-quality preventive and primary care
services for beneficiaries of such programs;
(4) any expansion of private insurance must include
mechanisms to ensure the full participation of, and
appropriate reimbursement to, Federally-qualified health
centers and other safety net providers in order to ensure
adequate access to care for those individuals who are
medically underserved or disenfranchised; and
(5) ensuring access to all safety net providers, including
Federally-qualified health centers, will be vital to ensuring
that health care reform is successful in expanding access,
improving quality, and reducing cost.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 2:30
p.m. to hear testimony on the nomination of John J. Sullivan to be a
member of the Federal Election Commission.
For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Jean
Bordewich at the Rules and Administration Committee, 202-224-6352.
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 3
p.m., upon completion of the FEC confirmation hearing, to conduct an
executive business meeting to consider the nomination of John J.
Sullivan to be a member of the Federal Election Commission.
For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Jean
Bordewich at the Rules and Administration Committee, 202-224-6352.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 10 a.m., in room SD-
366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Mr. LEAHY. 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 Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in room 406
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on June 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on airland
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9,
2009, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on the constitution
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be authorized to
meet during the session of the Senate, on June 9, 2009, at 10 a.m., in
room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing
entitled ``The Legal, Moral, and National Security Consequences of
`Prolonged Detention'.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on oceans, atmosphere, fisheries, and coast guard
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to
meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 9:30
a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 14345]]
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 1256
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on
Wednesday, June 10, following a period for morning business, the Senate
then resume consideration of H.R. 1256, and all postcloture time having
expired, there then be an hour of debate only prior to a vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 1256, with the time equally divided
and controlled between Senators Dodd and Enzi or their designees; that
upon the use or yielding back of that time and disposition of amendment
No. 1256, the substitute amendment be agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, the bill be read a third time, and
the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.R.
1256; that if cloture is invoked on H.R. 1256, then postcloture time be
considered to have begun at 12:05 a.m., Wednesday, June 10, and that
all postcloture time continue to run during any recess, adjournment, or
period for morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING NATIVE AMERICANS
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 40, which
was received from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 40) to honor the achievements
and contributions of Native Americans to the United States,
and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint
resolution.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements relating to the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 40) was ordered to a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed.
____________________
UNITED STATES POLICY DURING POLITICAL TRANSITION IN ZIMBABWE
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 176, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 176) expressing the sense of the
Senate on United States policy during the political
transition in Zimbabwe, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 that any statements relating to the resolution be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 176) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 176
Whereas, over the course of the last decade, the Zimbabwean
African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), led by
Robert Mugabe, increasingly turned to violence and
intimidation to maintain power amidst government-directed
economic collapse and a growing humanitarian crisis;
Whereas the Department of State's 2008 Country Report on
Human Rights Practices states that the Government of Zimbabwe
``continued to engage in the pervasive and systematic abuse
of human rights, which increased during the year,'' including
unlawful killings, politically-motivated abductions, state-
sanctioned use of excessive force and torture by security
forces against opposition, student leaders, and civil society
activists;
Whereas Zimbabwe held presidential and parliamentary
elections on March 29, 2008, with official results showing
that Mr. Mugabe won 43.2 percent of the vote, while Morgan
Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition party Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), won 47.9 percent of the vote;
Whereas, in the wake of those elections, Mr. Mugabe and his
allies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members
and supporters of the MDC, voters and journalists, and other
citizens of Zimbabwe, leading Mr. Tsvangirai to withdraw from
the June 27, 2008, runoff presidential election, which Mr.
Mugabe, the only remaining candidate, then won with 85
percent of the vote;
Whereas, on September 15, 2008, ZANU-PF and the MDC signed
a ``Global Political Agreement'' (GPA) to form a transitional
government under which Mr. Mugabe would remain President, Mr.
Tsvangirai would become Prime Minister, and the parties would
divide control of the ministries;
Whereas the Global Political Agreement, as written,
included provisions to restore the rule of law and economic
stability and growth, establish a new constitution, end
violence by state and non-state actors, and promote freedom
of assembly, association, expression, and communication;
Whereas the installation of the transitional government
stalled for five months as Mr. Mugabe and his allies refused
to compromise on control of key ministries and security
agencies and continued to use the state security apparatus to
intimidate and commit violence against political opponents;
Whereas, according to the United Nations, the humanitarian
situation during that time deteriorated to unprecedented
levels, with an estimated 5,000,000 people in Zimbabwe
susceptible to food insecurity, and collapsing water and
sewerage services giving rise to a cholera epidemic that has
resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 people;
Whereas, on February 11, 2009, the parties finally formed
the transitional government;
Whereas there has since been some progress toward the
implementation of the Global Political Agreement, including
positive steps by the Ministry of Finance, such as the
issuance of a Short Term Economic Recovery Program (STERP)
and the abandonment of the Zimbabwe dollar in favor of
foreign currencies;
Whereas many of the reform-minded individuals within the
new transitional government are limited by a severe lack of
qualified personnel and material resources;
Whereas the full implementation of the Global Political
Agreement continues to be obstructed by hardliners in the
government, and important issues regarding senior government
appointments remain unresolved, notably the status of the
current Reserve Bank Governor and the Attorney General;
Whereas ZANU-PF officials have made efforts to obstruct
implementation of the Global Political Agreement as they
continue to arrest legitimate journalists and human rights
activists and delay the swearing into office of properly
designated officials nominated by MDC; and
Whereas the security forces continue to operate outside the
rule of law, condoning land invasions, restrictions on media
access and freedoms, and harassment, arbitrary arrests, and
detention of civil society activists in Zimbabwe: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States Government, in coordination with other
democratic governments and international institutions
desiring to help the people of Zimbabwe, should--
(1) continue to provide humanitarian assistance to meet the
urgent needs of the people of Zimbabwe;
(2) make available increased resources for nongovernmental
entities to provide assistance and to pay salaries or fees to
appropriately qualified people in Zimbabwe to enable progress
to be made in the critical areas of education, health, water,
and sanitation;
(3) welcome and encourage responsible efforts by the
international community to support, strengthen, and extend
reforms made by ministries within the Government of Zimbabwe,
especially the Ministry of Finance;
(4) provide concrete financial and technical assistance in
response to requests from the people of Zimbabwe and civil
society organizations in their efforts to draft and enact a
new constitution based on democratic values and principles
that would enable the country to hold fair and free elections
at an early date;
(5) work with and encourage regional governments and
leaders to promote human rights, the restoration of the rule
of law, and economic growth in Zimbabwe;
(6) maintain the existing ban on the transfer of defense
items and services and the suspension of most non-
humanitarian government-to-government assistance until there
is demonstrable progress toward restoring the rule of law,
civilian control over security forces, and respect for human
rights in Zimbabwe; and
(7) support the continuation and updating of financial
sanctions and travel bans targeted against those individuals
responsible for the deliberate breakdown of the rule of
[[Page 14346]]
law, politically motivated violence, and other ongoing
illegal activities in Zimbabwe.
____________________
RECOGNIZING 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF ILO ADOPTION OF CONVENTION 182
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 177, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 177) recognizing the 10th anniversary
of the International Labour Organization's unanimous adoption
of Convention 182, ``Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child
Labour.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. 177) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 177
Whereas on June 17, 1999, the International Labour
Organization (ILO) unanimously adopted Convention 182,
``Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour'', done at
Geneva (T. Doc. 106-5) (in this preamble referred to as the
``Convention'');
Whereas on August 5, 1999, President William Jefferson
Clinton submitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice
and consent;
Whereas on October 21, 1999, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, under the chairmanship of Senator
Jesse Helms, considered the Convention, and on November 3,
1999, reported it out of committee;
Whereas on November 5, 1999, the Senate unanimously agreed
to the resolution of advice and consent to the ratification
of the Convention;
Whereas on December 2, 1999, President Clinton signed the
instruments of ratification of the Convention, as the United
States became the third country to ratify the Convention;
Whereas the terms of the Convention apply to all children
under 18 years of age and define the worst forms of child
labor to include slavery and practices similar to slavery
(including the sale and trafficking of children), forced or
compulsory labor, debt bondage and serfdom, child
prostitution and child pornography, the use of children in
illegal activities (including drug production and
trafficking), and work that is likely to jeopardize the
health, safety, or morals of children;
Whereas the stated goals of the Convention include the
effective elimination of the worst forms of child labor,
ensuring that the parties take into account the importance of
free basic education, removal of children from all work that
is in violation of the Convention, and provision of
rehabilitation and social integration for children who have
engaged in work that it is in violation of the Convention;
Whereas since 1995, the United States has become the
largest contributor to the ILO's International Program for
the Elimination of Child Labor;
Whereas the Department of Labor has funded 220 projects
through the International Program for the Elimination of
Child Labor that have affected 1,300,000 children in 82
countries who were rescued from or prevented from entering
the worst forms of child labor;
Whereas in May 2000, the United States Government enacted
the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200),
which included a provision that requires countries receiving
duty-free access to the United States marketplace to take
steps to implement the terms of the Convention in order to
retain such trade privileges;
Whereas between 2000 and 2004, the worst forms of child
labor declined worldwide, as the overall number of child
laborers fell by 11 percent, from 246,000,000 to 218,000,000,
and the number of young child laborers was reduced by 33
percent;
Whereas between 2000 and 2004, the number of children
between 5 and 17 years of age who performed hazardous work
fell by 26 percent, from 171,000,000 to 126,000,000; and
Whereas on the 10th anniversary of its adoption, a total of
183 countries have ratified the Convention: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the worst forms of child labor should not be tolerated,
whether they occur in the United States or other countries;
and
(2) on the 10th anniversary of its adoption, all parties to
Convention 182, ``Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate
Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child
Labour'', done at Geneva June 17, 1999 (T. Doc. 106-5),
should work toward its full implementation to realize the
goal of eliminating the worst forms of child labor.
____________________
SUPPORTING OLYMPIC DAY
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 178 submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 178) supporting Olympic Day on June
23, 2009, and encouraging the International Olympic Committee
to select Chicago, Illinois, as the host city for the 2016
Olympic and Paralympic Games.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. 178) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 178
Whereas Olympic Day, June 23, 2009, celebrates the Olympic
ideal of developing peace through sport;
Whereas June 23 marks the anniversary of the founding of
the modern Olympic movement, the date on which the Congress
of Paris approved the proposal of Pierre de Coubertin to
found the modern Olympics;
Whereas for more than 100 years, the Olympic movement has
built a more peaceful and better world by educating young
people through amateur athletics, by bringing together
athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and by
forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity,
and fair play;
Whereas the United States and Chicago, Illinois advocate
the ideals of the Olympic movement;
Whereas hundreds of local governments from across the
United States are joining together to show their support for
bringing the Olympic Games to Chicago, Illinois in 2016;
Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the development of
Olympic and Paralympic Sport in the United States;
Whereas Olympic Day encourages the participation of youth
of the United States in Olympic and Paralympic sport;
Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the teaching of Olympic
history, health, arts, and culture among the youth of the
United States;
Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the youth of the United
States to support the Olympic movement and the selection of
Chicago, Illinois as the host city for the 2016 Olympic and
Paralympic Games; and
Whereas enthusiasm for Olympic and Paralympic sport is at
an all-time high: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports Olympic Day 2009 and the goals that Olympic
Day pursues; and
(2) encourages the International Olympic Committee to
select Chicago, Illinois as the host city for the 2016
Olympic and Paralympic Games.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 179 submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 179) congratulating the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers on its 125 years of codes and
standards development.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
[[Page 14347]]
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 resolution be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 179) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 179
Whereas the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), which was founded in 1880 and currently includes more
than 127,000 members worldwide, is a premier professional
organization serving the engineering and technical community
through high-quality programs in the development and
maintenance of codes and standards, continuing education,
research, conferences, publications, and government
relations;
Whereas in 2009, ASME is celebrating its 125th anniversary
of codes and standards development, commemorating a rich
history of engineering progress, technological safety, and
service to industry and government;
Whereas the ASME codes and standards activity began in a
period of rising industrialization in the United States and
grew in stature and influence as technology advanced and new
industries were born;
Whereas a significant achievement in the history of ASME
includes the issuance of the first ASME Boiler Code in 1914;
Whereas the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has since
been incorporated into the laws of all 50 States and is also
referenced in Canada and other parts of the world;
Whereas since the publication of its first performance test
code 125 years ago, titled ``Code for the Conduct of Trials
of Steam Boilers'', ASME has developed more than 500
technical standards for pressure vessel technology, electric
and nuclear power facilities, elevators and escalators, gas
pipelines, engineering drawing practices, and numerous other
technical and engineered products and processes;
Whereas ASME codes and standards and conformity assessment
programs are presently used in more than 100 countries;
Whereas ASME's celebration of its 125 years of codes and
standards development is a tribute to the dedicated service
of technical experts and staff whose efforts result in
internationally accepted standards that enhance public safety
and provide lifelong learning and technical exchange
opportunities that benefit the global engineering and
technology community; and
Whereas ASME honors the dedicated volunteers who
participate in their codes and standards and conformity
assessment programs, which today are a global operation
involving more than 4,000 individuals: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates ASME on the 125th anniversary of its
renowned codes and standards activity;
(2) recognizes and celebrates the achievements of all ASME
volunteer members and staff who participate in the codes and
standards programs;
(3) expresses the gratitude of the people of the United
States for the contributions provided by ASME's codes and
standards to the health, safety, and economic well-being of
the citizenry of this Nation;
(4) recognizes ASME's focus on global and accessible
standards development and their vision for technical
competence and innovation;
(5) recognizes ASME's mission to be the essential resource
for mechanical engineers and other technical professionals
throughout the world for solutions that benefit humankind;
and
(6) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to the president of ASME.
____________________
AUTHORIZING TESTIMONY AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 180, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 180) to authorize testimony and legal
representation in the United States v. Edward Bloomer, Frank
Cordaro, Elton Davis, Chester Guinn and Renee Espeland.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for
testimony and representation in actions in Federal District Court in
the Southern District of Iowa. In these actions, protesters have been
charged with impeding or disrupting the performance of official duties
by Government employees for occupying Senator Tom Harkin's Des Moines,
IA office on February 25, 2009, and for refusing requests by the
Federal Protective Service and the local police to leave the building.
The prosecution has sought testimony from a former member of the
Senator's staff who witnessed the relevant events. Senator Harkin would
like to cooperate by providing testimony from that person. This
resolution would authorize that person to testify in connection with
these actions, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel of her
and any other employee from whom evidence may be sought.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent 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 be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 180) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 180
Whereas, in the cases of United States v. Edward Bloomer
(CVB# H5049055), Frank Cordaro (CVB# H5049056), Elton Davis
(CVB# H5049058), Chester Guinn (CVB# H5049093), and Renee
Espeland (CVB# H5049095), pending in federal district court
in the Southern District of Iowa, the prosecution has sought
testimony from Dianne Liepa, a former employee of Senator Tom
Harkin;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.
1A288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel
to represent former employees of the Senate with respect to
any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to
their official responsibilities;
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
may, by the judicial or administrative 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 may promote the
administration 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 Dianne Liepa is authorized to testify in the
cases of United States v. Edward Bloomer, Frank J. Cordaro,
Elton Davis, Chester Guinn, and Renee Espeland, except
concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent
Dianne Liepa, and any other employee from whom evidence may
be sought, in connection with the testimony authorized in
section one of this resolution.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m.,
tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10; that following the prayer and the 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 there be a period of morning business for 1 hour
with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority
controlling the second half; and that following morning business, the
Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act, under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, under the previous order, at
approximately 11:30 a.m., the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on H.R. 1256.
[[Page 14348]]
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:37 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
INEZ MOORE TENENBAUM, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE CHAIRMAN OF
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, VICE HAROLD D.
STRATTON, RESIGNED.
INEZ MOORE TENENBAUM, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE A
COMMISSIONER OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION FOR A
TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM OCTOBER 27, 2006, VICE HAROLD D.
STRATTON, RESIGNED.
ROBERT S. ADLER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF SEVEN
YEARS FROM OCTOBER 27, 2007, VICE STUART M. STATLER,
RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
MARIA OTERO, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN UNDER
SECRETARY OF STATE (DEMOCRACY AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS), VICE PAULA
J. DOBRIANSKY, RESIGNED.
KENNETH H. MERTEN, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF LABOR, VICE LEON R. SEQUEIRA, RESIGNED.
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUAL FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203(A):
To be colonel
JEFFREY A. LEWIS
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
VINCENT P. CLIFTON
PATRICK J. COOK
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
DAVID J. BUTLER
JON E. CUTLER
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
BARRY C. DUNCAN
GREGORY GANSER
SCOTT H. HAHN
JAMES E. PARKHILL
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
DAVID A. BIANCHI
SUBRATO J. DEB
ROBERT B. GHERMAN
DOMINIC A. JOHNSON
JOSEPH J. KOCHAN III
DAVID C. LU
STEPHEN H. MACDONALD
KEVIN C. MCCORMICK
DENNIS P. MCKENNA
DOUGLAS L. MCPHERSON
CURTIS R. POWELL
ALAN M. SPIRA
TROND A. STOCKENSTROM
DAVID J. STROH
BRUCE T. THOMPSON
SARAH WALTON
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
LISA M. BAUER
JEFFREY GARCIA
SAMUEL G. JOHNSON
DAVID W. KACZOROWSKI
JAMES D. KIELEK
LEONARD A. KIOLBASA
MICHAEL L. MULLINS
EDWARD G. OESTREICHER
CHRISTOPHER D. PEARCE
JOSEPH E. STRICKLAND
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
DWAIN ALEXANDER II
MONTE R. DEBOER
JILL R. JAMES
DANIEL G. JONES
DAVID N. KARPEL
KEVIN M. KELLY
JEAN M. KILKER
JOHN M. PRICE
DAVID M. STAUSS
JAMES A. TALBERT
THOMAS H. VANHORN
THOMAS E. WALLACE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
JAMES F. ARMSTRONG
KATHARINE E. BEASLEY
EDNA M. CANDELARIO
ALISON P. EAGLETON
LAUREN A. EVANS
DEANA M. GALLEGOS
DEBRA S. HALL
ARTHUR B. HANLEY, JR.
AMEY HEATHRILEY
LINDA M. JACOBSON
LORI V. KARNES
PAULA J. LOVELETT
DAWN D. PESTI
RHODA S. A. POWERS
MARK C. SEBASTIAN
TERESA L. SMITH
JODY L. STANLEY
KIMBERLY A. SZYMANSKI
JULIE A. ZAPPONE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
WILLIAM E. BUTLER
ROBERT F. CASAGRAND
THOMAS D. CHASE
EDWARD C. CHEVALIER
CRAIG P. DOYLE
CHARLES M. FUTRELL
JOHN D. LAZZARO
RANDALL J. RAMIAN
RONALD R. SHIMKOWSKI
JONATHAN D. WALLNER
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be captain
ROBERT J. CAREY
JOHN W. DEBERARD
PAUL DEMONCADA
DONALD L. MACONI
JOSEPH B. MATIS
ALAN R. REDMON
THOMAS D. ROACH
GARY L. ROUSE
GEORGE D. STEFFEN
DAVID J. SVENDSGAARD, JR.
GLENN A. TOOTLE
BRIAN S. VINCENT
[[Page 14349]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
June 9, 2009.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Donna F. Edwards to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 6, 2009, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.
____________________
GLOBAL WATER AND H.R. 2030, SENATOR PAUL SIMON WATER FOR THE WORLD ACT
OF 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as one-fifth of the world's population
relies on freshwater that is either polluted or significantly
overdrawn, the lack of safe water and sanitation is an ongoing threat
to global security and remains the world's greatest health problem,
accounting for 2 million deaths a year and half of the illness in the
developing world. Before I finish speaking, 15 more children will die
needlessly from waterborne disease.
To address this slow-motion disaster, I worked with the then Chair
and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Henry Hyde
and Tom Lantos, and the Senate majority and minority leaders, Bill
Frist and Harry Reid, to enact the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of
2005. This landmark, bipartisan legislation established investment in
safe and affordable water for the world's poorest as a major goal of
United States foreign assistance. But, sadly, with the last
administration, we were slow to implement, and until last year, slow to
fund it. We are more than halfway to the 2015 Millennium Development
goal with mixed results, and we must redouble our effort.
A special concern is Sub-Saharan Africa that lags so far behind that
we will miss our modest goal to cut the people without safe drinking
water and sanitation by one-half by 2015, that Sub-Saharan Africa will
miss that target date by 25 years for water and sanitation by 61 years.
And these are not just numbers; these are millions of people's lives.
Some progress is being made through innovative partnerships between
the United States, NGOs, businesses, and local partners. But the stark
truth remains: Nearly 900 million people worldwide still lack access to
safe drinking water, and two out of five people on the planet lack
basic sanitation services. And this is going to become more of a
challenge in the future. Because of climate change and rapid population
growth, there will be further stress on water resources. By 2025, 2.8
billion people in more than 48 countries will face devastating water
shortages.
To help accelerate the progress, on Earth Day I introduced bipartisan
legislation, the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, along with
Representatives Payne, Rohrabacher, Jesse Jackson Jr., Zach Wamp,
Welch, Boozman, Burton, George Miller, and Fortenberry. The purpose of
this act is to empower the U.S. Government to respond to the pressing
poverty, security, and environmental threats presented by the dire
mismanagement and shortage of global freshwater. The goal for the Water
for the World Act is for the United States to provide 100 million
people of the world's poorest first-time access to safe drinking water
and sanitation on a sustainable basis by 2015. To accomplish this goal,
the legislation builds on the Water for the Poor framework for
investment, expands U.S. foreign assistance capacity, and recognizes
sustainable water and sanitation policy as vital to the long-term
diplomatic and development efforts of the United States.
I applaud the leadership of Senators Durbin, Corker, and Murray, who
have introduced companion bipartisan legislation in the Senate. This
legislation will help the United States focus its efforts and fully
implement a smart and efficient global water strategy that meets our
commitment to extend safe drinking water and sanitation to over a
billion people in need.
I urge every Member of Congress to make water policy and funding a
priority, to save the life of a child every 15 seconds who dies
needlessly from waterborne disease.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, Republicans want to work with the
President and our Democrat colleagues here in the Congress to make sure
that every American has access to high-quality, affordable health
coverage. On an issue like this, we need to act, but we also need to
get it right.
Frankly, the record the Democrats have amassed this year so far shows
us why we need to take our time. Think about it. On every major issue
addressed by Congress and the White House this year, the middle class
has taken a big hit. Middle-class Americans are paying for a trillion
dollar ``stimulus'' package that no one read. They're paying for a $400
billion omnibus appropriation bill with 9,000 earmarks in it. They're
paying to bail out those who lied on their mortgage applications.
They're paying for a government takeover of General Motors with no exit
strategy. And they're paying for a budget that didn't include a tax cut
that was promised for, yes, you guessed it, the middle class in
America. And if Democrats get their way, they'll be paying for a
national energy tax on anyone who has the audacity to drive a car or to
flip on a light switch.
Over and over again, the people who follow the rules are being left
behind by Washington. Are Democrats going to leave the middle class
behind on health care as well?
The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make health care
more expensive, limit treatments, ration care, and put bureaucrats in
charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors. That
amounts to a government takeover of health care, and it will hurt,
rather than help, middle-class families across our country.
The administration likes to say they can expand health care and lower
costs at the same time, but I think that's just simply nonsense. You
can't add millions of Americans to the government health care rolls and
reduce costs unless government takes control of medical decisions,
rations care, and
[[Page 14350]]
limits treatments, all of which will reduce quality and undermine the
care that Americans have come to expect.
Republicans believe there's a better way. Led by Roy Blunt, the
Health Care Solutions Group is crafting a plan that will ensure access
to affordable, quality health care for every American, regardless of
preexisting conditions. This plan will protect Americans from being
forced into a new government-run plan that raises taxes, rations care,
and eliminates coverage for more than 100 million Americans who receive
their health care coverage from their employer. It will ensure that
medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not by
government bureaucrats. We want to let Americans who like their health
care coverage keep it and give all Americans the freedom to choose the
plan that best meets their needs. We want to improve Americans' lives
through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management
programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-
threatening diseases.
I hope Democrats here in Congress and the administration will work
with us to make sure that we do this right. The American people, and
particularly the middle class who have been left behind, deserve our
best effort to put these reforms in place that will meet their needs.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) for 5 minutes.
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, the distinguished minority leader has
just expressed the desire of his party to engage us in health care
reform, and I'm so gratified and happy to hear him say that. Similarly,
the distinguished minority leader of the Senate, who is both my Senator
and my constituent, has spent the last few days in the Senate talking
about that same desire, to help us move forward in addressing what we
all know is an unsustainable and dysfunctional health care delivery
system.
The Senator spoke last Friday, and he said, ``Americans want reform
that addresses the high cost of care and gives everyone access to
quality care. In America in 2009, doing nothing is simply not an
option. We must act and we must act decisively. The question is not
whether to reform health care; the question is how best to reform
health care.''
None of us in either body on either side of the aisle will argue with
that statement.
Unfortunately, in the remainder of the distinguished Senate minority
leader's statement, there is not the first idea about how to do that.
Despite his teasing us that he is going to offer solutions, they're
not. In fact, what he does is pretty similar to what the distinguished
minority leader of the House just did, which was to echo the themes of
a talking point paper provided by Frank Luntz, the Republican message
person, which basically said the Republicans cannot afford to allow
Democrats to have a victory in health care. They can't allow us to get
something done for the American people. And, therefore, they are going
to respond by criticizing everything we are doing as a government
takeover of health care. In fact, in the distinguished Senate minority
leader's statement, some version of government takeover is mentioned 11
times in 1\1/2\ half pages. So we know where they're coming from.
But the arguments that are raised are also things that require
scrutiny, and as we move forward in this debate, we need to examine all
of them.
For instance, the Senator says, ``When most companies want to raise
money, they have to show they are viable and their products and
services are a worthwhile investment.''
Again, nobody can argue with that. That means adding value.
``Apply this model to health care, and the government would be able
to create the same kind of uneven playing field that would, in all
likelihood, eventually wipe out competition, thus forcing millions of
people off the private health plans they already have and which the
vast majority of them very much like.''
You know, when insurance companies are forced to compete, they do
very well. Senator McConnell and I have a common constituent, the
Humana Corporation, a great corporation. When they're forced to
compete, they figure out how to add value. And they're doing that right
now. They are doing it with the Medicare Advantage program.
When insurance companies are forced to compete, they compete well.
Right now they're not forced to compete. What many of us are proposing
is that we create a public competition for them, make them compete with
the public plan. And unlike what Senator McConnell says, if they are
unable to compete, it won't be because of an unfair advantage; it will
be because they are not providing the kind of coverage at the cost that
the American people want. If American people want to stay in their
private plans under the proposals that we're advancing, they will be
able to do that. We're not forcing anyone out. Right now most Americans
don't have a choice, and we are trying to provide that choice through a
public plan.
In the Senator's statement, he says: ``This is how a government plan
would undercut private health care plans, forcing people off the plans
they like and replacing those plans with plans they like less.''
They're not going to be in plans they like less. They will choose the
plan they like more.
{time} 1045
``That is when the worst scenario would take shape, with Americans
subjected to bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold, waiting for a
government service representative to take a call, restrictions on care
and, yes, lifesaving treatment and lifesaving surgeries denied or
delayed.''
It's a nice scare tactic. Unfortunately, what he is describing is
what often happens right now in the private insurance system with
doctors spending endless hours trying to argue with bureaucracies about
whether certain treatments or certain procedures will be covered. So
what we're trying to do is to end that and to provide competition that
will end that.
Finally, the Senator says, ``The American people want health care
reform, but creating a government bureaucracy that denies, delays and
rations health care is not the reform they want.'' I agree with that. I
agree with that.
Then he says, ``They don't want the people who brought us the
Department of Motor Vehicles making life-and-death decisions for them,
their children, their spouses, and their parents.'' Well, that's a cute
line, very clever.
Unfortunately, you know, the Federal Government didn't create the
Department of Motor Vehicles, but the Federal Government did create
Medicare, Medicare which now serves 40 million Americans, disabled and
old, and which does a very, very good job of doing that.
So I look forward to the debate we're going to continue to have with
the other side on how best to create health care reform.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE RAISE ACT, H.R. 2732
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants
to know why Republicans oppose the government takeover of our health
care system, I would invite him to consult the many, many refugees from
Canada and Britain who have come here to America to get their health
care, because they simply can't survive with bureaucrats telling them
what treatments they'll get and when they'll get them.
The Republicans are proposing to bring within the reach of every
American family a basic health plan that they will own, that they can
change if it fails to suit them and that they will hold wherever they
work and under whatever circumstances they work; but
[[Page 14351]]
Madam Speaker, I'm here on different business this morning.
I'm here to talk about the right of workers. Their right to gather
and to bargain collectively with an employer is a fundamental right of
labor. It often strengthens the position of individual workers as they
negotiate with a powerful employer. Yet survey after survey tells us
that union members are less satisfied with their jobs than nonunion
workers, and many Americans today simply refuse to work in union shops
at all.
So why is it that a bargaining process designed to improve workers'
satisfaction should produce such dissatisfaction?
Perhaps the answer rests with the simple human desire in each of us
to excel in what we do and to be recognized and rewarded for that
excellence. Collective bargaining increases the ability of workers to
take a stronger position to negotiate with an employer, and this is
good, but they're then left to give up any individual rewards for
outstanding work.
Union workers end up trapped with a one-size-fits-all contract that
denies them the dignity that comes from individual excellence and
achievement. No matter how hard that worker toils or no matter how much
he produces, he gets paid exactly the same as the coal worker who puts
in minimal effort.
Well, why shouldn't workers get extra pay and performance bonuses
beyond the union-negotiated wage base? Why does the wage floor set
through union contracts also have to be a wage ceiling for those union
members who go the extra mile to get ahead?
Union leaders may see value in wiping out individual initiative to
build solidarity among rank-and-file members, but those workers would
be far better off if they could enjoy both the advantages of collective
bargaining and the additional rewards of individual performance raises
and bonuses. Many unionized businesses would gladly pay individual
workers more if they could. Some have tried, but over the years, the
National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly struck them down.
For that reason, I have introduced the Rewarding Achievement and
Incentivizing Successful Employees, or RAISE Act, H.R. 2732. It will
allow working union members to escape the false choice between
collective bargaining and individual reward that our outdated labor
laws have forced upon them. Senator Vitter has introduced a similar
bill in the Senate.
Under the RAISE Act, union members would retain all of the collective
bargaining rights under current law, and employers would be bound to
the wage and benefit schedules negotiated under those laws. In addition
to the floor established by the union contract, employers could add
bonuses for those workers who go the extra mile, combining the benefits
of collective bargaining with the rewards of individual achievement.
Years ago, Admiral Grace Hopper observed that, in all of her years in
the United States Navy, she had determined that the greatest impediment
to human progress is the phrase ``but we've always done it this way.''
That's the only answer we've heard so far in opposition to this simple
reform, and in days like these, that's no answer at all.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MRS. KIM HENRY, OKLAHOMA'S FIRST LADY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) for 1 minute.
Mr. BOREN. Today, Madam Speaker, I rise to share a kind word and to
send my congratulations to one of Oklahoma's great women, Kim Henry,
Oklahoma's first lady and the wife of our outstanding Governor.
Born in Norman and raised in Shawnee, Mrs. Henry would mature into a
confident and independent woman who would eventually find her calling
as a public schoolteacher. Throughout her tenure as Oklahoma's first
lady, she has been a devoted mother to three beautiful daughters, and
has been an active member of numerous charities.
One of those prominent Oklahoma organizations is the influential
Sarkeys Foundation. Formed in 1962 by S.J. Sarkeys, the Sarkeys
Foundation has contributed over $55 million to various Oklahoma
cultural and economic initiatives. Last week, the Sarkeys Foundation
asked Mrs. Henry to be its executive director. This is a significant
moment in her life and also for the State of Oklahoma.
Congratulations to Oklahoma's first lady, Kim Henry. Your hard work
and dedication to the State of Oklahoma doesn't go unnoticed.
____________________
``THE STATE OF THE UNION'S FINANCES, A CITIZEN'S GUIDE''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, Members of Congress in the
House and the Senate get literature sent to them every single day. In
fact, we probably get four or five books a week. I don't know how many
little leaflets and pamphlets we're asked to read, but we don't have
time to read them all. We ask our staff to read some of them, but we
don't have a chance to really get into the minutiae of some of these
brochures.
Our colleagues in both the House and the Senate got this little
booklet called ``The State of the Union's Finances, a Citizen's
Guide.'' These are going to be given, I guess, to people all across
this country. I hope every one of my colleagues and everybody in
America gets a chance to read this little booklet. Now, this was sent
to us by our colleagues Frank Wolf, Republican of Virginia, and Jim
Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee. I just want to read to you a little bit
about the situation that America faces, because Americans right now, I
don't think, are really aware of the fiscal problems we're facing.
As of the fall of 2008, we had $12.2 trillion in explicit
liabilities. That's publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions,
retiree health benefits, and others things related to that. We had $1.3
trillion in debt for Federal insurance, loan guaranties, leases, and so
forth, and we had a $42.9 trillion debt from Medicare hospital
insurance, Medicare outpatient services, Medicare prescription drugs,
and Social Security. That's a total of $56.4 trillion in debt that we
have right now, today. That amounts to $184,000 of debt for every man,
woman, and child in this country; it amounts to $435,000 of debt for a
full-time worker; for each household, it amounts to $483,000 in debt.
That's the national debt today.
George Washington said we should avoid ungenerously throwing upon
posterity, our kids, the burden we, ourselves, ought to bear. In 1796,
they had a deficit, and George Washington said that we can't allow this
to happen because we don't want to leave a burden to our kids and to
our grandkids by spending too much money.
I'm telling you right now, colleagues and anybody else who is paying
attention, what we're going to leave our kids and our grandkids is
something that they will curse us for because they're going to have to
pay extremely high taxes, and the inflationary problems that they're
going to face are going to be insurmountable.
I can't believe that we're doing this right now. We're talking about
a national health care program that's going to add additional trillions
of dollars. We're talking about bailouts to the financial institutions
and to the auto industry. We're talking about a cap-and-trade program
that's going to increase the cost of every family in America between
$3,000 and $4,000 to turn on their lights or to buy gasoline at a
service station or anything else that produces energy. We're adding
about $2 trillion a year to this debt, and it's unsustainable. It is
going to affect every man, woman, and child who is living in America
today, but what it's going to do to future generations is unbelievable.
We can destroy this Republic if we don't get control of spending.
This is a political hyperbole. I'm telling you right now that we can
destroy this form of government and this civilization we have, just
like Rome did, if we don't get control of spending. It is out
[[Page 14352]]
of control. It is out of control. We're $56 trillion in debt today, and
we're adding $2 trillion a year, plus all of these additional programs
we're coming up with. In the next 5 years, they say we're going to
spend an additional $5 trillion. We don't have it, so we're putting
this burden on our kids and on our grandkids.
It's wrong. We have to do something about it. We have to do it now.
We have to start getting our spending in order. My Republican and
Democrat colleagues understand that. Mr. Wolf is a Republican who sent
this out, and Mr. Cooper is a Democrat. They understand it. We all
ought to understand it.
____________________
ENERGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Klein) for 5 minutes.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be here today
to talk in this House about energy. This is a moment in time when, I
think, most Americans understand this great opportunity we have to
really turn things around for our future in this country. It's about
three principal elements that aren't just tied to the high cost of
gasoline. It's about national security; it's about a better
environment; and probably, as one of the most important things for this
moment, it's about jobs. It's about a new economy.
We'll just talk about national security. I think all of us understand
very clearly, every American, no matter where one is from, the fact
that importing oil is the basis for a lot of the dependency that we
have. Sixty percent or so of the oil that we take in the United States
comes from outside the United States. We depend, unfortunately, on many
countries that are, at best, not our friends and that are, at worst,
our mortal enemies, who fund terrorism and threats against the United
States and against our allies around the world. The sooner that we can
take oil out of the centerpiece of our natural resource dependency, the
better. That's not to say we don't have oil in the United States and
that, yes, we're going to drill more and all that kind of thing. What
I'm talking about is the fact that much of our oil comes from places
around the world, from the Middle East, from Venezuela and from other
places that are not stable places for us to depend on this.
Number 2 is our economy. We know that we have a great opportunity in
terms of this next generation of jobs to be created relating to
alternative energy and to the various kinds of alternative energies
that are out there right now that are being developed by our
scientists, by our engineers, and by our businesspeople.
There is one thing that, I think, is just incredible and that I'll
just give by way of an example because we know about solar and wind and
a lot of other things. I'm from Florida, and I was speaking to one of
our utility companies the other day, and they're talking about building
the largest solar plant in the world in Florida. Over the years, we've
heard, Oh, well, there isn't enough sun or maybe other things. Well,
now there is a general recognition that anywhere in the United States
there are great opportunities for solar. The technology is moving
along, and we need to continue to incent that continued higher level of
development of battery storage for solar and things like that.
One of the things he said to me is, in building this plant, they have
to import the mirrors--these are the pieces of equipment to hold the
solar and to capture the power--from Germany. Hundreds of millions of
dollars of this product have to come in from Germany because we don't
produce it here in the United States.
Why? Why don't we produce it? Why isn't that a job opportunity that
is based right here?
I think that one of the things that's going on right now in the
investment recovery act that we've put together and other things that,
I think, all of us share, Democrats and Republicans and as Americans,
is the idea that, if we're going to talk about energy, we have to
incentivize business and industry and the engineers in our universities
to develop the science, to develop the entrepreneurship, to give the
tax incentives for investment for that type of energy in the United
States, and to build the equipment here in the United States.
There is no reason. It costs a lot of money to ship fragile mirrors
over from Germany. We can build it here. We can build it better. We can
probably export it and can compete with the rest of the world.
{time} 1100
I think that's a pretty exciting opportunity, and there are so many
other areas. In my district off the coast of Florida, most of you have
heard of the gulf stream. That's that perpetual current, 24/7, 365 days
a year, that runs up and down up to north along the east coast. Well,
right now, one of our local universities, Florida Atlantic University,
is developing technology where they can put turbines in the Atlantic
Ocean and capture that energy.
I don't know if this is going to work long-term, but that's the kind
of American ingenuity that we're looking for, and we as a government
and private sector, our scientists, our entrepreneurs, we need to work
together to capture that and build on that.
And of course, there's the environment. We all understand that, and
there is something going on in the world on climate. People can have
different opinions. I think most scientists agree there's something
going on, and whatever we can do in the United States and around the
world to provide leadership to reduce the impact of CO2 and
other things, it's good for all of us.
I live in a coastal area, 75 miles on the Atlantic Ocean, some of the
most beautiful areas in the world. We obviously are very sensitive to
the hurricane activity, to the rise of the Atlantic Ocean, things like
that, but I think we all understand there's an environmental issue at
the same time.
So what are we doing here in Washington? We're working very
collectively, and there are a lot of business and industry actively
supporting some of the various ideas that are coming forward to work on
this in a very productive way to make sure that the United States is
leading the world in these areas of alternative energy.
And we're debating a bill right now and I know our colleagues are
asking for comments from back home. We obviously want to do it in a way
that allows for appropriate levels of transition for our industries who
are dependent on old fuel sources to move to new fuel sources. We need
to work together to make sure that the system eases in a way that is
economically competitive. That's what we need to do. At the same time,
we ought to be encouraging as much as we can getting these products
into play.
So I'm very excited about the fact that we can build a new energy
future, and I look forward to working with all of our Members to do
that.
____________________
WE NEED A NATIONAL ENERGY THAT DOESN'T PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I'm here today to talk about the same
issue that my colleague from Florida just talked about, and that's
energy. He alluded to the energy bill that's been moving through
Congress over the last several months, but he neglected to say that in
that bill are some real costs for real people. And I think these are
the important issues in front of our Nation today.
Energy, we found when the price of gasoline went up last summer over
$4 a gallon, we were pressed, I think appropriately, to try to find an
energy future, a plan for our energy future, and we never really
answered that question. Well, this morning in Charleston, West
Virginia, where I'm from, the price of gasoline went up to $2.75 and
has been going up almost daily. So we need a national energy plan that
doesn't pick winners and losers, that takes into account real costs for
real people.
Right now, the bill that's passed out of the Energy and Commerce
Committee is a national energy tax on
[[Page 14353]]
every single American. We call it cap-and-tax. The supporters call it
cap-and-trade. But what it is, in reality, is it has serious problems
for States such as mine in West Virginia. Ninety-eight percent of the
energy generation in our State is generated through coal. Well,
naturally, we're the second largest coal-producing State in this
Nation.
We've powered America for generations by giving of our natural
resources across this country, and I'm proud to say we have a proud
heritage, not only of turning the lights on in America but also of the
coal mining jobs and the coal mining communities and families
throughout my State.
But this will picks winners and losers because the heartland, of
which I consider West Virginia--and we just heard the gentleman from
Florida talk a lot about solar--but the heartland, which has had to
rely on fossil fuels for energy generation and to keep our
manufacturing jobs, we're going to be the losers here. We're going to
be the ones who are going to pay the heavy price.
What kind of price are we going to pay? Number one, job loss. It's
estimated that in my State alone over 10,000 jobs will be lost in our
manufacturing sector because of this bill. And you ask, why is that?
Well, because our industrial input will be lower because of the high
cost of meeting the demands, because of the lack of a transitional
period in this bill. We'll also lose probably many, many, 10s of
thousands of jobs in our coal mining industry and associated industries
alone.
Also, for the individuals, how is this going to impact the individual
who is paying now the $2.75 in West Virginia? In some areas of the
country, that probably sounds pretty good, but in ours, it's going up.
We've had the luxury of lower energy prices, and we are pleased about
that. But it's escaping us, and in this bill, we will no longer have
that.
If you look at the West Virginia electricity, prices under this bill
will go up over 100. Think about that: 100 percent of your electricity
bill, somewhere in the estimate of $2- to $3,000 a year.
And who's the loser there? Small businesses are the loser. They're
going to lose jobs because they're going to have the higher cost of
turning on their electricity, running their business. And what's that
going to result in? Job loss. That's going to result in lack of capital
to invest in a small business. And then the higher cost of
transportation would also hurt not only individuals but small
businesses as well.
But it's also going to hurt those people who can barely afford to
keep the lights on as it is, and those are our lower income folks. By
the year 2020, it is estimated that with this bill, with this cap-and-
tax bill, with this national energy tax, that the lower income folks
across this Nation, that 25 percent of their income will go to paying
for their energy costs.
Now, let's think about this. We've just gone through a housing
crisis, where people are losing their homes and people are having
trouble, people are losing jobs. Now, we're going to say to you, a
quarter of your income is going to go to one of the basic needs that
you have, and that's the basic need for energy.
Another loser are our State budgets. Think what an impact a national
energy tax is going to have on every hospital, on every public school,
on every university. Think of the cost of running the school buses that
we've seen as the rise up in energy costs.
So I don't think that this is the kind of bill that is going to solve
the problem. It sets up winners and losers, and it has real costs to
real people. It does have in there a great portion of carbon capture
and sequestration where we will use coal, and we will use the
technology and innovation, but we need to keep moving in this direction
so we can be realistic about how we're going to meet our energy needs
and how we're going to transition to the next best source.
Green jobs and green future, that's what we all want. I think that
it's a laudable goal, and it's one that we will reach, but we've got to
do it where we're not picking winners and losers, where we realize that
there are real costs to real people.
____________________
THE CURRENT ECONOMIC RECESSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as a Congressman from
Virginia, also a coal-producing State, I wish to rise to address the
current economic recession. We need to spur investment and create new
jobs, and we need to act now. An essential part of that effort is the
American Clean Energy and Security Act.
This legislation, unlike some of the statistics we've been hearing
lately, recently approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
would reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create lots of clean energy
jobs, including in the coal sector, and make polluters pay for the
greenhouse gas pollution they're emitting right now.
Last week, the United States Climate Action Partnership, known as
USCAP, hosted a congressional briefing to discuss the business reasons
for passing legislation to reduce global warming pollution. The USCAP
is a coalition of many American businesses who support the legislation,
including especially in the energy sector. They include Alcoa, BP,
ConocoPhillips, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Exelon, General Electric,
General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, NRG Energy, Shell, and Siemens.
Environmental groups are also members.
Many of these companies have built billion dollar companies through
the extraction, processing, or sale of carbon-intensive fossil fuels.
For example, most of BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips' business is in oil
exploration and production. Duke Energy produces 75 percent of its
electricity from coal. Manufacturers such as GE, Alcoa, and Dow consume
a great deal of electricity and would be negatively affected by higher
energy prices. They support this bill.
These businesses worked for 2 years with environmentalists and
Members of Congress to develop a blueprint for legislative action that
laid out a plan to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, create jobs, and
spur investment in renewable energy. This blueprint for legislative
action formed a foundation for the American Clean Energy and Security
Act, passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan
vote I might add.
At its briefing, USCAP members emphasized the importance of the
American Clean Energy and Security Act in spurring innovation and
economic growth. Representatives of Dow, NRG Energy, and Shell said
that without passage of this legislation to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, there simply will not be sufficient market incentive to
invest in carbon capture and storage, something necessary, especially
for the coal industry, Madam Speaker.
Carbon capture and storage is a technology that holds tremendous
promise; it is essential to more sustainable coal-generated electricity
production. The minority party claims that the American Clean Energy
and Security Act will hurt coal, as we just heard, but the business
community, including companies that rely principally on coal for
electrical generation, support this bill.
The minority party claims that the American Clean Energy and Security
Act will impair our ability to deploy American energy resources. Yet
USCAP members, ConocoPhillips and Shell, for example, noted at the
briefing that without this bill, they simply will not be able to
develop the next generation of biofuels.
Right now, we get most of our oil from overseas, Madam Speaker, from
countries like Saudi Arabia. We must end our dependence on foreign oil.
By spurring development of biofuels, the American Clean Energy and
Security Act would help reach that objective while creating economic
opportunities here at home.
I think the business community said it best. At USCAP's recent
briefing, a member representative said, ``One of the reasons that many
members of USCAP are enthusiastic is because we see that it is
essential for our businesses to move to a low carbon economy.''
[[Page 14354]]
Madam Speaker, let's unleash new investments in America. Let's
produce more of our energy here at home. Let's wean ourselves off
foreign oil dependency. Let us create new, clean energy jobs in
America. We cannot delay economic recovery, and we cannot risk further
destabilization of our climate.
____________________
REPUBLICANS WANT ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Indiana made some very,
very eloquent and compelling remarks about the status of our economy,
and my colleague from West Virginia gave valuable information on energy
and called attention to some important issues.
My distinguished colleague from Florida, whom I like and admire very
much, says the energy bill will create jobs, but he's wrong. It will
kill jobs. He never answered his own question: Why don't we produce
those mirrors in the United States? Because our taxes are high and
regulations drive jobs overseas.
America, if the Democrats pass this cap-and-tax bill, get ready to
pay more for electricity, a lot more. This cap-and-tax scheme, better
known as a national energy tax, if it becomes law, will cost $846
billion. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest
estimate. The CBO is a nonpartisan organization.
Who's going to bear the brunt of this new national energy tax? Anyone
who turns the lights on, but it's also going to be especially harmful
for many of my constituents and all others who work in manufacturing.
As companies adjust to this new energy tax, many will be forced to
ship jobs and the accompanying greenhouse emissions overseas where
energy costs will be much lower. Many employers will face the tough
choice of outsourcing or going out of business altogether. This
destructive energy policy will kill millions of American jobs and
permanently send them overseas, and I and many others cannot support
this.
I want to quote from a report that came out from the Ways and Means
Ranking Member Dave Camp, who has based his comments on this CBO report
that's come out. He says that, ``The facts are plain and clear:
Democrats in Congress are breaking the President's pledge not to raise
taxes on working families. The President has repeatedly stated married
couples earning less than $250,000 a year would not face higher taxes,
but this legislation imposes an energy tax on every American and
provides no help to families making more than $42,000 or individuals
making as little as $23,000. Increasing Americans' fuel and utility
bills in this recession is not only bad policy, but it completely
ignores the hardships millions of Americans are already facing. This is
dangerous legislation in desperate need of closer review.''
Republicans want energy independence for Americans, and we can have
it but not under this cap-and-tax bill.
{time} 1115
Madam Chairman, I would like to point out one other issue that is
before the Congress recently, and that is money for the IMF, the
International Monetary Fund, in the supplemental bill. What the
Democrats want to do is cut $5 billion from our troops in order to fund
the IMF. And because any IMF member country may apply for these loans,
Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Burma are all eligible. Therefore, state
sponsors of terrorism can receive American taxpayer money under the
Democrats' proposal.
The New York Times reported on May 27 that Hezbollah is in talks with
the IMF about continuing loans to Lebanon should they win the election.
Therefore, a terrorist organization could receive American taxpayer
dollars under the Democrats' proposal.
To loan the IMF $108 billion, the U.S. will have to borrow the money
from other countries, like China. A loan of this size to the IMF will
put America further into debt, a cost that will be paid by our
grandchildren and children, a point so well-pointed out by my colleague
from Indiana. Also, according to the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, American taxpayers will actually lose money by loaning it to
the IMF. While countries like China, Russia, Brazil, and India have
announced they will not participate in loans, the Democrats are asking
Americans to support this.
Finally, the American taxpayers are sick of bailouts in their own
country. How can Democrats rationalize a global bailout?
____________________
AUTOMOBILE DEALER ECONOMIC RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Maffei) for 5 minutes.
Mr. MAFFEI. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask Chrysler and General Motors
to continue to honor their commitments to auto dealers in this country.
Chrysler and GM should not deprive economic rights to profitable
dealerships across this country.
Yesterday, I joined with Representative Frank Kratovil of Maryland
and introduced the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of
2009. The act claims to restore the economic rights of GM and Chrysler
dealers as they existed prior to each company's bankruptcy. We want to
preserve GM and Chrysler car dealers' rights to recourse under State
law and, at the request of an automobile dealer, require GM and
Chrysler to reinstate franchise agreements in effect prior to those
companies' bankruptcies. These are bankruptcies negotiated with Federal
officials, and taxpayer dollars are helping to maintain both companies.
Therefore, these bankruptcies should not be used to change the rules
that dealers have been operating under.
I first wrote a bipartisan letter with Representative Chris Lee of
New York and more than 65 of our colleagues to the auto task force in
May asking them to work with the companies to reconsider the forced
closings. Since then, thousands of dealers have been informed by GM and
Chrysler, through a seemingly arbitrary system, that their
relationships were ending essentially immediately, leaving some dealers
with millions of dollars invested in car stock with no options for
consolidation and little leverage for liquidation.
In my home district in upstate New York, there is a dealership, Lewis
Goodman Chrysler, which has been the cornerstone of one of our
communities for 50 years. Mr. Goodman opened his dealership in 1959 in
Syracuse. Two years ago, at the age of 82, Mr. Goodman passed away, but
his dying wish was to make sure the dealership reached the half century
mark. His widow promised to keep their dealership running at least
through its 50th anniversary, which was just last week. Lewis Goodman
Chrysler received a letter on May 15 informing them that Chrysler was
severing their relationship. The letter gave no indication as to why
this particular dealership was targeted, just that the relationship was
ending.
I visited Mrs. Goodman last week to celebrate the 50th anniversary.
This is a dealership that is profitable, partly because of selling
preowned cars. It employs dozens of people and has been loyal to them
for years. It is exactly the kind of small family business that we in
this House claim to want to help, not close.
We all recognize that the economy is not favorable to the auto
industry right now and especially not in certain sections of the
country where the population can no longer support an extensive dealer
network. We have already seen layoffs from parts manufacturers in my
district, plant closings, and a Chapter 11 among one of their
suppliers. In this context, across central New York 11 dealerships have
closed on their own since 2007, and we expect to see other dealerships
consolidate and close this year. But we do not, in the middle of a
recession, need to take a hatchet to local, family-owned businesses
that have supported our communities for decades when market forces are
already at work. These dealerships employ hundreds of people across my
[[Page 14355]]
district. They sponsor our local little league teams, our pancake
breakfasts, and they buy ads in our local newspapers and local TV
newscasts. They have been the cornerstone of our community for
generations.
I have also signed a letter with Congressman Chris Van Hollen,
Majority Leader Hoyer, and over 100 of our fellow Members, and we sent
it to President Obama talking about our concerns, the total lack of
transparency and how this system is shutting down profitable
dealerships. And we want to know, from both sides of the aisle, whether
we can get more transparency and an indication of how this, indeed,
saves money.
The auto companies, who are buoyed by taxpayer dollars, should be
honest with the dealerships and with the American people about how
these decisions are being made, and the dealerships should be
negotiated with on how to consolidate dealerships in a way that will
help to find a soft landing for the workers and communities, not just
in my district, but across the country.
____________________
STATUS QUO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Madam Speaker. I rise today to ask a
simple question that is on every American's mind; what has been done by
this administration and this Congress to fix the troubled economic
system we have today?
While this administration continues to pour trillions of dollars into
a flawed financial system, continues to have Washington bureaucrats
take control over failed businesses, and continues to appoint czar
after czar to exercise government control over our free market system,
the question still remains, Madam Speaker, what has this administration
done to fix this broken system, and is it working?
Government control is not the answer, as our European neighbors have
figured out recently and spoken through their elections to change their
left-leaning programs and political regimes.
This economic crisis was created by a flawed system, a system that is
in need of structural reform. However, the administration's answer to
this glaring problem is to continue to throw more money, taxpayers'
money, at the problem, which essentially increases this country's
unsustainable debt and increases Federal bureaucratic control over all
of our private institutions.
This country must stop the taxpayer-paid-for corporate welfare from
being handed out and simply return this economy to what has worked for
over 200 years, a system that rewards people who take prudent risks and
punishes those who take irresponsible risks.
We must return to being a frugal Nation, one where the Federal
Government balances its budget, encourages savings, and reins in the
$12 trillion worth of debt. This Nation can no longer afford one more
loan from China as our credit rating teeters on the brink of failure.
This structural reform begins with the executives that are tasked
with running these institutions, banks, and corporations. What this
economic crisis has taught us is that these CEOs care more about their
stock options, even at the expense of hiding fraudulent assets and
taking bogus risks to inflate their P&L statements.
Government-guaranteed bailouts and guaranteed bonuses allow these
individuals to escape their poor decisions and sidestep the economic
hardship that their risky choices have created for the average American
family.
I believe this starts by giving investors and shareholders more
transparency into what occurs in corporate boardrooms. Shareholders and
investors need greater access to information to allow their confidence
in company governance determine where their investment capital is best
allocated. In addition, investors, regulators, and the American people
need greater transparency into the daily operation of Wall Street. It
is nearly impossible for one to find information or records of a
corporation's credit default swaps--who owns them, who backs them, who
has issued these complex financial tools? Vital information like this
will help to prevent corporations from concealing this information in
their books, what they owe and how much debt they really are in? The
same can be said with regard to the subprime mortgage securities, what
are they worth now?
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as ``too big to
fail.'' These institutions must realize that every time they make an
irresponsible decision or a risky bet, the Federal Treasury will not
come to their financial rescue. Financial bailouts are a slippery slope
and set a dangerous precedent. When the Federal Government begins to
arbitrarily pick winners and losers, fairness, equality and the free
market are tossed out the window, as evidenced by Bear Stearns'
government bailout and Lehman Brothers allowed failure.
This administration, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Treasury
must release their TARP records and disclose in full how the bailout
money has been spent, who the money has gone to, and the reason why
some received help and others were allowed to fail. This money belongs
to the taxpayers; we have a right to know.
For these and other reasons, I am calling on this Congress and the
administration to have a series of comprehensive hearings to determine
what exactly happened, who was at fault, what is the best way to
restructure this flawed system, and how are the taxpayers going to get
their money back from these bailouts?
Status quo is not acceptable, and neither is bailout after bailout,
leading to Federal bureaucratic control of our institutions and our
banks. It is time we find answers to these problems rather than
continue to throw good money after bad.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 25 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Peters) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Eternal God, yet ever-present to Your believing people, give us the
wisdom to use the time You give us wisely.
May we divide our time according to priorities, always in fair and
appropriate ways.
May we share our time with those who bring out the best in us or need
our attention the most.
And Lord, may we waste time only while reflecting on Your many
blessings or with those we love.
For everything and everyone is such a gift. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Griffith) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. GRIFFITH 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
[[Page 14356]]
that the Senate has agreed to without amendment a concurrent resolution
of the House of the following title:
H. Con. Res. 109. Concurrent resolution honoring the 20th
anniversary of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure in the
Nation's Capital and its transition to the Susan G. Komen
Global Race for the Cure on June 6, 2009, 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. 256. An act to enhance the ability to combat
methamphetamine.
____________________
FUNDING WARS AND MOVING JOBS OVERSEAS
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. KUCINICH. It is good our administration is reaching out to the
Muslim world. It is bad to spend another $100 billion to keep wars
going which will kill innocent Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan.
It is good we try to create an incentive for people to buy efficient
cars. It is bad that vouchers will not be expressly for the purpose of
purchase of cars made in America. It is even worse that we tie such an
incentive to a war-funding bill: cash for clunkers and bunkers in the
same bill; cash for more war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; cash
to help China sell its cars to Americans.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A., factories and auto dealers are
closing. People are losing their businesses, their jobs, their homes,
their health care, their investments, their retirement security.
Who are these people who keep coming up with these innovative ideas
to keep wars going and to move jobs out of America? Who are these
people?
____________________
PROVIDING AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are eager for this discussion,
this debate on health care to move forward. We are eager to talk about
health care in committee, on the floor, in hearings, at news
conferences, wherever people want to talk about a health care system
that ensures more quality, widespread coverage, and accessibility.
In fact, we have a plan that will be based on five principles, and
today I want to talk about one of those principles, which is just
simply to make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible
for every American, regardless of preexisting health conditions. That
is a statement that almost every Member of this House I believe would
agree with, and our debate is just simply how we get there.
We need to be committed to get there. We need to ensure that
everybody has not just access to health care because of certain Federal
regulations. Everyone can get into a health care environment if there
is a crisis, but we want to be sure they have coverage that gets them
into health care through their entire life and through all the needs of
their health care.
Affordable, accessible, quality health care is something we are eager
to debate. We have the plans that will get there, and we hope that a
competitive marketplace allows more choices.
____________________
SUPPORT THE SAFER GRANT PROGRAM
(Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a bill
I have introduced to help our brave firefighters continue to protect us
in these tough times. The SAFER Grant Program helps our fire
departments hire the staff they need by funding some of the salaries of
new firefighters.
In a district like mine, where we are fighting five wildfires as we
speak, this program is crucial to ensuring our firefighters are well-
staffed. With tight budgets, the cost-sharing requirement in SAFER has
become too tough for our fire departments to meet. Congress waived that
requirement in the Recovery Act, but did not include grants from fiscal
year 2008, which are still being distributed.
My bill would extend the cost-sharing waiver to fiscal year 2008,
allowing our fire departments the flexibility they need to keep us
safe, especially during our fire season.
____________________
DEMOCRAT PAYGO: YOU PAY, THEY GO ON SPENDING
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, later today President Barack Obama will push
Democrat lawmakers to follow pay-as-you-go budget rules. PAYGO rules,
as they are known, in theory would require new Federal spending or tax
cuts be offset by spending cuts or even tax increases elsewhere. Now,
this may sound reasonable to some Americans, but the devil is always in
the details, and the American people have reason to be skeptical about
newfound calls for fiscal responsibility from this majority.
Under Democrat control, the Federal budget deficit is projected to
approach nearly $2 trillion. In the last several years, non-defense
spending has increased by 85 percent. The President and the Democrat's
budget just passed will double the national debt in 5 years and triple
it in 10. And now calls for new budget rules?
With Democrat plans for more borrowing, more spending, more bailouts,
and more debt, the Democrat definition of PAYGO is all too clear to the
American people: you pay, and they go on spending.
____________________
BRINGING ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN HOME
(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, I recently learned of
a situation concerning a constituent of mine, Randy Collins, whose ex-
wife abducted their son and went to Japan. The last time Randy Collins
saw his son, Keisuke Christian Collins, was on June 15, 2008.
According to the United States State Department's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services, the United States has
received notices of 73 cases of parental abductions involving 104
children just for the country of Japan.
Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the severity of this
situation and how it affects so many American lives. Once taken to
Japan, American parents are unable to see their children because
parental visitation rights are not recognized, they are not protected
by Japan, and abduction by one parent is not considered a crime.
As an ally of the United States, I urge the Government of Japan to
sign the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction and respect the rights of our American parents.
____________________
YES, MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE OUT OF MONEY
(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, in a recent interview with C-SPAN, the
President made the very telling statement, ``We are out of money.''
Yes, Mr. President, as of April 27, this country ran out of money.
And yet that has not stopped the liberals in this Congress from passing
record-setting spending bills. These bills were sold to the American
public as necessary to stimulate the economy.
Unemployment insurance claims reached a record high for the 17th
consecutive week and unemployment has reached 9.4 percent, which he
promised would not happen upon signing this infamous stimulus bill. The
$1 trillion spending that was supposed to stem the economic recession
was nothing more than the fulfillment of a very liberal political
agenda.
[[Page 14357]]
Reckless spending, a total disregard for fiscal accountability, and
rocketing us into another inflation-debt spiral is not the solution.
Now, even Socialist and Communist countries across the world are
rebuking us for excessive spending and government takeover of the
economy.
Bigger government is never the answer to America's biggest
challenges. American individualism, innovation, and ingenuity will,
even after 200 years, remain the only way to economic prosperity.
____________________
THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
(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, it has been barely over 100 days since the
Recovery Act was passed by this Congress and signed into law by
President Obama. Since the recession began, Americans have
understandingly been worried about our Nation's future and their own
economic future.
Because of the Recovery Act, we have created and saved over 150,000
jobs, cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, and made funds available
for over 4,000 transportation projects across the country. We have made
progress in a short time, but there is still a lot more to do on the
road to recovery. I commend President Obama on his efforts to speed up
those efforts to get Americans back to work even faster.
The Department of Transportation is quickly putting $27.5 billion to
work creating jobs in my home State of Missouri and across the country
to rebuild and repair highways, roads, and bridges. By the end of 2010,
the funds will have created or saved an additional 150,000 jobs.
Investments in our national transportation system are critical to our
long-term economic success, and part of getting there will be putting
people back to work rebuilding America on the road to recovery.
____________________
CAP-AND-TRADE DESERVES TO FAIL
(Mr. CASSIDY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, cap-and-trade threatens to be a well-
intended disaster. Under the ruse of reducing carbon emissions to clean
the environment, cap-and-trade will hobble the economy. By some
estimates, it reduces GDP by $9.6 trillion over two decades, eliminates
1.1 million jobs per year, and increases the Federal debt by 26
percent. Electricity rates jump 90 percent, gas prices 74 percent, and
natural gas prices 55 percent.
Cap-and-trade is designed to disguise what it truly is, in the words
of Mr. Dingell, ``a great big tax.'' It imposes higher taxes on
producers, so producers pass higher prices to consumers. The authors
are targeting the producers so that the producers increase the prices
on consumers. If the authors targeted consumers rather than the
producers, it would connect them too much, and therefore, they must
distance themselves from the families who bear the costs.
The authors know the effects. They are hiding from them. It is
underhanded, it is subterfuge, it deserves to fail.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF STAFF SERGEANT JEFFREY ALAN HALL
(Mr. GRIFFITH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Staff
Sergeant Jeffrey Alan Hall. On June 1, 2009, Jeffrey was killed in
action in Afghanistan. As north Alabama mourns this sudden, devastating
loss, I would like to recognize Staff Sergeant Hall and his entire
family's sacrifice.
Jeffrey was an 8-year veteran of the United States Army, earning many
well-deserved awards and decorations, including two Army Commendation
Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, a NATO Medal, and a Global
War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.
Staff Sergeant Hall is an inspiring example of someone we can all
look up to and inspire to be like. He put the safety of all Americans
before his own, and the people of this Nation will be forever grateful.
He motivated and inspired those who were around him, and he will be
greatly missed by all who knew him, as well as those who never had the
honor and privilege of meeting him.
Our country has lost a great soldier and an even better son. All of
us in north Alabama are deeply saddened by the loss of Jeffrey. On
behalf of the entire community in the Tennessee Valley and across
Alabama and the Nation, I rise today to join Huntsville Mayor Tommy
Battle, the United States Army, and the family of Jeffrey Hall in
honoring his service, memory, and life.
____________________
{time} 1215
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. GINGREY of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the government-run health care
plan that my Democratic colleagues are pushing will lead to health care
rationing and, ultimately, months of wait time for patients seeking
treatment.
Today, I want to read a testimonial from a Canadian citizen who has
experienced firsthand the ill effects of their government-run health
care.
``When I came to the major hospital in downtown Toronto with
appendicitis, I had to wait overnight until a doctor saw me, but they
did not have a CAT scan machine available, so they sent me home. I had
to return to the hospital the next day, and at that time they rated me
`less urgent.' When I asked them why, they told me I received the less
urgent rating `because I have not died yet.' Again, it took many hours
before I was able to see the doctor. Then I had to wait hours for an
operating room before I was told that only those who would otherwise
certainly die would receive surgery. However, the vet care in Canada is
private, so there is nothing like this when it comes to taking care of
my dog. The doctor is always available for a dog, but not for a
human.''
Mr. Speaker, health reform must not preclude man nor his best friend
from access to quality health care.
____________________
H.R. 1550, THE CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND SAVE (CARS) ACT OF
2009
(Mr. PETERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the CARS Act
of 2009. This legislation is critical, not only to spur growth in
America's auto industry, but to save and create jobs throughout the
economy.
History shows that one of the quickest ways to end a recession is to
sell more automobiles. New car sales constitute a major percentage of
the Nation's consumer spending, and increasing vehicle sales also
stimulates demand for raw goods, from which automobiles are
manufactured. Production of glass, steel, plastics, and other primary
materials will be increased as more new cars are sold, creating jobs
throughout the economy.
Similar programs have shown proven results abroad. In Germany, sales
were boosted roughly 40 percent. Many other nations have acted to
strengthen their economies with policies designed to sell more
automobiles, and the U.S. should not be left behind.
We must pass the CARS Act today to create a recovery, not just for
our auto industry, but for the entire economy.
____________________
U.S. JOURNALISTS ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS IN NORTH KOREA
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, two American journalists, Laura Ling
and
[[Page 14358]]
Euna Lee, are reporters for Current TV. They were in China near the
North Korean border making a film about the horrible sex trafficking
between North Korea and China. The North Koreans claim they crossed the
border illegally, so the Communist court sentenced them to 12 years at
hard labor. That's some border enforcement policy.
The conditions in these prison camps are harsh. Some reports say a
quarter of the inmates die of starvation every year. The prisoners do
backbreaking work in factories, coal mines and rice paddies. They're
also used in experiments involving biological weapons. I guess the
Communists didn't get the memo on human rights.
Now we hear that the journalists may have actually been kidnapped and
forcibly taken to North Korea. Anyway, they are being used as political
prisoners to try to force this administration to give more concessions
and American money to North Korea.
North Korea is starving. The Communist regime is bankrupt. But they
want to be able to sell nuclear technology to terrorist nations, so
they're holding these journalists ransom until they get their way.
Mr. Speaker, the journalists should go free, and the North Korean
outlaws should take their place in that prison.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE NAVAJO CODE TALKERS
(Mr. TEAGUE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, over the Memorial Day recess, our Nation
lost two individuals that I consider to be national treasures. Two
marines that were known as ``Navajo Code Talkers'' passed away: John
Brown, Jr., of Crystal, New Mexico, and his compatriot, Thomas Claw.
Both were 87.
During World War II, the Marines recruited members of the Navajo
Nation for the specific purpose of devising a code that was based on
the Navajo language. The Japanese were never able to break the code,
and the Code Talkers were credited with helping save lives and
contributing to the military success in the Pacific theater.
The Code Talkers' contributions were invaluable, and we should always
be grateful for their service. They did so much, and their contribution
can be summarized best by what John Brown said when he was presented
with the Congressional Gold Medal: ``We have seen much in our lives. We
have seen war and peace, and we know the value of the freedom and
democracy that this great Nation embodies. But our experience also
reminds us how fragile these things can be and how vigilant we must be
in protecting them.''
____________________
FISCAL RESTRAINT
(Mr. CHAFFETZ asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the voting card of the
United States Congress. Now, this is the ultimate credit card. There's
no limit and there's no penalties. And it's wrong.
Every time I hear a solution from the Democrats, it's about spending
more. We have got to stop running this country on a credit card. The
problems that we face in this Nation, the challenges that we face are
not solved by charging things on the credit card.
The American Dream is not about overspending and being in debt. It's
about hard work and perseverance and liberty. Every time we add dollars
to this card, we take away that liberty.
I urge my colleagues, come up with solutions that don't include an
increase in spending. Cap-and-trade is one of the largest tax increases
in the history of the United States of America.
Please, let's stop running this government on a credit card.
Institute fiscal restraint, and remember that it's the people's money.
It's not the Congress' money.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, our current health care system
is unsustainable. Working people go every day without care or struggle
to pay increasingly higher premiums and deductibles. In my home State
of Maryland, 76.7 percent of the uninsured are from working families.
Now, if a single-payer plan is not adopted by this Congress, which I
support strongly, then we must have a robust public plan option like
Medicare to be enacted to reduce costs for small businesses and
individuals, provide true competition, and give patients the choice
they deserve. A public plan option has to be available to all without
exclusions. It must retain patient choice and implement reforms that
promote quality care, prevention, primary care, and chronic health care
management. And importantly, a public plan option must address health
care disparities in underrepresented communities.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress and President will be judged by our
ability to construct a health care system that covers all Americans,
lowers costs for everyone, and provides real and competitive choice for
health care. The time for reform is now, and we can't delay.
____________________
THE CRISIS IN HEALTH CARE
(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, it's time we address the crisis in
health care. We can ensure every American can get the care they need,
protect individuals from costs that can bankrupt them, and make health
insurance portable so they can move or change jobs without losing
health insurance coverage. We can also stop insurance companies from
avoiding sick patients by reforming the system to pay when people
become healthier.
Enacting a public plan will not bring about this type of change. If
you think you won't be affected by a public plan, consider this: a
recent analysis by the respected independent firm The Lewin Group
estimated that 70 percent of individuals who have health care coverage
through their employer would lose those benefits in favor of a public
option. This plan could very easily be a Medicaid-like plan. In fact,
Senator Kennedy is proposing expanding Medicaid to families making up
to $110,000 a year in legislation he dropped yesterday.
When supporters of a public plan say they want a public plan to
compete with private plans, the facts show that what they're really
saying is they want a Washington bureaucrat to take over health care
decisionmaking. Buyer beware.
____________________
H. RES. 505, CONDEMNING THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE R. TILLER
(Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will consider H. Res.
505, a bill that condemns the tragic murder of Dr. George Tiller, and
offers our condolences to his wife, four children and 10 grandchildren.
He was known as a doctor of last resort and a friend to women when
they were in desperate need of support and care. His murder in his
church in Wichita, where he served as an usher and where his wife sang
in the choir, was a violent, lawless and senseless act.
At his memorial service this past Saturday, Dr. Tiller was remembered
for his generosity of spirit and his sense of humor. Let us also
remember him for his courage.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).
____________________
IMPRISONMENT OF AMERICAN JOURNALISTS IN NORTH KOREA
(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
[[Page 14359]]
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, news came yesterday that Laura Ling and Euna
Lee, two American journalists held in North Korea, and held there since
March, have been found guilty of illegally entering North Korea.
They've been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. These court
proceedings were a cruel joke, nothing more than a kangaroo court. I
know of no justice system in North Korea. The two should be immediately
released.
As if there were any doubts, the North Korean regime has shown its
true colors, a hostile regime bent on destroying the lives of its own
citizens and others.
Let's be clear. These two wouldn't have been near North Korea were it
not for the barbaric cruelty of its regime. Ling and Lee were convicted
of so-called ``grave crimes.'' It is the North Korean regime that
commits real grave crimes against millions of North Koreans every day.
President Obama, himself, must make it clear that this action cannot
stand. Now is the time for urgent action.
____________________
OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
(Mr. HIMES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, it has become amply clear to all Americans,
North, South, Republican, Democrat, rich, poor, that our health care
system is not just a moral embarrassment to the greatest country on
Earth, but a severe economic liability.
Our auto companies and our corporations stagger under cost increases.
Our small businesses choose between covering their employees or taking
a step towards insolvency. And of course, health care costs are the
leading cause of bankruptcy for American families.
We cannot fix this economy without reforming our health care system.
We cannot be fiscally responsible without addressing the stunning
economic liabilities that we have associated with Medicare and other
promises we have made.
The reforms that we are offering will offer a real choice of plans to
small businesses in America. It will provide tax credits to small
businesses, and it will end the practice of insurance companies denying
coverage to Americans who need it. Most importantly, it will emphasize
prevention, wellness, and patient-centered care.
The bottom line, reforming health care to contain rising costs is the
most effective action we can take to return our Nation's budget to
balance and make our workers the most competitive in the world.
____________________
PATIENT-CENTERED SOLUTIONS
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I draw attention to a vision
for a new era of American health care, a clear path to provide access
to affordable, quality care for all Americans.
There's no doubt that our health care system is failing some of
America's patients. Now, some in this body believe that the solution is
giving greater control over health care decisions to Washington, a
government takeover of personal health insurance.
Now, as a physician, I know that government interference only harms
patient access to health care. Real positive reform will only be
achieved by empowering patients, not government and not bureaucrats.
Positive reform starts with giving ownership of health coverage back to
the patient, not the government. Allowing individuals full control over
their coverage will make insurers truly accountable to patients,
leading to greater choice, innovation, and responsiveness.
Secondly, we must provide the proper financial incentives so that
there's no reason to be uninsured. With tax reform, not government
mandates, we can achieve universal access to care for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a positive, patient-centered
prescription for America that doesn't result in a government takeover.
____________________
{time} 1230
HONORING THE LIFE OF AMBASSADOR JACK HENNING
(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, we lost a lion of the labor movement and a
true son of San Francisco with the passing of Ambassador Jack Henning.
Jack spent the vast majority of his 93 years fighting for men and women
in the fields, factories, and loading docks of America. The only thing
he loved more than telling labor stories to anyone who would hear them
was telling them to those who didn't.
For 26 years, Jack was the driving force behind the California Labor
Federation, but he served our country in many ways. He was the director
of the California Department of Industrial Relations under Governor Pat
Brown, Under Secretary of Labor for President Kennedy, and U.S.
Ambassador to New Zealand for President Lyndon Johnson.
Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with Jack's family and the millions of
Americans--most of whom never knew him--who earn a liveable wage, work
under safer conditions, and are able to take their child to a doctor
because of the tireless passion of Ambassador Jack Henning.
____________________
A REAL WAY TO PEACE
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as President Obama begins to wade into the
Israel-Palestinian conflict, he must remember who our friends are.
Israel is America's most reliable and only democratic ally in the
Middle East. Yet in his speech last week in Cairo and in statements by
his administration, President Obama seems only to want to pressure
Israel, while not requiring similar concessions from the Palestinians
and other Arab states.
Starting with the British Partition Plan in 1937--when they were
offered the western part of Palestine--then again to the U.N. Partition
Plan in 1947, to the Camp David talks in 2000, and most recently in
December of 2008, the Palestinians have rejected every plan to divide
the land into independent states. Each time their answer was ``no.''
No outside party, President Obama included, can arbitrarily impose a
peace agreement, nor can peace be achieved by setting conditions on
just one party, Israel, which has been willing to take the necessary
and difficult steps towards peace and consider compromise.
____________________
THE RECOVERY BILL
(Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, it is undeniable that we have seen many
positive signs in our economy since January. The unemployment rate,
while still far too high, is improving and money is starting to flow
through the economy and into our cities and municipalities to improve
our infrastructure and ensure the safety of every American.
The recovery bill has been at the core of this progress and has saved
and created jobs and made much-needed investments in my local district.
For example, in my hometown of Utica, New York, the recovery bill
provided the City of Utica with over $2 million for lead abatement in
homes across the city. This lead abatement program will put people to
work and improve the health and quality of life for countless families.
Without this recovery bill funding, the City of Utica would have had to
have continued to delay this vital program because it is likely that
they did not have the funding necessary to proceed with these plans on
its own.
I will continue to fight for the recovery bill funding for critical
projects in
[[Page 14360]]
my district, and I know that we will see even more progress in all of
our communities as we all continue to work together to lead America out
of this economic crisis.
____________________
ENERGY
(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the importance
of building a clean energy economy for America. Americans are fed up
with the same tax breaks for oil companies that post record profits
while working families are stuck paying exorbitant prices at the pump.
Americans want a new energy economy, a green economy, to take us into
the future, to take us into a carbon-neutral economy, to take us into
jobs, to take us into a future in which we are not dependent upon the
automobile for every transportational decision.
The time has come to transform our economy for decades to come. The
time has come to create American jobs with new, clean, American-made
energy. The clean energy jobs plan is the next step in creating
millions of American jobs in clean energy, efficiency, and modernizing
a smart electric grid. We can reduce our dependence on costly oil, curb
pollution, and create jobs. We can do this. Yes, we can.
____________________
FIX THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call out the siren
and the clarion call for fixing America's health care system. We
urgently need to fix it, and we realize that if you've got it, you like
it, you can keep it.
We need to get a system that will allow those that are underinsured
and without insurance to be able to be cared for in this Nation. We
need to reduce the serious health disparities. We need to also ensure
that there is a public option, that there is universal access to health
care. Make it a good Medicare plan that helps the young, the old, and
the working Americans.
In addition, we need to be fair to how we pay for it. We need to
realize that physician-owned hospitals are not the enemy. In fact, they
help to, in essence, bring down health disparities. Many physician-
owned hospitals or investor-owned hospitals with doctors involved are
in the urban and rural areas where no other hospitals would go. Let's
fix this system in a fair manner that addresses the question of making
sure the 47 million-plus who are underinsured and those without
insurance can have a good public option, can as well have a fair system
of good doctors and have good hospitals and make it work for working
Americans and others who are in need.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). Pursuant to clause 8 of
rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions
to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule
XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE TILLER
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 505) condemning the murder of Dr.
George Tiller, who was shot to death at his church on May 31, 2009.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 505
Whereas Dr. George Tiller was murdered in Wichita, Kansas,
on May 31, 2009;
Whereas Dr. Tiller is mourned by his family, friends,
congregation, community, and colleagues;
Whereas Dr. Tiller, 67, was killed in his place of worship,
a place intended for peace and refuge that in a moment became
a place for violence and murder;
Whereas places of worship should be sanctuaries, but have
increasingly borne witness to reprehensible acts of violence,
with 38 people in the United States killed in their place of
worship in the past 10 years and 30 people wounded in those
same incidents;
Whereas these acts of violence include the murder of an
Illinois pastor at the pulpit in March 2009, the murder of an
Ohio minister in November 2008, the murder of an usher and a
guest during a children's play in a Tennessee church in July
2008, the murder of four family members in a church in
Louisiana in May 2006, and the shooting of a worshipper
outside a synagogue in Florida in October 2005; and
Whereas violence is deplorable, and never an acceptable
avenue for expressing opposing viewpoints: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) offers its condolences to Dr. Tiller's family; and
(2) commits to the American principle that tolerance must
always be superior to intolerance, and that violence is never
an appropriate response to a difference in beliefs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER of New York. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 505, which
condemns the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death at his
church on May 31. The resolution also offers the condolences of the
House of Representatives to Dr. Tiller's family. I know that Dr. Tiller
and his family are in the thoughts and prayers of every Member of the
House today.
I want to commend our colleague, the distinguished chairperson of the
Rules Committee, my fellow New Yorker, Ms. Slaughter, for introducing
this resolution.
It is imperative that the House of Representatives speak with a
united voice in condemning this crime. It is a sad reminder that
medical personnel are still at risk from armed extremists who are
willing to resort to deadly violence in order to advance their causes
even when they cloak their cause in the language of life. There can
never be room in a free society for the use of deadly violence to
advance a cause. It is against everything this country stands for. I
have no doubt there isn't a single Member of this House who would
disagree.
This resolution renews our commitment to the American principle that
tolerance must always be superior to intolerance and that violence is
never an appropriate response to differences and belief.
As deplorable as this murder was, it was all the more reprehensible
because the victim was targeted as he was leaving church. In the past
10 years, 38 people have been murdered in their place of worship and 30
more have been wounded.
Dr. Tiller was a controversial figure. He was the target of threats
and even a prior shooting because of his dedication to providing
needed, if unpopular, services. He was murdered solely because of the
work he did. The continued violence directed at abortion providers,
including doctors and the people who staff their clinics, is well-
known. Bombings, shootings, vandalism, and harassment all serve to warn
women and their health care providers that they may pay a terrible
price if they choose to avail themselves of their rights under the
Constitution.
This was not the first time a health care provider was similarly
targeted. I am sure every Member of this House and every decent
American, however they may feel or whatever they may believe on the
question of abortion, will insist that this and every other
[[Page 14361]]
question must be decided by our legal, constitutional, and democratic
processes and not by murderous violence. I am sure we all condemn those
people or groups who espouse or excuse domestic terrorism.
But while violence has long been directed at the clinics and the
people who work there, this time the killer chose, in addition, to
invade the sanctity of the Sabbath. Murderous intolerance is never
justified; even so, the idea of bringing death and mayhem to a house of
worship strikes all people as particularly reprehensible. These acts
include the murder of an Illinois pastor in the pulpit in March of this
year; the murder of an Ohio minister in November of last year; the
murder of an usher and a guest during a children's play in a Tennessee
church in July of last year; the murder of four family members in a
church in Louisiana in May 2006; and the shooting of a worshipper
outside a synagogue in Florida in October 2005; not to mention the
attempted bombings of two synagogues in Riverdale in the Bronx just a
few weeks ago. Whether these acts of violence target one individual or
an entire community of faith, we must all join together and speak out
against them.
I urge all of my colleagues to stand up to those who would bring
their reign of terror into a house of worship and those who would seek
to change American law by violence and unconstitutional means to
express their opprobrium of this conduct by supporting this resolution
condemning the murder of George Tiller and extending the condolences of
this House to the members of Dr. Tiller's family.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. I rise in support of the House Resolution 505, Mr.
Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I support House Resolution 505 which deplores the murder of Dr.
George Tiller who was shot to death at his church, as has already been
mentioned, on May 31. I join with the National Right to Life Committee,
the Nation's largest pro-life group, in condemning the killing of Dr.
Tiller. As that organization correctly said, Anyone who works to
increase respect for human life must oppose any unlawful use of
violence that is directly contrary to that goal.
Because I believe everyone who is the victim of unlawful violence
should be treated equally under the law, I voted against the so-called
hate crimes bill when it was brought up on the House floor earlier this
year. The resolution we are now debating and another we will debate
today recognize what should be obvious to all, which is that anyone can
be the victim of hate-inspired crimes and that the perpetrators of
those crimes should be equally condemned and punished.
I urge, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the
chairperson of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak about the senseless
killing of a good man as he was volunteering as an usher among family
and friends in his place of worship. Dr. George Tiller got shot to
death, as most of us know, at his church in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31.
A single gunshot fired by a man who apparently has a long history of
animosity to a woman's right to choose ended the life of a man who had
dedicated his life to helping others and was a stark reminder to all of
us of the raw emotion surrounding this issue.
In the days since the arrest of the shooter, we have now heard
reports that even more violence may be planned against doctors who
believe in choice. And while this kind of violence is deplorable, it
seems to me that this act is particularly villainous because it took
place in a house of worship.
{time} 1245
This church, a place where people come together to seek peace,
safety, and protection, was in an instant transformed into a place of
shocking, senseless violence.
Our places of worship are meant to be peaceful refuges for those who
seek serenity in times of turmoil and safety in times of hostility. The
sanctity of these places is honored at all times and without regard to
denomination. There should be no exception to this rule that we are
taught early and that provides us with a structure for our interaction
with other faiths and beliefs. Only the most evil can bring violence
into these sacred buildings. To defile houses of worship with bloodshed
is nothing less than villainous, and we should not tolerate such
actions in a civilized society.
For millennia, into the Middle Ages, our churches, synagogues,
mosques, and others have been the center of communities, places of
scholarship, proponents of peace and love among humankind. There is
more to a place of worship than its physical presence; there is a sense
of community and accord and safety where worshippers can share their
faith. But when you look at our recent history, what we have seen is a
disturbing rise in violence at churches that we have taken no note of
in the House of Representatives. As mentioned, 68 persons have been
shot, dead, wounded or assaulted in violence in religious institutions
here in the United States. This is more than deplorable.
Deepening the tragedy is the fact that, until now, there has been no
expression of outrage decrying violence in a place of worship. It
shakes the foundations of our communities, our principles, and our
Nation. It is not a Christian issue or a Jewish issue or an Islamic
issue or any one faith. It is a test of what we as a society are
willing to tolerate and a reminder that some people in this Nation do
not respect the sanctity of a house of worship.
The brutal killing of Dr. Tiller was the latest church killing. In
March of 2009, Rev. Fred Winters was killed while at the pulpit by
gunfire at the First Baptist Church in Illinois. It was only after the
gun malfunctioned that members of the congregation subdued the shooter
to prevent further fatalities.
Rev. Donald Fairbanks, Sr., was fatally shot at the Ninth Street
Baptist Church of Covington, Kentucky, in November of 2008. He was
visiting from his Cincinnati, Ohio, church to attend a funeral for a
woman with relatives in his congregation. Grief turned to fear as the
gunman opened fire in the church.
In July 2008, an usher and a guest were shot and killed during the
opening act of a children's play in Knoxville, Tennessee. This time,
the gunman walked into the sanctuary carrying a guitar case with a 12-
gauge shotgun. He is said to have fired over 40 shots, killing two and
injuring seven.
In May 2006, five family members were killed by a gunman who opened
fire during a church service at The Ministry of Jesus Christ Church in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A whole family was wiped out, and the shooter's
wife was abducted from the church and killed nearby.
One of the most upsetting church killings in recent memory occurred
in 1999 when a lone gunman massacred seven worshippers and wounded
seven others at a youth celebration--150 teenagers strong--that was
taking place in the sanctuary of the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort
Worth, Texas. The assault was one of the worst ever, and I know there
was a tremendous sense of loss after that awful act.
Why doesn't America care about this? Why have we said absolutely
nothing about it? Why are we now allowing concealed weapons to be
carried in Federal parks where, frankly, I hope most people will not be
able to go in any notion that they might come out of there alive.
Dr. Tiller's family held a memorial service for him over the weekend
after his burial on Friday, and he was remembered by all four of his
children for his care and devotion as both a physician and father. It
is a senseless tragedy, and so I offer this resolution and hope that
all Members of this House will say ``no more.''
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
[[Page 14362]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 12
additional minutes.
Mr. NADLER of New York. I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, our society has too often, recently,
devolved into violence to address controversy.
The murder of a doctor, who was beloved by his family, trusted by his
patients, and respected by his community, is never an acceptable form
of expression. While virtually all established groups have condemned
this act, some individuals are still threatening violence against the
health care providers they disagree with. The message to those people
needs to be unequivocal and it needs to be unanimous: We will not
condone violence in any form, and those who perpetrate it will be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Mr. Speaker, we must have a civil discourse in this society, and this
is something we all have to strive for together. I know that we on our
side of the aisle and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle all
believe this. We need to put it into action.
I will say that Dr. George Tiller is survived by his wife, Jeanne,
their four children and their 10 grandchildren. I think the saddest
thing about all this and the thing that personalizes it the most is
that Jeanne called Dr. Tiller ``Buddy.'' And the reason she called him
Buddy was because he was her best friend.
Mr. Speaker, the mark of a civilized society must be civil discourse.
We cannot lose one more of someone's best friend because of this lack
of civility.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and the
author of this legislation, the distinguished gentlelady from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), chairman of the Rules Committee. And I rise to simply
say to this House and to America, enough is enough.
I am delighted that we have heard the majority of pro-life
organizations, who are Americans as well, denounce this horrific act.
My deepest sympathy to Dr. Tiller's wife and children and
grandchildren, but I think it is not enough to offer our sympathy; it
is a requirement that we denounce this with every fiber of our body.
In addition, I think it is important, as we go forward, that right-
to-life organizations learn to respect the First Amendment, and
certainly the sanctity of a house of worship. It is important to note
that Dr. Tiller is not and was not a criminal, did not perform criminal
acts, but responded to women who willingly came into his office with
the counsel of their family and a religious leader and made a decision
addressing the question of their health and the concerns of their
family. Many of those women who came to Dr. Tiller wanted to have
children, were praying for children, and were able to have children and
give birth to a healthy child thereafter.
I am concerned that the alleged perpetrator now incarcerated and held
in jail is continuing to make threats against those who are trying to
both abide by the law but serve the needs of more than 51 percent of
America. Yes, we know there is opposition to abortion. None of us stand
here as abortion proponents. What we stand here as is simply
individuals who believe in choice, prayerfully believe in choice.
Therefore, I am asking for full support for this initiative to denounce
the killing of Dr. Tiller, but I am also saying enough is enough.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution
505 honoring the life of Dr. George Tiller and condemning his brutal
murder at church. I thank Representative Slaughter for this resolution.
Dr. Tiller was a husband and a father. He studied at the University
of Kansas School of Medicine and served his country as a United States
Navy flight surgeon intern. Despite attacks and threats against him, he
continued to serve as a tireless advocate for women's health and
women's rights. On May 31, he was brutally gunned down in broad
daylight in his place of worship by an extremist who took the law into
his own hands. Enough is enough. It is time for us to condemn this act
of violence and state forcefully that we will not condone murder,
threats, or intimidation in the future.
In addition to my condolences to Dr. Tiller's family, I extend my
gratitude to them for his life, his courage, his unyielding support for
women, their health, and freedom to exercise their constitutional
rights.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 505, with
deepest sympathy for the family and loved ones of Dr. George Tiller and
in strongest condemnation of his murder.
Murder in any setting is horrific. It is unconscionable but to commit
a heinous crime of violence inside a place of worship that teaches a
message of tolerance and nonviolence is especially reprehensible. Dr.
Tiller was guiding worshippers to their seats and his wife was singing
in the choir when he was gunned down. This is so precisely the opposite
of where humanity should be in 2009.
Violence, especially murder, should never be a recourse for
differences in beliefs. So I ask my colleagues to join me in condemning
acts of violence and intolerance. And I ask that we resolve to honor
the memory of Dr. George Tiller, a physician and a man of God, by
working harder than ever to promote tolerance and to promote
nonviolence. I urge all of my colleagues to stand unanimously and vote
in favor of this resolution.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
resolution before the House sponsored by my very good friend,
Representative Louise Slaughter, condemning the senseless killing of
Dr. George Tiller.
Dr. Tiller, as we have heard, was gunned down while serving as an
usher during church services last week. We are blessed in this country
to have the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to
protest. Our country has a rich history of nonviolent protests from the
women's rights movement to the civil rights movement to the gay rights
movement. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached nonviolence, and his
great movement heeded this call in the face of unspeakable acts of
violence from their opposition.
This shooting is, in the words of the New York State Catholic
Conference, a terrible perversion of what it means to be pro-life.
While we may have different views of this issue, no side should resort
to atrocious acts of violence such as this.
Since 1977, there have been more than 5,800 reported acts of violence
against providers like Dr. Tiller. Since 1993, eight people have been
murdered, and there have been 17 attempted murders since 1991. Clinics
like Dr. Tiller's over a 20-year span have been bombed 41 times and
faced 175 arsons and 96 attempted bombings and arsons.
I understand that this is a passionate issue for both sides, but we
cannot allow this to continue.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership.
Rochester, New York, has historically given this Nation some of our
greatest women leaders: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and
Louise Slaughter. With this bill that she authored, she is one of the
strongest links in leading women in this country and protecting our
rights. We thank you, Louise, for your continued leadership.
The horror that played out inside a Wichita church, the murder of Dr.
Tiller, is a wound to the conscience of this
[[Page 14363]]
Nation. He had long been a target of violence and hate because he
provided legal abortions, he provided medical care to women in need.
Any time a doctor has to put his life on the line to provide medical
care it has a chilling effect on Americans' ability to get the medical
care that they need.
The consequences of Dr. Tiller's murder are a tragedy not only to his
family, not only for women in Kansas, but for women everywhere,
especially in areas of our country where there are relatively few
medical providers. Dr. Tiller is the eighth abortion provider to be
murdered since 1977, and he was one of just seven doctors in the entire
State of Kansas.
Where will women go for the medical help that they need? We have seen
throughout history that hate is not just ugly, it can be deadly. I hope
that leaders on both sides of this debate will look at the savage
killing of Dr. Tiller and call to account those who would use hate,
intolerance, and fear to divide us.
My heart goes out to Dr. Tiller's family and friends, and my prayers
are with them.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
{time} 1300
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague Mr. Nadler for yielding.
I want to close my portion here by reminding people what a terrible
thing that has happened in this country to a man who was simply doing
what he was allowed to do, what he was trained to do.
I think perhaps I should state for the record, too, that third
trimester abortions are less than 1 percent, and even Roe v. Wade says
that after the first trimester the State has an interest and that it
takes two doctors, as well as it does for the third trimester. These
are oftentimes babies that have been desperately wanted and planned,
but in order to save the health of the mother or to prevent her from
carrying a toxic fetus that has already expired, it is sometimes
necessary to do this. It is not a whim. It is not something that women
do. I think, if anything, what insults my intelligence and my feeling
as a woman and a grandmother is the notion that women will just wake up
one morning and say, Well, I've had enough. That just does not happen.
Women are, by nature, nurturers, and we are just not like that, and
it's a major insult to us.
But as we remember this killing and affirm the need for peace in our
places of worship, let's remind ourselves of the need for tolerance and
kindness. I offer this resolution and offer the most sincere
condolences to the family.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER of New York. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The resolution affirms that the House of
Representatives commits to the American principle that tolerance must
always be superior to intolerance.
I urge Members to join me in supporting this to renounce nefarious
violence in our places of worship where Americans seek sanctuary.
Violence is deplorable and never an acceptable avenue for expressing
opposing viewpoints.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the pro-life movement is absolutely nonviolent and is
totally committed to protecting unborn children and their mothers
through peaceful, nonviolent means. I have been in the pro-life
movement for 37 years, and those peaceful, nonviolent means include
legal and constitutional reform as well as tangibly assisting women
with crisis pregnancies.
Dr. Tiller's murderer must be brought to swift justice commensurate
with the heinous crime that he has committed.
Murder is murder. Murder is never justified and can never be condoned
by any society committed to fundamental human rights, justice, and the
rule of just law.
Let me, as well, like my other colleagues on the floor today, extend
my profound condolences to the Tiller family.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clay). Without objection, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa) controls the balance of the time of the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Does that mean the gentleman has declined his
right to a closing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded back his time.
Mr. ISSA. I'm declining on this bill. I will pick up on the next one.
Thank you.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution condemns the murder of Dr. Tiller. It
condemns the murder of people who are murdered in church and places of
worship. It condemns the practice, and it has become a practice, of
seeking to change the laws of this country, of seeking to intimidate
women from availing themselves of their rights, of their constitutional
right to an abortion, of intimidating doctors from availing themselves
of their constitutional right to perform medical procedures that are
legal and that they believe are moral by threats of murder and mayhem.
I was glad to hear Mr. Smith say that the pro-life movement is
nonviolent, and I'm sure that most of it is. But, unfortunately, it is
clear that there are some people, a small minority, who believe
themselves part of the pro-life movement who are not nonviolent. And
these people have engaged in such conduct and have murdered several
providers of abortion simply for doing what they believe to be the
right thing, what I believe to be the right thing, and, more
importantly, what the law allows them to do, and to intimidate other
people from doing this.
This resolution, which I trust every Member of this House will vote
for, says that we do not believe in trying to change the law by
violence. We do not believe in domestic terrorism, defining
``terrorism'' as an attempt to change the law through murder and
violence and mayhem. We believe in constitutional processes. And if
every single one of us does not believe in that, then we have no moral
superiority over the terrorists that we condemn around the world.
So I trust everyone will vote for this resolution to express our
horror of what was done in this instance, to express our belief that
social change, if necessary, will be brought about by peaceful
democratic debate and by votes, not by bullets, and that this country
stands for the evolution of law by debate and by consideration and by
democratic means. I urge everyone to vote for this resolution.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.
Res. 505.
Like the vast majority of people throughout our nation, I was
appalled by the unconscionable act of violence that took the life of
Dr. Tiller at his place of worship.
I offer my deepest and most sincere condolences to the family and
many friends of Dr. Tiller. My thoughts and prayers are with them as
they struggle with this tremendous loss.
Dr. Tiller was a medical pioneer who, for two decades, worked to
provide the highest quality of care to his patients.
Despite encountering constant harassment and threats Dr. Tiller
remained committed to providing abortion services and other
reproductive care to women and their families.
Often times, Dr. Tiller provided these services to women during the
most challenging and heart-wrenching of circumstances.
The shooting death of Dr. Tiller is an affront to all physicians who
provide abortion and reproductive care to women; it's also an affront
to a woman's right to choose.
[[Page 14364]]
Moreover his death was an affront to our nation's rich religious and
democratic traditions.
No matter which side you may stand on in regards to protecting a
woman's right to choose, we can and should all agree that violence has
no place in our political discourse.
I thank my colleague Ms. Slaughter for authoring this resolution, and
I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 505,
condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller.
Dr. George Tiller was murdered in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31, 2009.
Dr. Tiller was 67 years old, a father, a husband and a friend, and was
killed in his place of worship, a place intended for peace and refuge
that in a moment became a place for violence and murder.
As stated in H. Res. 505, in the past 10 years, 38 people in the
United States have been killed in their place of worship with 30 more
sustaining wounds in those same incidents. This violence is deplorable,
and never an acceptable avenue for expressing opposing viewpoints.
I join the author of this bill, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, in
offering my condolences to Dr. Tiller's family, and commit to the
American principle that tolerance must always be superior to
intolerance, and that violence is never an appropriate response to a
difference in beliefs.
It's nearly impossible to find comfort after such a senseless and
horrific act, and I extend my deepest condolences to the Tiller family
and all those families whose lives he touched. Like many others, Dr.
Tiller persevered through decades of threats and attacks, and I condemn
anyone who takes action or makes statements to incite violence as an
acceptable response.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 505,
which condemns the tragic murder of Dr. George R. Tiller of Wichita,
Kansas. I would like to thank the author of the bill, Congresswoman
Louise Slaughter and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers for their
expeditious work in bringing this bill to the floor.
We mourn the loss of Dr. Tiller, a husband, father of four, and
grandfather of ten. We also mourn the loss of a man who was a friend to
women and young girls around the world, who he saw through their most
desperate hours of need.
Dr. Tiller, born and raised in Wichita, was the son of a physician.
In medical school, Dr. Tiller planned to become a dermatologist. After
his father, mother, sister, and brother-in-law died in a 1970 plane
crash, he returned to Kansas to close his father's family practice. His
father's patients pleaded with him to return and take over the
practice. Eventually, his clinic evolved from general family practice
to focusing on reproductive services.
Acts of terror and intimidation were an all too common occurrence at
his clinic. In 1986, Dr. Tiller's clinic, the Women's Health Care
Services, was bombed. In 1991, it was blockaded for six weeks. In 1993,
Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms while trying to enter the clinic. In
May 2009, vandals cut wires to security cameras and made holes in the
clinic roof.
Dr. Tiller was murdered on Sunday, May 31, 2009. He was shot in his
place of worship, the Reformation Lutheran Church. Dr. Tiller served as
an usher and his wife, Jeanne, sang in the choir.
I would like to insert into the Record an article by Judith Warner
that was published in her New York Times blog. One of Dr. Tiller's
cases mentioned by Ms. Warner, that involving a 9 year-old girl who had
been raped by her father, is particularly haunting.
This child was 18 weeks pregnant and her small body just would not be
able to physically bear the burden of labor and delivery. There was no
doctor or hospital in her rural, Southern town that would provide her
with an abortion. She was referred to Dr. Tiller, the doctor of last
resort. Dr. Tiller took her case for free. He kept her under his
personal care for three days. The young girl and her sister stated that
even in this difficult and heart-wrenching situation, he could not have
been more wonderful in his care.
On Saturday, memorial services were held for Dr. Tiller. His family
and friends remembered him for his generosity and his sense of humor.
Let us also remember him for his courage.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).
[From the New York Times, June 4, 2009]
Dr. Tiller's Important Job
(By Judith Warner)
The 9-year-old girl had been raped by her father. She was
18 weeks pregnant. Carrying the baby to term, going through
labor and delivery, would have ripped her small body apart.
There was no doctor in her rural Southern town to provide
her with an abortion. No area hospital would even consider
taking her case.
Susan Hill, the president of the National Women's Health
Foundation, which operates reproductive health clinics in
areas where abortion services are scarce or nonexistent,
called Dr. George Tiller, the Wichita, Kan., ob-gyn who last
Sunday was shot to death by an abortion foe in the entry
foyer of his church.
She begged.
``I only asked him for a favor when it was a really
desperate story, not a semi-desperate story,'' she told me
this week. Tiller was known to abortion providers--and
opponents--as the ``doctor of last resort''--the one who took
the patients no one else would touch.
``He took her for free,'' she said. ``He kept her three
days. He checked her himself every few hours. She and her
sister came back to me and said he couldn't have been more
wonderful. That's just the way he was.''
Other patients of Dr. Tiller's shared their stories this
week on a special ``Kansas Stories'' page hosted by the Web
site ``A Heartbreaking Choice.''
One New York mother wrote of having been referred by an
obstetrician to Tiller after learning, in her 27th week of
pregnancy, that her soon-to-be son was ``so very sick'' that,
once born, he'd have nothing more than ``a brief life of
respirators, dialysis, surgeries and pain.'' In-state doctors
refused to perform an abortion.
``The day I drove up to the clinic in Wichita, Kansas, to
undergo the procedure that would end the life of my precious
son, I also walked into the nightmare of abortion politics.
In this world, reality rarely gets through the rhetoric,''
wrote another mother, from Texas, of the shouts, graphic
posters and protesters' video camera that greeted her when
she came to see Tiller.
Our understanding of what late abortion is like has been
almost entirely shaped in public discourse by the opponents
of abortion rights. In recent years, discussions of the issue
have been filled with the gory details of so-called partial-
birth abortion; the grim miseries that drive some women and
girls to end their pregnancies after the first trimester have
somehow been elided.
``Late abortion is not a failure of contraception. It's for
medical reasons,'' Eleanor Smeal, the president of the
Feminist Majority Foundation, who has worked to defend
abortion providers like Tiller against harassment and
violence since the mid-1980s, told me this week. ``We've made
pregnancy a fairy tale where there are no fetal
complications, there's no cancer, no terrible abuse of girls,
no cases where to make a girl go all the way through a
pregnancy is to destroy her. These are the realities of the
story. That's what Dr. Tiller worked with--the realities.''
There was a great deal of emotion in the air this week as
the reality of Tiller's death set in. Much of it was
mournful, some was celebratory, some was cynical and self-
serving.
There were the requisite expressions of disapproval and
disavowal by politicians from both sides of the abortion
divide. And yet it seemed to me that even from pro-choice
politicians, the response was muted. In death, as in life, no
one wanted to embrace this man who had specialized in helping
women who learned late in their pregnancies that their
fetuses had gross abnormalities.
It seemed that no one wanted to be too closely associated
with the muck and mire of what Tiller had to do in carrying
out the risky and emotionally traumatic second- and third-
trimester abortions that other doctors and hospitals refused
to do. In news reports, there was a tendency to frame the
``abortion doctor's'' murder almost as a kind of combat
death: a natural occupational hazard.
Yet Tiller--who went to work in a bulletproof vest, lived
in a gated community and drove a bulletproof car--was a
doctor, not a soldier. And it is precisely this kind of
thinking--this viewing of his life and work through the lens
of our most gruesome cultural warfare, this slippage and
mixing up of medicine and politics--that left him largely
unprotected at the time of his death.
Someone resembling Scott Roeder, the man charged in Dr.
Tiller's murder, was seen on Saturday trying to pour glue
into the lock on the back door of a Kansas City clinic.
Before that, abortion providers around the country had been
telling local law enforcement and the United States Justice
Department that harassment at their clinics was on the rise,
and they were scared. The Feminist Majority Foundation had
been hearing all spring that the atmosphere outside clinics
was heating up in the wake of the new pro-choice president's
election. ``We all lived through Clinton, the shootings in
'93 and '94. We were concerned some of the extremists said
they had to take the fight 'back to the streets,''' Smeal
said.
There are legal protections in place that ought to keep
abortion providers like Tiller safe. The Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, passed by Congress after the
1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn outside his Pensacola, Fla.,
women's health clinic and the attempted murder of Tiller that
same year, prohibits property damage, acts or threats of
force, and interference with and intimidation of anyone
entering a reproductive health care facility.
When the federal law is backed by complementary state laws,
and when local law
[[Page 14365]]
enforcement officers apply those laws assiduously, serious
violence greatly declines. When the law's not applied
strenuously, when vandalism goes uninvestigated, when
protesters are allowed to photograph or videotape patients
arriving at women's health clinics, when death threats aren't
followed up, more serious acts of physical violence follow.
In fact, when intimidation occurs at a clinic, the reported
rate of violence triples, the Feminist Majority Federation's
2008 National Clinic Violence Survey found.
``We really do need to arrest people who are trespassing.
Arrest people who are gluing locks. Committing more minor
violations of the law so criminal activity doesn't escalate,
so these criminals don't feel emboldened,'' said Vicki
Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation.
``In places where the laws are enforced, you don't see
violence escalate. Protesters generally go someplace where
there's a more hospitable climate,'' she told me. But, she
added, in a lot of communities, law enforcement views clinic
violence as a political problem. ``They don't view it for
what it is: criminal activity outside of a commercial
establishment,'' she said. ``Law enforcement can't treat this
as a political issue. It's a criminal issue.''
We as a nation cannot continue to provide a hospitable
environment for the likes of Roeder because the thought of
what happens to fetuses in late abortions turns our stomachs.
We have to accept that sometimes terrible things happen to
young girls. We have to face the fact that sometimes desired
pregnancies go tragically wrong. We have to weigh our
repugnance for late abortion against the consequences for
women and girls of being denied life-saving medical
treatment.
Only a tiny handful of doctors in this country will, like
Dr. Tiller, provide abortion services for girls or women who
are advanced in their pregnancies. These doctors aren't well
known to patients or even to other doctors, but they're
closely monitored by antiabortion groups, who know where they
work, where they live and where they worship. Roeder may have
been a lone gunman, but in the largest possible sense, he did
not act alone. The location of Tiller's gated community was
prominently featured on an easily-accessed Web site, along
with a map of the streets surrounding his house. It was
really only a matter of time before someone was unbalanced
enough to take the bait.
Most Americans, I'm sure, do not believe that a 9-year-old
should be forced to bear a child, or that a woman should have
no choice but to risk her life to carry a pregnancy to term.
By averting our eyes from the ugliness and tragedy that
accompany some pregnancies, we have allowed anti-abortion
activists to define the dilemma of late abortion. We have
allowed them to isolate and vilify doctors like Tiller.
We can no longer be complicit--through our muted
disapproval or our complacency--in domestic terror.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, as millions of Americans are now aware, Dr.
George Tiller was assassinated in his church on Sunday, May 31st, 2009
because of his political beliefs and profession. Dr. Tiller provided
legal abortions, and his dedication to his profession, to the health
and well-being of the women he cared for, cost him his life. I join
President Obama, members of Congress, and millions of Americans in
professing horror, shock, and sadness over this blatant act of terror.
I hope that all Americans--regardless of their personal stances on the
issue of abortion--will join in opposing those who would seek to
control the actions of women and doctors through the use of violent
intimidation.
Abortion doctors and women's clinics across this country which
provide a range of women's health services including abortion face
threats and violent acts every day. I sincerely hope that in the wake
of this terrible event, the Department of Justice and law enforcement
agencies across this country take future threats directed toward
women's health providers seriously. Justice and the rule of law demand
nothing less.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 505,
condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller.
On May 31, 2009, Dr. Tiller was gunned down while handing out church
flyers to the congregation of the Reformation Lutheran Church in
Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller was murdered because he had provided
comprehensive legal reproductive healthcare to women and their
families.
For 20 years, Dr. Tiller lived under a constant threat of violence.
His clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot in both arms in 1993. He
received constant death threats. Despite feeling the need to wear body
armor and travel with a guard dog, he continued to provide reproductive
services to women, often in the most difficult and heartbreaking
circumstances. Dr. Tiller once said that he provided these services
because ``Women and families are intellectually, emotionally,
spiritually, and ethically competent to struggle with complex health
issues--including abortion,'' he said, ``and come to decisions that are
appropriate for themselves.'' I could not agree more. Women must have
the right to make their own reproductive choices.
Regardless of one's personal feelings about abortion, we all must
stand vigilant against such abhorrent and vile acts of violence. To
murder someone because of disagreement with his belief system is
morally, ethically, and legally wrong. It is especially disturbing that
this murder took place in a church. Assaulting, intimidating, and
harassing doctors and clinic employees should not be tolerated.
Dr. Tiller's death is only one act of violence against those that
perform abortion services. Pro-life extremists have engaged in more
than 5,800 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since
1977, including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings, and
assaults, as well as more than 143,000 reported acts of disruption,
including bomb threats and harassing calls. Eight abortion providers
have been murdered in the United States, and another 17 have been the
victims of attempted murder. It is past time that we condemn the
violence and intimidation against clinics that provide legal services
to women in need.
I hope and pray that the friends and family members of Dr. Tiller
find solace and comfort as we deal together with this historic and
heartbreaking episode.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 505,
which condemns the tragic murder of Dr. George Tiller. The murder of
Dr. Tiller is a form of domestic terrorism that we cannot tolerate in
our country.
I firmly agree with President Obama that we can maintain our beliefs
while agreeing to disagree. Dr. Tiller's medical practice in Kansas was
operating legally, and we must abide by the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I have personal knowledge of the work of Dr. Tiller. In
2000, my Subcommittee Staff Director, Jason Steinbaum, and his wife,
Miriam, were expecting a child. This was their first baby, and they
were very excited about becoming new parents.
Through visit after visit to their doctor, they learned the pregnancy
was proceeding well and all seemed normal. The sonograms were all as
they should have been, until calamity struck. At 28 weeks the doctors
discovered a horrible brain deformity. They said the baby would die in
utero or shortly after birth.
I recall that Jason and Miriam went from doctor to doctor and
hospital to hospital to try to find a way to save their baby boy, but
all told them that there was no chance that he would live. At that
point, after consulting with their clergy, their doctors, and their
families, they decided to terminate the pregnancy to put an end to this
tragedy in their lives.
At 28 weeks, however, extremely few physicians in the country would
provide the medical care they needed. Dr. Tiller was recommended to
them as the best physician to help them.
I recall that I could not believe they had to fly to Wichita, Kansas
to get the medical care they required. As a member of Congress from New
York, I have become accustomed to receiving the best health care in New
York City and could not imagine that they would have to travel half way
across the country because no such clinic existed nearby. Nevertheless,
when they determined that there was no other place to which they could
turn, Jason, Miriam, and their mothers flew to Kansas to Women's Health
Care Services of Wichita and Dr. Tiller.
Jason has told me that the care they received at Dr. Tiller's clinic
was extraordinary and that the people at the clinic treated them as
well as they could imagine. The procedure was safe and humane, and at
the end, they held their baby boy for a moment and said goodbye. Today,
the baby is buried not far from their home in north Virginia.
So, as the House votes on this solemn resolution, I ask that my
colleagues reflect for a moment on the fact that Dr. Tiller helped
someone right here in our congressional community and that his murderer
took someone who was there for one of us in a time of need. This is a
terribly sad day, and I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 505.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
resolution Condemning the Murder of Dr. George Tiller (H. Res. 505) and
with deepest sympathy for the loved ones of Dr. Tiller.
On May 31, 2009, an assassination took place in Kansas. A physician
was murdered in an act of terrorism in his church. This act of anti-
abortion vigilantism inspires fear and terror. The murdered doctor had
previously been shot and the clinic in which he worked had been
previously bombed.
This resolution, of which I am an original cosponsor, expresses our
sympathy for the family and loved ones of Dr. George Tiller and
declares that violence should never be recourse for a difference in
beliefs. In honor of the memory of Dr. Tiller we must work harder than
ever to promote tolerance and non-violence.
[[Page 14366]]
Abortion in this nation is a legal health care procedure. I support a
woman's right to make her own health care decisions and the work of
health care providers to meet women's health care needs. What America
witnessed with Dr. Tiller's death was a Taliban-like tactic to prevent
abortions by murdering a doctor. It is terrorism and I urge the
administration to extend protection to women's clinics all across our
country.
I support comprehensive sex education, evidence-based science, full
access to family planning and reproductive health care for all women,
and counseling to ensure women of all ages have the best information to
make good choices about when they decide to have children. This is how
we reduce abortions. This is how we empower individuals to prevent the
need for abortions.
Safe, comprehensive reproductive and family planning services should
be accessible to all Americans and providers, because it is essential
for the health and well-being of women and families. I will continue to
work with President Obama in the 111th Congress to keep women's health
as a priority.
My condolences go out to Dr. Tiller's family and loved ones. I urge
my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in condemning the
murder of Dr. Tiller.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 505,
condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was shot to
death at his church on May 31, 2009. It is with great sorrow and a
heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his friends and family.
A sixty-seven-year-old physician, a husband, a father of four, and a
grandfather of ten, Dr. Tiller dedicated his life to providing family
and community health care services in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller's
murder leaves in its wake an unsettling sense of grief and sadness that
continues to ripple its way through countless communities of patients,
colleagues, friends and family members. To the legions of admirers who
view the care that he provided as an essential option for the women
most in need, he will be sorely missed.
Dr. Tiller was beloved for his professionalism, his compassion and
sensitivity. He showed unwavering courage and commitment to his
patients. Dr. Tiller deserves to be acknowledged for the service that
he provided to his community. His senseless murder must be strongly
condemned. A truly democratic society includes a thriving atmosphere of
political debate and dialogue, regardless of the intensity of the
debate. The use of violence and murder as a means to express dissent is
not only undemocratic, but simply unacceptable.
I strongly support this important bill and urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of H. Res. 505.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 505.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
WITNESS SECURITY AND PROTECTION GRANT PROGRAM ACT OF 2009
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 1741) to require the Attorney General to make
competitive grants to eligible State, tribal, and local prosecutors to
establish and maintain certain protection and witness assistance
programs, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1741
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 ``Witness Security and
Protection Grant Program Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF WITNESS PROTECTION GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make
competitive grants to eligible State, tribal, and local
governments to establish or maintain programs that provide
protection or assistance to witnesses in court proceedings
involving homicide, or involving a serious violent felony or
serious drug offense as defined in section 3559(c)(2) of
title 18, United States Code. The Attorney General shall
ensure that, to the extent reasonable and practical, such
grants are made to achieve an equitable geographical
distribution of such programs throughout the United States.
(b) State Defined.--For purposes of this Act, the term
``State'' means any State of the United States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
SEC. 3. USE OF GRANTS.
A grant made under section 2 may be used only to pay all or
part of the cost of the program for which such grant is made.
SEC. 4. PRIORITY.
In making grants under section 2, the Attorney General
shall give priority to applications submitted under section 5
involving programs in States with an average of not less than
100 murders per year during the most recent 5-year period, as
calculated using the latest available crime statistics from
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION.
To be eligible for a grant under section 2, a State,
tribal, or local government shall submit to the Office of
Justice Programs an application in such form and manner, at
such time, and accompanied by such information as the
Attorney General specifies.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
From amounts made available to carry out this Act, the
Attorney General, upon request of a recipient of a grant
under section 2, shall provide technical assistance to such
recipient to the extent the Attorney General determines such
technical assistance is needed to establish or maintain a
program described in such section.
SEC. 7. BEST PRACTICES.
(a) Report.--Each recipient of a grant under section 2
shall submit to the Attorney General a report, in such form
and manner and containing such information as specified by
the Attorney General, that evaluates each program established
or maintained pursuant to such grant, including policies and
procedures under the program.
(b) Development of Best Practices.--Based on the reports
submitted under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall
develop best practice models to assist States and other
relevant entities in addressing--
(1) witness safety;
(2) short-term and permanent witness relocation;
(3) financial and housing assistance; and
(4) any other services related to witness protection or
assistance that are determined by the Attorney General to be
necessary.
(c) Dissemination to States.--Not later than 1 year after
the development of best practice models under subsection (b),
the Attorney General shall disseminate to States and other
relevant entities such models.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
States and other relevant entities should use the best
practice models developed and disseminated in accordance with
this Act to evaluate, improve, and develop witness protection
or witness assistance as appropriate.
(e) Clarification.--Nothing in this Act requires the
dissemination of any information if the Attorney General
determines such information is law enforcement sensitive and
should only be disclosed within the law enforcement community
or that such information poses a threat to national security.
SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than December 31, 2015, the Attorney General
shall submit a report to Congress on the programs funded by
grants awarded under section 2, including on matters
specified under section 7(b).
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through
2014.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2009
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to States and local
prosecutors for establishing and improving short-term witness
protection programs for witnesses that are involved in a State or local
trial involving a homicide, a serious violent felony, or a serious drug
offense.
[[Page 14367]]
Witness intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will be
willing to perform their civic duty in the criminal justice system,
often depriving police and prosecutors of critical evidence. More
broadly, it also undermines public confidence that the criminal justice
system can adequately protect its citizens.
And there is no better example that demonstrates the need for this
legislation than the tragedy that befell the Dawson family in the
autumn of 2002 in Baltimore, Maryland.
Angela Dawson had repeatedly contacted the police about drug dealing
in her neighborhood. In retaliation, Darrell Brooks, a neighborhood
dealer, firebombed the Dawson home not once but twice before killing
Angela; her husband, Carnell; and all five of their children.
This heinous violence perpetrated against the Dawson family was the
impetus for this legislation, and I commend Congressman Cummings for
his tireless pursuit of this legislation over multiple Congresses. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and
Protection Grant Program Act of 2009. Witness testimony is a critical
component of our criminal justice system. Even with sophisticated DNA
and other forensic evidence, there is no substitute for an eyewitness
testimony.
However, engaging the cooperation of witnesses is frequently a
daunting obstacle in many criminal prosecutions. Many witnesses fail to
come forward or refuse to testify out of fear of retribution by the
defendants or pressure by the community.
It is no surprise that violent criminals will unleash their brutality
on witnesses whose testimony could result in years or decades in
prison. It is also no surprise that violent gangs and drug
organizations are the source of much of this brutality. The Justice
Department's National Gang Center reports that ``gang members so
frequently engage in witness intimidation that it is considered part of
normal gang behavioral dynamics.'' State and local law enforcement
officials and prosecutors are in a constant struggle to counteract
witness intimidation and to convince witnesses to cooperate. It's vital
that we assist in this.
At the Federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service is charged with
witness protection and has operated the Witness Security Program since
1970. Under the program, more than 7,500 witnesses and over 9,500
family members have been protected, relocated, or given new identities.
Most States and local governments cannot offer that level of
protection. Many cannot afford to offer even basic protection services,
for instance, during a trial in which the proceedings in a small town
might be all too evident to gangs in the area.
H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act,
directs the Attorney General to award grants to State and local
governments to establish and maintain witness protection programs.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this not only is a well-worthwhile
program whose time has come, but, in fact, it could be a real cost-
saving to the taxpayers from the Federal level. Federal prosecution
tends to be more expensive. In the case of gang, drug, and other
activities, there is almost always a dual nexus: one in which the State
or local courts can try the gang members, one in which the Federal
Government can find Federal statutes to try under. Unfortunately,
without an effective witness protection program, localities may often
choose to move a case to Federal court where witness protection is
available rather than providing that protection themselves.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to support strongly that we find those opportunities in which
local government can provide this service rather than removing to
Federal court. This is a cost-saving, commonsense initiative, and I
support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, with respect to my great
colleague from the great State of Maryland, Congressman Cummings, I
will yield so much time as he may consume.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson) for yielding, and I want to certainly thank Chairman Conyers,
Chairman Scott, Mr. Issa, the entire Judiciary Committee, and the House
leadership for recognizing the importance of this legislation by
bringing it to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, while our soldiers fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, many
citizens across our Nation are facing terrorism right here at home,
right here in their own neighborhoods. People are being murdered in
broad daylight, and their killers are walking free because we do not
protect witnesses to crimes from threats against their safety if they
cooperate with the police, if they testify in court, or even if they
are listed as witnesses to testify in court.
This epidemic of witness intimidation is a menace to our civil
society, and it is a plague on our entire justice system. In fact, it
was the deaths of Angela and Carnell Dawson and their five children,
ages 9 to 14, that first motivated me to address this issue. I can
remember very vividly sitting at a funeral with one adult casket and
with the caskets of five children. Then, a day later, the husband died,
and we went to his funeral.
The entire Dawson family was killed in October 2002 when a gang
member firebombed their home in the middle of the night in retaliation
for Mrs. Dawson's repeated complaints to the police about the recurring
drug trafficking in her east Baltimore neighborhood.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Dawson literally lived within
about a 5-minute drive from my house.
Angela Dawson and her family were not affiliated in any way with
drugs or gangs. Rather, Mrs. Dawson was just a civic-minded parent,
trying to clean up her neighborhood, and trying to make it a safe place
for her children and for other families.
While several State and local entities have established witness
assistance programs, many of these programs have fallen victim to the
tough economic times and have had to be discontinued. Conversely, the
U.S. Marshals Service uses $65 million to operate its Federal Witness
Security Program, and it has an excellent track record. In all of its
years in existence, they have never been known to have lost a witness,
and at the same time, the prosecutors in those cases have had an 89
percent success rate.
It is because of this inequity that I call upon my colleagues to give
law enforcement the ability to protect the sanctity of our justice
system and pass H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant
Program Act.
H.R. 1741 would help local law enforcement officers strengthen
witness assistance and protection units, sending a very loud and clear
message to criminals that our citizens and we in the Congress of the
United States of America will not be deterred by fear tactics like
intimidation.
Speaking of intimidation, throughout the City of Baltimore, we have a
group that put out two trailers entitled ``Stop Snitching.'' In one of
those trailers I, along with the State's attorney, were threatened
because we were standing up for this legislation and because we were
standing up for witnesses. I made it very clear to them that I have no
fear because, if you can have a situation where a person can literally
be standing on a corner and 20 people know the perpetrator and the
perpetrator comes up and blows somebody's brains out and nobody
testifies, what happens then is that we have given the criminal more
power; we have taken power away from regular citizens. The next thing
you know, the criminal feels that there are no consequences to his or
her actions.
You cannot have a criminal justice system that is effective and
efficient unless you have the cooperation of witnesses. It is up to
this Congress to
[[Page 14368]]
make it very, very clear that we will not, under any circumstances,
stand for witnesses to be intimidated, harmed, threatened, killed or in
any way deterred from carrying out their duties to assist police and
law enforcement.
The bill would provide $150 million in competitive grants over 5
years to enable State and local governments to establish witness
assistance programs with priority given to cities or to locales that
have had an average of at least 100 homicides per year during the most
recent 5-year period. H.R. 1741 would also allow these programs to
receive technical assistance from the United States Marshals Service.
By improving the protection for State and local witnesses, we come
one step closer to alleviating the fears and the threats of prospective
witnesses and to safeguarding our communities from violence.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Conyers. I want to thank Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Scott, and the ranking member for their support. I urge my colleagues
to pass this legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished attorney from the City of New Orleans, the junior
Member from Louisiana, Mr. Cao.
Mr. CAO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1741, the Witness
Security and Protection Grant Program Act.
Crime is the number one concern of my constituents in New Orleans and
in Jefferson Parishes in Louisiana. Crime is my top concern, too. My
district includes the City of New Orleans, which, as of June 1, has
already seen 80 murders. Further, according to the FBI's annual report
on crime released last week, New Orleans leads the Nation in murders.
This says nothing about the incidence of other types of crime, from
sexual offenses to robberies.
I hold in my hand a photo of Sergeant Manuel Curry. He was a popular
and much-loved member of the New Orleans Police Department. At 62 years
of service, he was one of America's longest-serving police officers.
Tragically, for the NOPD and for New Orleans, he passed away last week,
and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, with his family, and
with his NOPD colleagues.
Here is an article from today's newspaper. It reports that, within
hours of Sergeant Curry's death, three people broke into his home and
stole guns, money, jewelry, and medication. While at the funeral home,
arranging her husband's burial, his wife was notified of the burglary.
Our thoughts and prayers also go to the family of this couple,
Orlander Cassimere, Sr., and his wife of 55 years. Elder Cassimere was
scheduled to have preached the Mother's Day sermon this year at the
church in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, where he was pastor; but on
that day, relatives found him and his wife fatally shot in their home.
It is thought that their murders are connected to a relative's plan to
testify in a kidnapping and attempted murder case.
Reading these articles makes me angry and sick because of the actions
of these individuals who disgraced the memories of Sergeant Curry and
of the Cassimeres. They disgrace all of the people of New Orleans and
of Jefferson Parishes. If these stories don't paint a picture of out-
of-control crime, I don't know what will.
I continue to meet with law enforcement and with prosecution
officials in my district, and I am presently working with them to
leverage Federal resources. They must have all of the resources they
can get.
The Witness Security and Protection Grant Program will go a long way
towards addressing the issue of crime in my district because, without
adequate protection and assurances, these witnesses will stop coming
forward, and crime will remain out of control.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this effort with this
important bill, and I look forward to working with them on other
important legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to my
fellow Judiciary Committee member, Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1741,
and I want to commend Congressman Cummings for his terrific work on
this bill.
H.R. 1741 will provide funding to States and to territories so they
can create or can improve their witness protection programs. Priority
for funding would be given to those jurisdictions with the highest
rates of violent crime.
Violent crime continues to plague many of our communities. Many of
those crimes were likely observed by one or more bystanders. Whether
these witnesses choose to come forward or choose to remain in the
shadows, many of those crimes will depend, in large part, on whether
they feel safe cooperating with law enforcement. It is, therefore,
critical to the effective functioning of our criminal justice system
that government at all levels has the means to provide for witness
security.
As Attorney General of Puerto Rico, I have worked with many witnesses
who have received threats that they or their loved ones would be harmed
if they testified against a defendant. Not unreasonably, some of these
witnesses ultimately chose to remain silent. Others elected to plunge
ahead despite the risks, motivated by a sense of civic duty. The key
point is this:
Choosing between providing information that may deliver a criminal to
justice and protecting one's own safety is a choice that no witness
should be forced to make.
Since 1970, the Federal government has operated its own successful
witness protection program. In light of a 2006 report by the Department
of Justice that found that witness intimidation was pervasive and
increasing, the need to support similar programs at the State and
territorial levels is beyond question. Therefore, I respectfully urge
my colleagues in this Chamber to support H.R. 1741.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague
from Georgia for bringing forth and for handling this commonsense bill
on the floor of the House. I want to thank my colleague from California
for yielding me time.
This is an important issue. There are many issues that are remarkably
important to the American people, and I want to talk about one of them.
It is the national energy tax.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a proposal that is moving through
the House committees right now that will have a remarkable effect on
the American people. If history holds true, there will be very little
time on the floor of this House to debate this issue. As the Speaker
has said, she wants to get it done by July 4.
So I would suggest that it is important for all of our colleagues to
be paying attention to the national energy tax and to the consequences
of it. I would suggest that the American people ought to be paying
attention as well. Let me point out a couple of the issues on this
national energy tax.
By an outside group, by an objective group, the estimates are that it
will destroy millions of jobs--1.1 million jobs on average each year.
It will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for
inflation. It will increase gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will
increase residential natural gas prices by 55 percent. It will raise
the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500. That's right, Mr.
Speaker, by $1,500. It will increase inflation-adjusted Federal debt by
26 percent. So let's review.
This national energy tax, supported by the Speaker, is going to
decrease jobs, and she is trying to get it through this House by the
end of this month. It will decrease jobs; it will increase electricity
rates; it will increase gas prices; it will increase natural gas
prices; it will increase the family energy bill; and it will increase
the Federal debt.
Now, the American people think this is a terrible idea, and they are
very frustrated with the fact that the commonsense solutions that have
been put on the table are not being given an opportunity to come to the
floor.
[[Page 14369]]
What are those commonsense solutions?
Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the American people know, there
are good bills out there. One of them is one that I have cosponsored,
H.R. 2300, coming out of the Republican Study Committee and the Western
Caucus. It is called the American Energy Innovation Act.
{time} 1330
What it does is provide for increasing production, responsible
production of American resources. It provides for increasing
conservation so that we decrease the demand side of the energy curve;
and it provides for expansion of innovation, incentives for innovation
so that we unleash the genius of the American people to solve the
challenges that we have in the area of energy. It doesn't tax the
American people. It doesn't decrease jobs. It doesn't increase
electricity prices, as the Democrat plan would do. It doesn't increase
gas prices, as the Democrats would do. It doesn't increase natural gas
prices, as the Democrat plan would do. It doesn't increase the family
energy bill, and it doesn't increase the Federal debt. No, Mr. Speaker,
it solves the problems in the way that the American people want them
solved.
The American Energy Innovation Act would increase production in a
responsible and environmentally sensitive and sound way. It would
increase innovation so that we develop a new energy for this 21st
century, and it would increase conservation, decrease that demand side
so that we don't continue to support countries overseas that, frankly,
aren't necessarily our friend.
I appreciate the opportunity to commend my friend from Georgia for
his bill. I appreciate my friend from California for offering this
opportunity to speak to my colleagues and to ask the Speaker if she
wouldn't allow for full and open debate of appropriate energy bills
that American people can support, not ones that increase their taxes
and decrease jobs all across this land.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, nothing can be more important
than the liberties that we enjoy under our Constitution. This bill that
we are considering could not be any more important.
Therefore, in that regard, I wish to yield 5 minutes to my good
friend from New Jersey, Congressman Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is truly bizarre. We're talking about
life-and-death issues--and I know technically you can speak about
anything. But we're talking about life-and-death issues. We have seen
witnesses disappear, go underground so that law enforcement cannot
protect us. Yet the gentleman, my good friend from Georgia, gets up and
talks about something which has absolutely nothing to do with what
we're talking about. But I guess that's par for the course.
So I thank the ranking member. I thank the chairman. I thank Mr.
Cummings for getting this legislation. And Mr. Cummings has done us all
a great favor. Nothing is going to help law enforcement more than our
trying to help with the protection of the witnesses out there who view
these crimes.
Criminal street gangs have been a major concern all across this
country and in New Jersey; and truly, law enforcement cannot do its job
without this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that there is a
more significant thing that we can do in reversing the losing battle
that we face at this point and attacking street crime and ending
modern-day organized crime on the streets. You need viable witnesses
who are not left to chance and risk and will not be frightened or
intimidated.
In a 2007 survey conducted in New Jersey by the State police,
respondents in 4 out of every 10 New Jersey municipalities--that's 43
percent--reported the presence of street gangs in their jurisdiction
during the previous 12 months, not only in cities but in suburban
communities. As a former mayor, I know how tough it is for our cities
and communities to deal with gang problems all across the United States
of America. Gang members are involved in violent and drug-related
crimes and recruit young folks in our public schools. Catching and
punishing the perpetrators of these crimes is oftentimes difficult, if
not impossible. Gangs are so pervasive in many communities that the
threat of violent reprisal against members of a community or gang
members who want to leave severely hinders law enforcement
investigations.
H.R. 1741 would provide a crucial missing link that prevents many of
these crimes from being solved in the first place. This legislation
will allow the Justice Department to begin offering grants to local
communities to implement local witness protection programs. What have
we come to? When we talk about witness protection programs, we think
we're talking about something 20 years ago, 40 years ago. We're talking
about now. We're talking about in our own neighborhoods. We're talking
about in our own families. That's what we're talking about. Ensuring
witness safety, short- and long-term relocation, and financial and
housing assistance are essential to the effective investigation and
prosecution of gang-related crimes, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government
must reach out to assist local police departments in keeping our
communities and our schools safe. This bill will provide a critical
service to many needy communities. I thank those folks who brought it
to the floor, particularly Mr. Cummings, my good friend from Maryland.
I'm glad we could stay, most of us, on the topic at hand.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the precious time on the floor
needs to be well spent, and we certainly support that we are well
spending it. This is an important piece of legislation. It's important
because, in fact, we in the Federal Government need to team with cities
and localities around the country to ensure that we not distort where
prosecutions are made. I fully support this legislation because, with
all due respect to my colleague, it will relieve the cities and the
counties from often choosing a Federal venue rather than a local venue
if we help with protecting their witnesses, something that the Federal
Government and the U.S. Marshals have proven to do very well. So I do
support the bill. It's a bipartisan bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how many minutes are
left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 6 minutes remaining for the
gentleman from Georgia. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, and also
a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the
Judiciary Committee and chairperson of the subcommittee for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 1741, which is long in coming and long
overdue. Tragically, we are seeing the increased utilization of gun
violence and certainly the increased impact on our teenagers. Whether
it is guns used in gang activity or guns used to slaughter innocent
persons in various stop-and-go shops or others, we are seeing that kind
of senseless violence. Over the last couple of days, I saw in my own
community two hardworking shopkeepers murdered and slaughtered in their
own shop early in the morning; and the kind of killing it was may have
generated witnesses who need to be protected. We have watched the
slaughter of children in the Chicago school district, which has gotten
to be an epidemic condition. They have been using guns. There have been
young people leaving churches who have been shot and killed. So we
understand the value of this legislation. I remember hearing before the
Judiciary Committee where the individuals who wanted this kind of
protection told us of the fear in which they live.
H.R. 1741, sponsored by my good friend, Representative Elijah
Cummings, is an important legislative initiative; and I would ask my
colleagues to, likewise, support it. It joins right together with H.
Res. 454 that will be on this House floor in a few minutes that deals
with the 25th anniversary of the National Center For Missing and
Exploited Children and has a lot to do
[[Page 14370]]
with the protection of our Nation's children, those who have been
kidnapped and murdered, and those who have been exploited. Again, it
ties back to this whole question of protecting witnesses who provide
the necessary testimony to convict those of these heinous crimes.
This may not be the underlying necessity for H. Res. 515; but I rise
to also add my support for the legislation that condemns the slaughter
and murder of Army Private William Long and the wounding of Army
Private Quinton Ezeagwula. That was a terrorist act of which we
condemn. It may be that the alleged perpetrator is in prison, but we
don't know whether there is a widespread conspiracy. We hear so. Again,
H.R. 1741 would allow us to protect these witnesses. The act of killing
our military personnel on U.S. soil was an act of terror, and I abhor
it. I denounce it. It is a resounding disgrace in this country; and
therefore, H. Res. 515 should, in fact, be able to pass. All of these
tie to the idea of protecting witnesses in criminal activities because
we realize how frightening a prospect it is.
I also add my support to H.R. 2675, the extension of the Antitrust
Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004. I am also a member
of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and view this as an important
legislative initiative.
Allow me to close by suggesting that as we saw in my remarks earlier
today on the floor in H. Res. 505, condemning the death of Dr. George
Tiller, we have conditions here that warrant this legislation, H.R.
1741. It is terrible that violent acts are perpetrated here in America,
that violent acts come about through the use of firearms and other
manners and, therefore, there will be witnesses that will be necessary
to bring these people to justice. I cannot imagine allowing these
heinous crimes to be perpetrated without being able to prosecute
because a witness is frightened for themselves and their family. The
legislation that we are now speaking to provides that protection, and I
ask my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield back the balance of
my time and support the passage of this important legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. The great Constitution of the United States
of America starts off with a preamble, and that preamble goes as
follows:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
So this bill deals with domestic tranquility; and as you know, Mr.
Speaker, the most powerful beast imagined can always be brought down by
just a little parasite inside of that particular beast. We too can be
subjected to internal parasites, and we can die from that. The question
is, are we willing to die to ensure that domestic tranquility is
achieved? If we truly care about ourselves, our own safety and the
safety of our dear families, neighbors and anyone else, should we not
be willing to die to protect our liberties by calling it like it is,
street crime? You see something happen--regardless of whether or not
you consider that snitching or not, and I would say that it's not. But
do you have the courage to be able to do what will really protect your
folks? That's the question.
{time} 1345
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1741, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
ANTITRUST CRIMINAL PENALTY ENHANCEMENT AND REFORM ACT OF 2004 EXTENSION
ACT
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 2675) to amend title II of the Antitrust Criminal
Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of
such title for a 1-year period ending June 22, 2010.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2675
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 ``Antitrust Criminal Penalty
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act''.
SEC. 2. DELAY OF SUNSET.
Section 211(a) of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is
amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT.
The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect
immediately before June 22, 2009.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation extends by 1 year expiring provisions
of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004,
otherwise known as ACPERA. ACPERA not only increases maximum criminal
penalties under the Sherman Act for hardcore antitrust violations but
also created whistleblower incentives to spur antitrust cartel
detection.
Portions of the 2004 act are set to expire in 2 weeks on June 22.
This 1-year extension preserves the penalties and incentives currently
in place, while affording Congress time to explore possible
improvements to the 2004 act.
I am pleased to have as cosponsors of this bill the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, as well as full committee Ranking
Member Lamar Smith and Courts Subcommittee Ranking Member Howard Coble.
Cartel violations are some of the worst crimes perpetrated on the
American consumer; yet they are too often crimes we cannot see, as all
of this criminal activity takes place in secret meetings behind closed
doors. In the previous bill, we were talking about crime in the
streets, and now we are talking about crime in the suites.
Price-fixing cartels can go undetected for years, possibly forever.
With hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars worth of unlawful
profits at stake, these criminal cartels are very effective at finding
ways to keep their actions secret. But 5 years ago, Congress gave the
Justice Department's Antitrust Division a new weapon to attack this
secrecy head-on. ACPERA promotes the detection and prosecution of
illegal cartel behavior by giving participants in a price-fixing cartel
powerful incentives to report the cartel to the Justice Department and
cooperate in the prosecution of the cartel.
Before ACPERA, the Justice Department could offer leniency to a
coconspirator who exposed a cartel and helped bring it to justice. But
the cooperating party remained fully liable to paying treble damages to
the cartel's victims and potentially exposed to having to pay the
entire amount.
ACPERA addressed this shortcoming in the criminal leniency program by
also limiting the cooperating party's
[[Page 14371]]
exposure to liability with respect to civil litigation. ACPERA empowers
the Justice Department to limit civil liability of a cooperating party
to single damages, not treble. The remaining coconspirators, however,
remain jointly and severally liable for all damages. In this way, Mr.
Speaker, the act strikes a carefully crafted balance, encouraging the
cartel members to turn on each other while ensuring full compensation
to the victims.
The positive impact of this law cannot be overstated. In the first
half of this year, ACPERA has aided the antitrust division in securing
jail sentences in 85 percent of its individual prosecutions and over
$900 million in criminal fines.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and
Competition Policy, I want to ensure that the Justice Department has
all the tools it needs to continue its excellent work, which is to
protect consumers against price-fixing cartels.
Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Members who have joined me
as cosponsors in this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire if the gentleman
has any further speakers after I conclude?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We have no more speakers, and I would be
prepared to conclude.
Mr. ISSA. Excellent. I will be brief.
This is noncontroversial. In fact, the Antitrust Criminal Enhancement
Reform Act of 2009 is about a program that is working. It is a program
that not only do I hope we will unanimously pass and send to the
Senate, but that the Senate will act quickly so that after the 2 weeks
remaining, this statute will not expire, and we will use this year
wisely to review and reauthorize in a longer term basis this act.
ACPERA has in fact worked. It is something that both the majority and
minority have agreed on, and I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time on this
matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2675.
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.
____________________
WEBCASTER SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2009
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 2344) to amend section 114 of title 17, United
States Code, to provide for agreements for the reproduction and
performance of sound recordings by webcasters.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2344
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 ``Webcaster Settlement Act of
2009''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENTS.
Section 114(f)(5) of title 17, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``2008'' and inserting
``2008, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009,'';
(2) in subparagraph (E)(iii), by striking ``to make
eligible nonsubscription transmissions and ephemeral
recordings''; and
(3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``February 15, 2009''
and inserting ``at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on the 30th day
after the date of the enactment of the Webcaster Settlement
Act of 2009''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009 allows the
recording industry and the providers of Internet radio, also known as
Webcasters, to negotiate reasonable royalty rates for the streaming of
sound recordings on the Internet.
While a relatively new technology, the audience for Internet radio is
growing rapidly. Fifty to 70 million Americans listen to Internet radio
each month, in part because of the diverse programming available to
cater to many different musical tastes.
In 1995, Congress passed a digital performance right for sound
recordings. In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act expanded the
right to Internet radio services by granting them the privilege of
using copyrighted music at an industry-negotiated rate, or in the event
the industry could not negotiate a rate, at a government-mandated rate
determined by the Copyright Royalty Board, or CRB.
At the request of Webcasters, in 2004 Congress enacted the Copyright
Royalty and Distribution Reform Act, which authorized a CRB proceeding
to set fair statutory rates for Internet radio. Accordingly, in 2007,
the CRB announced new statutory royalty rates for sound recordings to
be paid by Webcasters.
The CRB's decision, which sets rates on a minimum fee, per-song, per-
listener formula, would require Webcasters to pay significantly higher
royalties than they previously paid under a percentage-of-revenue
model.
Because of concerns that the higher rates are likely to threaten the
future of Internet radio, Congress enacted the Webcaster Settlement Act
of 2008. Signed into law last October, it allowed for the
implementation of royalty fee agreements reached on or before February
15, 2009, between the recording industry and Webcasters that would
serve as an alternative to the payment scheme set forth in the CRB
decision.
While some Webcasters were able to reach consensus with the recording
industry, others have not yet reached an agreement. Enactment of the
Webcasters Settlement Act of 2009 will give more parties an opportunity
to reach a consensus by allowing them to negotiate alternative rates.
This opportunity to reach consensus will protect the viability of
technology enjoyed by millions of Americans every day.
This legislation has the full support of the relevant parties. I
commend the Internet radio and recording industries for the substantial
progress that has been made in negotiations in recent months, and I
encourage them to resolve all outstanding issues promptly so that we
may see a thriving Internet radio industry in the near future.
I commend my colleague, Jay Inslee of Washington, for his leadership
on this legislation, as well as Intellectual Property Subcommittee
Chairman Howard Berman for facilitating discussions between the
parties.
I would like to also commend Judiciary ranking member, Mr. Lamar
Smith, for his leadership in making this a truly bipartisan effort, and
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may
consume for our response to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
from California yielding.
H.R. 2344, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009, grants limited
statutory authority to SoundExchange, the government-designated entity
that is responsible for disbursing Webcasting royalties to copyright
owners.
The bill gives SoundExchange the legal authority to effect an
agreement
[[Page 14372]]
that has already been negotiated with certain ``pureplay'' Webcasters
for the performance of sound recordings over the Internet.
{time} 1400
Under the terms, the bill will provide a window of 30 days for other
Webcasters to agree to be bound by this new agreement.
For those Webcasters who choose to take advantage, they will be able
to substitute the rate and rate calculation methods provided in the
agreement for those previously announced by the copyright royalty
judges, CRJs, on April 30, 2007.
These new terms will run through the end of 2015, which means that
this group of Webcasters and sound recording artists who are due
royalties under the Webcasting licensing will benefit from the extended
period of certainty in their economic relationship.
Mr. Speaker, I have a strong preference for voluntarily negotiating
settlements, which allow each side to compromise, claim a measure of
victory, and go home.
This is particularly true when the alternative is for parties to
engage in lengthy and expensive adversarial legal and lobbying efforts
such as those that have followed the CRJs' determination in the
Webcasters proceedings in 2007.
When they issued their 117-page final order, the CRJs established the
statutory rates and the terms for the performance of compulsorily
licensed Internet streamed music for a 5-year period that is due to
expire December 31, 2010.
The law provides this process because we have an obligation to ensure
that copyright owners whose works are made available in a government-
mandated license are fairly compensated by the private parties who seek
to benefit from such use.
Indeed, the Judiciary Committee and the Congress established the CRJ
process, in no small part, in response to Webcasters' concerns that the
previous Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, or CARP, process
effectively prohibited many small entities from participating.
Nevertheless, despite their advocacy for this process, some
Webcasters have suggested from time to time that the CRJs acted
unfairly in reaching their decision. But the record reveals that the
decision came at the end of an 18-month proceeding that included 48
days of testimony, 192 exhibits, 475 pleadings, motions and orders, and
a transcript that exceeded 13,000 pages.
Notwithstanding these facts, the Congress enacted the Webcasting
Settlement Act of 2008 late last year to provide an additional period
of time for parties to negotiate private agreements. That period
expired February 15, 2009.
Several entities, including the National Association of Broadcasters,
are to be commended for reaching an accord during this window, but it
appears a number of others were either unable or unwilling to come to
terms during the generous period of time that Congress provided.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2344, but in so
doing, I note that it seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog for
Congress to legislate and create exceptions to the due process and
notice requirements in the existing statutory process each time one
party or another calculates they could get a better deal by
disregarding the deadline the law provides.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield to
my colleague from the great State of Washington, the Honorable Jay
Inslee, as much time as he may consume.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to commend the Webcaster
Settlement Act of 2009 to my colleagues.
I just want to make two or three points. First, this phenomenon of
online radio is just a tremendous service for our constituents; 42
million Americans are enjoying this on at least a semiregular basis. It
is growing rapidly. It is a very, very beloved service. And when it
goes missing, as it did recently in my City of Seattle, a little
station called OCO was sort of providing underground music to my local
community and had to shut down as a result of the CRB decision, and it
is much missed. We hope to get this and many other things back up when
we get this settlement going.
Second, I think there is widespread agreement that the average 47
percent of revenues that the CRB decision would require simply is not
sustainable for the industry. And I want to commend all parties to the
discussions to try to find an appropriate way to move forward.
The third point I want to make is that keeping online radio going and
healthy is not just about entertainment; it's about news, it's about
public information, it's about emergency preparedness. We've got to do
everything we can to give our constituents multiple sources of
information. By allowing this bill to go through--and, hopefully, the
parties will reach a final settlement--we're going to allow a democracy
to blossom.
So I want to thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for
their cooperation in facilitating this and commend this bill to my
colleagues.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge its
passage, and I do so for a reason that I believe does tie fairly into
another piece of legislation. This is a piece of bipartisan legislation
with Chairman Conyers. Another piece tries to deal with a greater
inequity than even this one.
While Internet broadcasters or podcasters or Webcasters pay as much
as half of their revenues, half of their gross revenues if they play
performances of music, and NAB was cited as being a participant, let me
make something very clear, Mr. Speaker. The National Association of
Broadcasters has chosen to have an absolute ``burn the bridge''
attitude toward terrestrial broadcasters paying even a cent.
I join with Chairman Conyers, Mr. Berman, myself, and many others, in
urging that this pattern of lowering to what we believe is a more fair
rate or helping lower to what we believe is a more fair rate, in fact,
flies in the face of terrestrial broadcasters continuing to say that
the only fair amount to pay in the way of royalties to the music
producers, the actual performers, is zero.
The public today, Mr. Speaker, when they hear this, if they hear
this, will be shocked to find out that when they listen to terrestrial
radio, nothing is paid to the artist.
Well, if they listen to Internet radio, actually more than half in
some cases of the gross revenues of these Internet broadcasters is paid
to the performers.
As Mr. Inslee said, I do believe that perhaps it is too much; that
there is, in fact, a point at which, when you tax something too much,
even if it's taxed to pay the performance, you may get too little of
it. To that extent, we need to find an amount that balances fairly
compensation for the creative artist who brought us this fine music and
those who would seek to make it available to the public.
I hope that this piece of legislation will help for those doing
business on the Internet and that H.R. 2344 will be quickly adopted and
that it will lead to more affordable rates for the Internet.
But I cannot, in good conscience, fail to mention that these
companies trying to start and promote a new industry and a service in
many places in which terrestrial broadcasts may be poor or not
available at all find themselves hampered while they pay half of their
revenues out in royalties, competing against terrestrial broadcasters
who insist on continuing to pay not a penny.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will look for this legislation to become law. I
look for the other legislation behind it to be brought to the floor,
fairly considered, and voted on in order to bring performance fairness.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleague on the
other side of the aisle in support of H.R. 848, which is the bill that
you just mentioned, and the reason why is because it's just an issue of
fairness. It's fairness to the artist as well as fairness to the
platforms upon which we hear these sound recordings, Internet radio
being one.
[[Page 14373]]
Cable, satellite, they have to pay performance royalties, which is
really performers' royalties. They must pay that. But the broadcast
industry, AM/FM radio, basically, is protected, if you will, or
exempted from having to pay. This is anticompetitive, and it also
results in great tragedy where these radio stations are able to play
music repetitively that we all enjoy listening to, and then the artist
who performs the music doesn't get a dime. And so many of them are
forced to work what I call the ``Chitlin Circuit'' and, you know, can't
even purchase their prescription medication for diabetes, whatever
infirmity that they may have. And then some even die indigent and
there's no coverage for burial expenses.
And so it's really an issue of fairness. And unfortunately, the
broadcast industry has done a despicable thing, and that is to play the
race card. And they do it with the deceptive and false statement that
H.R. 848 is an attempt to drive black broadcasters, black radio
stations off, out of existence, and nothing could be further from the
truth.
May I inquire though, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not there are
anymore speakers?
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time and
would close quickly when the gentleman is ready.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will yield back.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I, again,
reiterate my appreciation for his appropriate and wonderful statements
on H.R. 848, a bill that would simply eliminate Congress' prohibition
on the Copyright Royalty Board from reaching a fair and equitable
royalty for performers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cummings). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2344.
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.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE MURDER OF PRIVATE WILLIAM LONG
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 515) condemning the murder of Army
Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton
Ezeagwula, who were shot outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little
Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 515
Whereas, on June 1, 2009, Private William Long, 23, was
murdered outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock,
Arkansas;
Whereas, on June 1, 2009, Private Quinton Ezeagwula, 18,
was wounded by gunfire outside the Army Navy Career Center in
Little Rock, Arkansas;
Whereas there are more than 1,400,000 active component and
more than 1,200,000 reserve component members of the Armed
Forces protecting America;
Whereas there are more than 8,000 Army and Army Reserve
recruiters and more than 7,000 Navy recruiters serving at
more than 1,500 military recruiting stations and centers in
United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Europe;
Whereas the men and women of the Armed Forces risk their
lives every day to preserve America's freedom and to defend
the liberty, security, and prosperity enjoyed by the American
people;
Whereas service in the Armed Forces entails special hazards
and demands extraordinary sacrifices from service members;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces are the targets of
violence not only abroad but in the United States as well;
and
Whereas such violence is despicable and must not be
tolerated: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) offers its condolences to the family of Private William
Long;
(2) hopes for a full recovery for Private Quinton
Ezeagwula;
(3) urges swift prosecution to the fullest extent of the
law of the perpetrator of this senseless shooting; and
(4) urges the American people to join Congress in
condemning acts of violence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 515 rightly condemns the murder of Army
Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton
Ezeagwula, who were shot outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little
Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009.
This dastardly attack on two young Americans who were simply standing
outside the Armed Forces Recruiting Center where they worked should
shock the conscience of all Americans.
Private Long, who was 23, was murdered. Private Ezeagwula, who is 18,
was wounded. They had answered their call to service and were willing
to lay down their lives for their country, but the deadly attack came
here at home, not on a field of battle halfway across the world.
There are more than 1.4 million Active members of the Armed Forces
protecting America, and more than 1.2 million Reserve members. There
are more than 8,000 Army and Army Reserve recruiters, and more than
7,000 Navy recruiters, serving at more than 1,500 military recruiting
stations and centers in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and
Europe. Each one of these men and women are courageous patriots who
deserve our support, and this deadly attack is nothing short of
dastardly.
This resolution offers the condolences of this House to the family of
Private Long, expresses our hopes for a full recovery for Private
Ezeagwula, and urges that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this
senseless shooting be brought to justice.
{time} 1415
I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Franks), for introducing this resolution. It is an appropriate
statement of what I note to be the views of every Member of this House.
At a time like this, it is important for all of us to stand together to
support our men and women in uniform and to speak with one voice
against violence directed against them.
I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, on June 1 of 2009, only about a week ago, Private
William Long, only 23 years old, was shot and killed as he worked at
the Army Navy Career Center, which is a military recruitment center, in
Little Rock, Arkansas. Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula, age 18, was also
shot in the attack that day. Thankfully, Private Ezeagwula survived;
although our latest information is that he remains still in critical
condition.
Mr. Speaker, most persons who are listening today are hearing about
Private Long's death for the first time. It's likely that most
Americans haven't heard of his killing because Private Long's murder
forces the issue that the mainstream media does not want to confront or
report on, and that is Islamic terrorism within and coming from within
the United States.
The man accused of shooting Private Long and Private Ezeagwula was
formally known as Carlos Bledsoe. Bledsoe converted to Islam and
changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. He later traveled to
Yemen where he was there studying
[[Page 14374]]
under an Islamic scholar. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have millions of law-
abiding Muslims in this country. Acts of terror committed by some
members of a religion should never be used to condemn all members of
that religion. At the same time, however, we cannot be blind to the
jihadist ideology of some Muslims of this country who believe that they
have a religious duty to murder the innocent.
The mindset of radical Islamic terrorism which today seems to find
fertile ground in the soil of jihad claims that the cause of justice is
advanced by killing the innocent and by killing those who seek to
protect the innocent. This is the fundamental reality. And when the
American media and we, as a people, refuse to call evil by its name, it
imperils us all and it dishonors all of those, like these two soldiers
who have sacrificed and bled to protect the innocent from that evil.
Mr. Speaker, the American soldier does not fight because he hates
what's in front of him. He fights because he loves what is behind him.
Private Long's so-called crime was his commitment to defending the
innocent against those who would cause them and all of us harm. That
commitment is the price required oftentimes to maintain our freedom.
That commitment was carried deeply in the heart of Private William
Long. He displayed it bravely by wearing the uniform of the United
States armed services and dying in it for all of us. That commitment
will forever be the legacy of his life on this Earth.
Mr. Speaker, today there are approximately 1.2 million Reserve
component members of the Armed Forces protecting America; more than
8,000 Army and Army Reserve recruiters; and more than 7,000 Navy
recruiters serving at more than 1,500 military recruiting stations and
centers in the United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Europe. This
attack could have ended the lives of any one of those noble men and
women. Each of them risks his or her life every single day to preserve
America's freedom and to defend the right of every American to live
free, to be free, and pursue their dreams.
So today, Mr. Speaker, I've introduced House Resolution 515 to offer
our deepest condolences to the family of Private William Long on behalf
of the United States House of Representatives, to offer our hope of a
full and complete recovery for Private Quinton Ezeagwula, and to urge
the prosecution of the preparator of this senseless shooting to the
fullest extent of the law, and finally, to urge the American people to
join together in condemning such horrific acts of violence upon the
noble men and women of our Armed Forces.
We pray especially that the hearts of all of those that Private Long
knew and loved would find comfort and peace in the knowledge that in
dying, because he wore the uniform of the United States military, their
loved one laid down his life for the sake of human freedom and on
behalf of those who could not defend that freedom for themselves. No
legacy could be more noble, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. People in America, Mr. Speaker, mourn the loss of any of
our troops in combat or not, here or abroad. Andy Long, private, United
States Army, was killed in Little Rock, Arkansas in my district 1 week
before he was to leave to be with his unit headed to Korea. We mourn
his loss today. So, also, do we hope and pray for the rapid recovery of
Private Ezeagwula who was wounded.
I attended the funeral yesterday of Andy Long in Conway, Arkansas,
and met both families. The Long family is a military family: his great-
grandfather served; his grandfather served; his father is a retired
marine warrant officer; his mother served and is a veteran--and, in
fact, she was in the parking lot waiting to give him a ride home when
the shooting began. His brother Triston is in the military today and
will be headed to Iraq this summer.
A family tradition for this family is that the father prepares a
letter to give to the son when he deploys. Yesterday, Andy's father,
Retired Marine CWO4 Daris Long, read the following letter to his son.
He had these ideas in mind to give to his son and put them down in
writing, and the letter was placed in the casket yesterday at the
funeral. And this was the letter that Daris Long wrote to his son:
``Dear Andy, let me start by telling you how proud your mother and I
are of you in your choice to serve this country. The profession of arms
is not an easy job. It is not 9-5. You won't often get a choice in what
you want, when you want to do something, or even voice some of your
opinions.
``You took an oath, `I, William Andrew Long, do solemnly swear to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to
the same.' That means a lot. In my mind, it means that whatever your
personal feelings are, you may have to put them aside because you don't
get to decide who you are going to protect, you protect the rights of
all. Oliver Hazard Perry, a War of 1812 Naval hero, once toasted the
country with this, `My country, right or wrong, but first my country.'
That statement was often quoted out of context by my generation in the
end years of the Vietnam War by protestors. In light of your oath, its
true meaning is revealed. Always remember, your loyalties are to the
principles upon which this country was established. Your duty is to the
country, not some cause, not some character, not to some party.''
Mr. Long continues: ```That I will obey the orders of the President
of the United States, the officers and non-commissioned officers
appointed over me, acting in accordance with regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me, God.' You are to obey the
rightful orders given you. I am sure you were given classes on the laws
of warfare, what is right and what is wrong. This part of the oath
charges you to do the right thing. This part absolutely absolves you
from obeying illegal orders. It reminds you that the old `I was just
following orders' routine doesn't excuse you from misconduct that
results from following an illegal order. It does not mean you can
refuse to follow orders you may disagree with but only those that are
clearly illegal. You have to have a moral compass and rigidly follow
it.
``You are now on your way to Korea. What we had talked about, filling
your off-duty time with constructive pursuits, may have to go on hold
with what is going on over there now.''
Mr. Long continues: ``You need to find someone in your unit who is
good at what he does professionally and personally and get into his hip
pocket. Learn what he knows. Your leaders are going to be pressed to
have everything and everybody ready in case things go south. You may
not have time to get your newly acquired skills down to an art. You
need to support your leaders and fellow soldiers by being a good
follower. Remember, as an infantryman, your life support system is the
guy next to you. You need to trust him. He needs to know he can trust
you. When you are in the thick of things your focus will narrow to your
immediate brothers in arms, other things will fade the mere
distractions. You need to have your head on a swivel, be aware of your
surroundings. Follow your orders quickly and completely. Please, for
your own sanity and to ease the burden of your immediate leaders, don't
get bogged down with all the whining and back seat driving you may hear
from `sea lawyers' in your unit--every outfit has them--they are known,
some have more, some have less.''
Mr. Long continues: ``I was once where you are, at the bottom of the
food chain. However, after having been promoted up the ladder to Chief
Warrant Officer 4, I can tell you that at each level of command, at
fire team, squad, platoon, company, and so on, the people in charge are
always being pounded on to take care of their people. Your welfare is
key to the success of the accomplishment of the mission. There will be
times that you will have to be reminded of this and you may think I am
full of it, but it is fact.''
[[Page 14375]]
Mr. Long continues: ``This quote has been used many times and I think
it was attributed to some anonymous author who wrote on a c-ration box
somewhere in the field in Vietnam: `For those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.' I am personally
proud of your progression from boy to man. It's been hard, but the end
result is my hero. You and your brother serving are a joy to me. You
both are foregoing a lot by doing what you are doing especially now
when your country is in peril. You both are heroes by having the moral
courage to stand up when the country needs you most, when others are
not willing to give up their creature comforts. These are times I wish
I were still doing what you are. However, the profession of arms is a
young man's game. The last recruits I trained are now coming up on 29
years, 3 months in service if any of them are still in.''
Mr. Long continues: ``My heart is with you. My mind is still ticking
through the pre-deployment checklists, what the priorities are, where I
am going. I know you are in the Army and I'm sure you are tired of
hearing how the Marines do it. Marines march to the sound of the guns.
You need to do the same. Don't let others do your job, your duty. I
haven't told your mom in words, but all those times I left on a
moment's notice and came back long after others were home, I
volunteered. I wasn't going to be left behind to let others do my job
or what I considered a job I could do better. I'm telling you this
because your job is to stand watch on the wall, separating us, from
those who would do us harm. Your day only ends when you've done your
duty.''
And Mr. Long finishes: ``So you have a lot of long days ahead of you.
I've told this to Triston, and now it is your turn. I hope you take
this letter as it is meant--from a father who loves you, trying to give
you some hard-learned life experience. Even though we have had our ups
and downs, I have always loved you. You are in both my thoughts and
prayers. You are my son. You are my hero. I love you. Semper Fidelis,
Dad.''
Mr. Long put this letter in the casket, and then he reminded me today
that he intends to write a similar letter to his son Triston when he
deploys to Iraq this summer.
I want to make a brief comment about the resolution.
I was not involved with the writing of this resolution. I think I
would have phrased part of it differently. It says, Resolved, that the
House of Representatives, number 3, urges swift prosecution to the
fullest extent of the law the perpetrator of this senseless shooting.
My own view is that we do not know all of the facts surrounding this
shooting. If it turns out that, in fact, the perpetrator, whoever did
this, was trained, supported by some overseas group affiliated with al
Qaeda or any of the other terrorist groups, the hell with swift
prosecution. We need to take ``em'' out.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, just a personal thought on my
part.
Sometimes a country oftentimes asks itself the question of what
really is the source and fundamental essence of our security. And
oftentimes, we think that that is the length and breadth of our
military might, and I would only remind us all that thousands of years
ago, China built the Great Wall to protect China. This was a wall that
would have challenged some of our modern day tanks and they thought
that they were completely secure, but in that time China was invaded
three different times because the enemy simply bribed the guard who
opened the gate and let them in.
{time} 1430
I would submit today that the greatest and most important factor for
the freedom of a people is the commitment in the heart of its people,
and especially those who put on the uniform, to be committed enough to
stand in the way of the aggressor and their homeland. And that is
exactly what Private Long and Private Ezeagwula tried to do.
There is a verse that says, Greater love hath no man than this; that
a man lay down his life for his friends. It is the most noble of all
acts that we can accomplish on this Earth. Sometimes I think we forget
how much some people give for the freedom that we have. Privates Long
and Ezeagwula are good examples.
Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes we also forget the price that families
pay. You know, it is easy for us to focus upon only the fallen, but
those who remain and the grief that is laid upon their broken shoulders
is often sometimes something we cannot identify with.
I was in the Press Club here a few days ago, and I saw a diamond-
shaped picture of a cold, icy, windy day out at Arlington National
Cemetery. A woman stood alone with her back to the viewer standing at a
tombstone. There was no one else in the cemetery and the wind was
blowing and her clothes were out to the side. It was the loneliest
thing I had ever seen. And the title was simply, ``The Widow.'' Now, I
understand that Private Long was not yet married, but I am sure there
was someone out there that loved him, and I know that his parents loved
him. And the family has faced a loss that none of us can even imagine.
So as we salute Private Long, I also think it is in order to salute his
family, who have paid such a high price so we can stand here in this
Chamber and talk about freedom.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER of New York. How much time do I have remaining, Mr.
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 10\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Well, I won't take that, but I yield myself
the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we ask every member of our armed services--2.6 million
men and women in the Active and Reserve forces--to be willing to lay
down their lives for our country in defense of our freedom, if need be,
and they are willing to do that. And every time, whether in Iraq or
Afghanistan or anywhere else around the globe, a member of our armed
services is killed in action there is a grieved family, a lover, a
wife, a husband, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter for all of these
who are grieved and whose loss can never be made up. And we sometimes,
except on Memorial Day, forget about that. And this happens all the
time, too often, and we don't think about it too much. We ought to
think about it because our freedoms are dependent on it; our way of
life is dependent on it. And none of us would be here enjoying our
freedoms if it weren't for the willingness of our sons and daughters to
do what they have to do to keep us safe and free.
This resolution does not address all of that; it simply addresses two
members of our armed services, one of whom was killed and one of whom
was severely wounded. But the difference is that they weren't in a
combat zone; they were murdered and wounded here at home, supposedly in
a safe place. And it illustrates that even here at home not everyone is
safe.
So this resolution mourns the death of Private Long and the wounding
of Private Ezeagwula, and it extends our condolences to the family of
Private Long and our wishes for the best recovery to Private Ezeagwula.
It is little enough that we can do, but it is really all we can do at
this point. It says we are grateful. It reminds us of the sacrifices
that are made.
I appreciate Mr. Franks' introduction of this resolution. I urge
everyone to support it. And as with the resolution I spoke of earlier
today, I cannot believe anyone will not support it. So I urge its
adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE MURDER OF PRIVATE WILLIAM LONG
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 515) condemning the murder of Army
Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton
Ezeagwula, who were shot outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little
[[Page 14376]]
Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 515
Whereas on June 1, 2009, Private William Long, 23, was
murdered outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock,
Arkansas;
Whereas on June 1, 2009, Private Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, was
wounded by gunfire outside the Army Navy Career Center in
Little Rock, Arkansas;
Whereas there are more than 1,400,000 active component and
more than 1,200,000 reserve component members of the Armed
Forces protecting America;
Whereas there are more than 8,000 Army and Army Reserve
recruiters and more than 7,000 Navy recruiters serving at
more than 1,500 military recruiting stations and centers in
United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Europe;
Whereas the men and women of the Armed Forces risk their
lives every day to preserve America's freedom and to defend
the liberty, security, and prosperity enjoyed by the American
people;
Whereas service in the Armed Forces entails special hazards
and demands extraordinary sacrifices from service members;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces are the targets of
violence not only abroad but in the United States as well;
and
Whereas such violence is despicable and must not be
tolerated: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) offers its condolences to the family of Private William
Long;
(2) hopes for a full recovery for Private Quinton
Ezeagwula; and
(3) urges that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this
senseless shooting be brought to justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Arizona
if he is prepared to yield back at this time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I am.
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 515, 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.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT WEEK
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 503) recognizing National Physical Education and
Sport Week, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 503
Whereas, May 1 through May 7, 2009, is observed as National
Physical Education and Sport Week;
Whereas childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions
in the United States;
Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services
estimates that, by 2010, 20 percent of children in the United
States will be obese;
Whereas a decline in physical activity has contributed to
the unprecedented epidemic of childhood obesity;
Whereas regular physical activity is necessary to support
normal and healthy growth in children;
Whereas overweight adolescents have a 70 to 80 percent
chance of becoming overweight adults, increasing their risk
for chronic disease, disability, and death;
Whereas type 2 diabetes can no longer be referred to as
``late in life'' or ``adult onset'' diabetes because it
occurs in children as young as 10 years old;
Whereas the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans
recommend that children engage in at least 60 minutes of
physical activity on most, and preferably all, days of the
week;
Whereas children spend many of their waking hours at school
and therefore need to be active during the school day to meet
the recommendations of the Physical Activity Guidelines for
Americans;
Whereas teaching children about physical education and
sports not only ensures that they are physically active
during the school day, but also educates them on how to be
physically active and its importance;
Whereas according to a 2006 survey by the Department of
Health and Human Services, 3.8 percent of elementary schools,
7.9 percent of middle schools, and 2.1 percent of high
schools provide daily physical education or its equivalent
for the entire school year, and 22 percent of schools do not
require students to take any physical education at all;
Whereas according to the survey, 13.7% of elementary
schools, 15.2% of middle schools, and 3.0% of high schools
provided physical education at least three days per week, or
the equivalent thereof, for the entire school year for
students in all grades in the school;
Whereas research shows that fit and active children are
more likely to thrive academically;
Whereas participation in sports and physical activity
improves self-esteem and body image in children and adults;
Whereas the social and environmental factors affecting
children are in the control of the adults and the communities
in which they live, and therefore this Nation shares a
collective responsibility in reversing the childhood obesity
trend; and
Whereas Congress strongly supports efforts to increase
physical activity and participation of youth in sports: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes National Physical Education and Sport Week
and the central role of physical education and sports in
creating a healthy lifestyle for all children and youth;
(2) calls on school districts to implement local wellness
policies as defined by the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 that include ambitious goals for
physical education, physical activity, and other activities
addressing the childhood obesity epidemic and promoting child
wellness; and
(3) encourages schools to offer physical education classes
to students and work with community partners to provide
opportunities and safe spaces for physical activities before
and after school and during the summer months for all
children and youth.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which
Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on House
Resolution 503 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 503, which
supports efforts to increase physical activity and participation of
youth in sports.
Physical education is necessary in the face of our Nation's growing
childhood obesity crisis. The Department of Health and Human Services
estimates that by 2010, 20 percent of children in the United States
will be obese. Without physical education and youth sports, this
epidemic would surely be worse than its current situation.
Childhood obesity places a significant burden on our health care
system. Overweight adolescents have a 70 to 80 percent chance of
becoming overweight adults, a key predictor of chronic disease and
disability. The rise in childhood obesity has also been accompanied in
the rise of prevalence of type 2 diabetes among children and
adolescents.
Teaching children about physical education and sports provides not
only physical activity during the typically sedentary school day but
also instills in children the importance of physical activity as a way
to stay healthy. It is important that we recognize and encourage
physical education in our Nation's schools as a necessary component of
a holistic education.
[[Page 14377]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize the value of physical
education and youth sports. A 2006 survey by the Department of Health
and Human Services found that only 3.8 percent of elementary schools,
7.9 percent of middle schools, and 2.1 percent of high schools provide
daily physical education or its equivalent for the entire school.
Twenty-two percent of schools do not require students to take any
physical education. This exists despite research that shows a positive
correlation between physical activity and academic performance. In
addition, physical activity provides our children with self-esteem and
improves their emotional health.
We recognize that our Nation shares a collective responsibility in
reversing the trend of childhood obesity. National Physical Education
and Sports Week reaffirms the central role that these activities play
in encouraging healthy practices for children.
The future of our children's health is an issue that deserves our
Nation's utmost attention. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and
colleague, Congressman Altmire, for introducing this resolution, and I
urge our colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 503 to
recognize National Physical Education and Sports Week, which took place
this year from May 1 through May 7.
The health and wellness of America's children is undoubtedly a
subject of great concern at this time in history. Over 33 percent of
America's elementary school children are overweight or obese, and over
13 percent of America's high school children are obese.
Overweight and obese children are developing diseases and vascular
conditions that were once thought of as conditions affecting only the
middle-aged. Obese children have been shown to be at an increased risk
of coronary heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems, and numerous
other debilitating diseases. In addition, they often suffer from low
self-esteem and feelings of isolation and other psychological side
effects.
Physical activity is an important aspect of health in preventing
obesity and obesity-related illnesses in both children and adults.
Regular physical activity substantially reduces the risk of a number of
preventable diseases, such as coronary heart disease, the Nation's
leading cause of death, and decreases the risk for stroke, colon
cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure. It also helps to control
weight, contributes to healthy bones, muscles, and joints, reduces
falls for older adults, and is associated with fewer hospitalizations.
Physical activity need not be strenuous to be beneficial, but in the
age of innumerable video games, computer activities, and television
channels, it often takes a back seat in the lives of America's youth.
Physical education and sports encourage children to participate in
physical activity on a regular basis in a group setting that can foster
teamwork, competition, and a sense of accomplishment. In addition, a
correlation has been seen between children that participate in sports
and higher academic achievement in the classroom.
Participation of children in organized sports has grown in recent
decades. However, the percentage of children participating in daily
physical education programs has declined in recent times; although the
importance of physical activity has become increasingly apparent.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that
children engage in 60 minutes of physical activity 5 or more days a
week. Only 35 percent of children regularly meet this recommendation,
however. Physical education programs and sports create an opportunity
for children to build lifelong healthy habits in a fun and engaging
environment. As such, they should be supported and encouraged.
I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize an outstanding
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), for 2
minutes.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution to
celebrate National Physical Education and Sports Week. This resolution
simply recognizes the role that physical activity and sports play in
creating a healthy lifestyle for children and adults and encourages
schools and communities to promote physical education and activities.
Today, there are more than 9 million overweight children in the
United States. And as a result, children are now being diagnosed with
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes, all
afflictions once thought to be age-related. And these children are at
an increased risk also for chronic diseases like heart disease and
cancer.
The benefits of physical activity have been well-documented. Research
shows daily physical activity reduces the risk of heart disease, high
blood pressure, and diabetes, and also increases self-esteem and
performance in the classroom. It is for these reasons and many more,
Mr. Speaker, that I introduced this resolution, and I encourage my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's offer to yield
time on this bill as this bill discusses the need to create healthy
lifestyles for children. I think that something we should also be
discussing here is the need to create economic opportunities for
children, to make sure that our children not only are having a
lifestyle that's healthy in school, teaching physical fitness, but also
making sure that we are dealing with policies up here in Washington
that allow them to have real opportunities when they get out of school.
There is one bill that is moving through this body right now, the
cap-and-trade energy tax, that would severely jeopardize our children's
opportunities to have a better life, to have the opportunities that we
had in our life. And so as we are talking about legislation right now
to create healthy lifestyles, I think we should also be looking at the
policies that come out of this body that could actually create big
impediments, impediments that would deny them opportunities when they
graduate from school.
Let's talk about that cap-and-trade energy tax that is moving
through. We just got a new, updated report by the Congressional Budget
Office. The cap-and-trade energy tax that has been proposed imposes
$846 billion in new taxes, taxes on energy that would affect every
American, denying people the ability to buy healthy food for their
children because they would be spending, according to the President's
own budget director, $1,300 a year more in higher utility prices, not
to mention how much more money they would be spending in higher gas
prices at the pump, creating a greater dependence on Middle Eastern oil
at a time when we need to be creating a national energy policy that is
comprehensive, that uses our natural resources to create good jobs here
in America, to fund and bridge us into those alternative sources of
energy, like wind, like solar, like nuclear power, so that we can truly
reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and give those young
children an opportunity to have good jobs here in America, using
American natural resources to propel them.
{time} 1445
We have got an alternative bill called the American Energy Innovation
Act, a bill that takes an all-of-the-above approach, that actually
utilizes American natural resources, our oil, our natural gas. There
are estimates that we have got almost 100 years of natural gas reserves
here in this country. In fact, in Louisiana, the largest natural gas
find in the history of our country occurred just 3 years ago. I know
one of my colleagues will be talking about that. But we have got the
ability here in our country to secure our energy independence. We've
got legislation we have
[[Page 14378]]
filed that would help us secure that energy independence, and they
won't allow us a hearing on this bill because they are promoting this
cap-and-trade energy tax, a tax on energy. Again, as we're talking
about our young children, encouraging them to lead healthy lifestyles,
we need to also be creating policies here that give them those
opportunities so that they don't get out of school and have to go
straight to the unemployment line.
Their bill, this cap-and-trade energy tax, and I have got a copy of
it right here. There are 55 pages, 55 pages in their bill dedicated to
job losses, to American jobs that will be lost due to a cap-and-trade
energy tax. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers has
estimated the cap-and-trade energy tax would run 3 to 4 million jobs
out of America to countries like China and India, who are just chomping
at the bit to take our jobs.
So you would wonder why at a time when we are here discussing
legislation to encourage our children to lead healthy lifestyles, as we
should, there's also legislation moving through this Congress, pushed
by the leadership in this Congress, that's trying to tax energy and run
millions of jobs overseas to countries like China and India at a time
when we are seeing record-level unemployment, over 9 percent. We broke
the mark of 9 percent just in this last report, 9 percent unemployment
in this country, at a time when so many people are cutting back because
times are tough. And the answer that the leadership in Congress has is
to promote a tax on energy, an $840 billion tax on energy that would
run millions of jobs overseas.
The real irony, when they talk about the goal of reducing carbon
emissions, the real irony is the countries that will be getting our
jobs, China, to produce the same steel that's produced here in America
today, will actually emit more carbon to produce the same steel because
they don't have the current environmental regulations that we have here
in America. So the real irony is that they would be running jobs
overseas to countries that will actually emit more carbon.
Spain just did a study on cap-and-trade because they experimented
with it for years. Spain, after finally realizing it was a bad idea,
looked back and noticed that for every new job they created in a
``green'' industry, they lost 2.2 regular jobs, and of those new jobs
they created, 9 out of 10 of them were temporary jobs. So, in essence,
they lost 20 jobs for every full-time job they created.
So we need to promote good policies, but we need to defeat this cap-
and-trade energy tax.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania
for yielding me this time.
I think this is an important bill. I do rise in support of it. I'm a
family physician who has treated diabetes even in and among teenagers,
which is a sad situation when you consider the future of someone who
develops diabetes so young. And certainly the physical future is very
important.
But I am also very concerned about the fiscal future of our youth.
I'm very troubled today. A constituent came to me today from the oil
and gas industry and was discussing with me the problems that already
are emerging with the loss of tax incentives to invest in exploration
that is going on in my district and districts around. So, Mr. Speaker,
I think that looking down the line here at the fact that we have not
yet developed an energy policy, I know my side of the aisle, we
Republicans, attempted to get to the floor a no-cost stimulus bill
which would have, I think, been very innovative and certainly
revolutionary in getting our energy costs down. But having said that,
as gas prices now are approaching $3 a gallon and we are still in a
severe recession, just think that even $4 a gallon pretty soon is
probably going to be bypassed very quickly.
With that, I just want to reiterate what my friend also from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, has discussed as we move into the cap-and-trade
debate, the cap-and-tax debate, if you will, where every analyst that
we have been able to read sees this as a pure form of taxation, that
the real underlying purpose of it is to raise more money for, I guess,
social spending or perhaps single-payer, nationalized, health care
spending. I'm not sure. But the net effect of that is just what we have
seen with the incubator that we call Spain, and that is cap-and-tax has
been in play there for 10 years, and what has been the net result?
Well, today the unemployment rate in Spain is 17.5 percent. As Mr.
Scalise mentioned, for every job that's been gained, a so-called
``green'' job--and again, I will get to that in a moment as to what a
green job, I think, is supposed to be--there has been a loss of 2.2
real jobs. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the State of
Louisiana and surrounding States that the jobs that we have today that
come from the oil and gas industry are very significant jobs. They
carry benefits. They carry pay easily in the $50,000 to $100,000 range
in many cases. And the so-called ``green'' jobs that are discussed, if
you look at Spain and their experience, what they found was that 90
percent of the green jobs were implementation jobs, that is,
construction. And, of course, once the construction or implementation
period is over, that job goes away; so there is only left a remaining
10 percent of the total green jobs that even become permanent jobs.
But then if you look further underlying that, Mr. Speaker, what you
find is that the green jobs are really a pass-through of taxpayer money
into the system and then as payroll for these so-called ``green'' jobs.
They are not a direct result of an exponential growth of a healthy
economy or a healthy oil and gas industry.
So, as we move into this debate--and I understand it's being pushed
pretty hard right now--we've got to decide are we going to continue to
put more taxes on our citizens in the way of higher utility bills,
which will impact the poor and those on fixed income to the tune of
over $3,000 a year of added electrical bills, or are we going to see
our manufacturing have to leave this country and go overseas because it
can no longer compete with the higher energy costs? What is really the
question here? How are we going to have more revenue into our Treasury
by killing off jobs?
So I don't think this is any longer a theoretical discussion. I think
we are talking about real people and real jobs. And all we have to do
is to look at Spain and other countries who have attempted this.
But just in summary, Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to be very
careful about what government is taking over and what it's controlling.
If you look to Western Europe, where socialism has been rampant for
years, you actually see a retraction, a move away from that. Even
Pravda made a statement recently that we are going headlong into
Marxism when, in fact, the rest of the world is pulling back.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLEMING. With that, I thank you for your time in the discussion.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in this steady march and drum towards cap-and-trade or
cap-and-tax, it strikes me that certainly the health of our Nation is
really what's at risk here in terms of what cap-and-trade will do to
our Nation, what it does to our businesses, our industries, what it
does to our families, what it does to the individual citizens in terms
of the costs that will be placed upon them, the burden that they have
to bear, and it's a burden that affects all segments of the society.
Those that I worry most about actually are those who live paycheck to
paycheck and those who just barely get by in their household budgets
and what this significant increase of costs will be, specific to
turning a light switch on in Pennsylvania with energy costs
[[Page 14379]]
going up 30 percent, with filling up your gas. I represent a very rural
district, and in rural America we drive. We drive to work. We drive to
pick up our groceries. We drive sometimes to pick up our mail. And the
cost of gas is estimated to increase by 76 percent. Those are costs
that our families and individuals cannot bear.
But I think there is something out there, as opposed to this big
government proposal of cap-and-trade, that we should be looking at, and
that is using our natural resources like natural gas. Natural gas
currently accounts for roughly 23 percent of our overall energy
consumption, and natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Natural gas
is used for many energy sources, but it's also vital as a feedstock
ingredient in many products we consume every day. Anything from
plastics to pharmaceuticals use natural gas as an ingredient.
Now, as a member of the House Agriculture Committee, I must point out
how important natural gas is to our farmers and our agricultural
sector. We can't grow our food without fertilizer, and natural gas is
an important ingredient in fertilizer. We only have to go back as far
as last summer when we saw the price of energy skyrocket in our
country, and that's what we are looking at now under cap-and-trade, to
see what the impact of that was on our farmers and on food prices. Many
farmers in the past few years have been hurting because of high energy
costs.
The United States has an abundant supply of natural gas, and the vast
majority of what we consume is produced right here at home. Let me
repeat that. The vast majority of natural gas we produce, that's a
homegrown product, and that's good for this country.
Oil, for instance, is a world price. That means that we pay $69 a
barrel, today's price, but so does Germany, Japan, and Canada. However,
natural gas is not a world price, meaning that the price of natural gas
varies from country to country, and it's simply supply and demand. When
we produce more natural gas, its costs will come down.
Now, having said that, I believe that we should expand upon our
natural gas production, which could act as a bridge to get us into a
future where renewables really will be the major energy source.
Renewables such as wind, solar, and the like are all energy sources
that we would like to utilize. But it's also important to bear in mind
that these sources make up only about 1 percent of what we consume, and
the major reason for that is because they are not as inexpensive as
coal, oil, and natural gas. However, the majority party in Washington
would like to make renewables more viable by increasing the costs of
fossil fuels through the proposed cap-and-trade bill.
Now, last fall the House Republicans had an important and major
victory in Congress. They led the way in removing a longstanding
moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. I would like to see us move
forward in producing in the OCS, which estimates the project has a net
royalty worth of $1.7 trillion.
{time} 1500
Another area that shows great promise is my home State of
Pennsylvania. Eighty percent of Pennsylvania rests upon the Marcellus
Shale, which is likely the third largest natural gas field in the
world. That's literally hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean-
burning natural gas that could power our country for decades, bringing
jobs and all of the economic benefits with it.
Just today, in The Wall Street Journal, there was an article on the
marketplace page entitled, ``KKR Invests in Gas Explorer.'' Within cap-
and-trade, we talk a lot about these renewables that only exist because
of the subsidy that we're putting into them. This is a great article
because this is what America is all about in terms of real science. It
talks about the company KKR that has invested in gas exploration. It
didn't take stimulus money. It didn't take subsidy money from the
Federal government or from any other level of government. It was free
market enterprise money for investing in natural gas because they
recognized the value of it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have any
further speakers?
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional speakers. I
urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, routinely, this Chamber is visited by many
young people, by many groups of young people, reminding us that we are
in need of promoting and of advancing sound and principled ideas and
policies that will be inherited by them, by their generation. They will
inherit the good and the bad works that we do, and they will count on
us for finding sound and reasonable solutions.
That being said, I believe it's very important for us to advance the
opportunity for them to have a sounder environment. They have the right
to breathe cleaner air. We have within our grasp the opportunity to
reduce that carbon footprint. We have the opportunity to go forward and
to cut this pattern of advancing $475 billion annually to foreign
economies for fossil-based fuels. We can do better with green
solutions, and we can advance House Resolution 503, which allows for us
to promote physical education and sports, which will advance the
general health and well-being of our students and which will give them
stronger academic performance.
I strongly urge our colleagues to support House Resolution 503. I
encourage them to vote ``yes'' on Representative Altmire's resolution.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 503--
Recognizing National Physical Education and Sport Week.
This measure will signal to school districts across the country that
they must begin to place health and wellness among their top priorities
when planning curriculums for the upcoming school year. The rates of
childhood obesity, heart disease, and diabetes in this country are
unacceptable, and it is incumbent upon local school systems to provide
programs and education that will teach students fundamental healthy
lifestyle habits.
Therefore, I firmly support this resolution and I commend my
colleague Rep. Jason Altmire for bringing this measure before the
floor.
Physical education that takes place within schools and incorporates
nutritional guidelines, physical activity, and a holistic approach to
fitness will not only reverse the alarming increase in childhood
obesity, but it will also result in a general decline in obesity and
heart disease among the general U.S. population. As studies have shown,
obese children have a 70 to 80 percent chance of becoming overweight
adults, further increasing their risk for chronic disease.
Our nation's minority communities are at particular risk, as poverty,
lack of education, and diets high in fat and calories are all
contributing factors increasing the likelihood of childhood obesity.
During my visits to schools and conversations with children and their
parents, I always emphasize the importance of not only academic
success, but also a healthy lifestyle including physical fitness.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we begin to rethink our old
paradigms about health. In addition to treating the effects of
unhealthy lifestyle habits--heart disease, diabetes, and chronic
illness--we must enhance our efforts to promote prevention of disease
and encourage healthy living.
Redirecting our attention toward youth health today will help
children grow up to be healthy and productive adults. This will also
reduce future healthcare costs. Therefore, I am pleased to add my voice
of support for H. Res. 503. Moreover, I will be working with my
colleagues to make sure we continue to take the necessary steps to
educate our nation's children and adults about the importance of
healthy lifestyle habits.
Mr. TONKO. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 503.
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 AMERICORPS
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 453) recognizing the significant accomplishments of
the
[[Page 14380]]
AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to
salute AmeriCorps members and alumni, and raise awareness about the
importance of national and community service.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 453
Whereas the AmeriCorps national service program, since its
inception in 1994, has proven to be a highly effective way to
engage Americans in meeting a wide range of local needs,
national response directives, and promote the ethic of
service and volunteering;
Whereas, each year, AmeriCorps provides opportunities for
75,000 citizens across the Nation to give back in an
intensive way to their communities, States, and to the
Nation;
Whereas those same individuals have improved the lives of
the Nation's most vulnerable citizens, protect the
environment, contribute to public safety, respond to
disasters, and strengthen the educational system;
Whereas AmeriCorps members, after their terms of service
end, remain engaged in their communities as volunteers,
teachers, and nonprofit professionals in disproportionately
high levels;
Whereas AmeriCorps members serve thousands of nonprofit
organizations, schools, and faith-based and community
organizations each year;
Whereas, on April 21, 2009, President Barack Obama signed
the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, passed by bipartisan
majorities in both the House and the Senate, which
reauthorizes and expands AmeriCorps programs to incorporate
250,000 volunteers each year;
Whereas national service programs have engaged millions of
Americans in results-driven service in the Nation's most
vulnerable communities, providing hope and help to people
facing economic and social needs;
Whereas, this year, as the economic downturn puts millions
of Americans at risk, national service and volunteering are
more important than ever; and
Whereas 2009's AmeriCorps Week, observed May 9 through May
16, provides the perfect opportunity for AmeriCorps members,
alums, grantees, program partners, and friends to shine a
spotlight on the work done by members--and to motivate more
Americans to serve their communities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) encourages all citizens to join in a national effort to
salute AmeriCorps members and alumni, and raise awareness
about the importance of national and community service;
(2) acknowledges the significant accomplishments of the
AmeriCorps members, alumni, and community partners;
(3) recognizes the important contributions to the lives of
our citizens by AmeriCorps members; and
(4) encourages citizens of all ages and backgrounds and
from each state to consider serving in AmeriCorps.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which
Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous materials on House
Resolution 453 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. TONKO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the substantial contributions
that AmeriCorps has made towards national and community service.
AmeriCorps began in 1994 as an effort to engage Americans in the
ethic of service and volunteerism. The organization launched following
the establishment of the Corporation for National and Community Service
under the National and Community Service Trust Act. The initial class
of 20,000 volunteers established an immediate tradition of assisting
communities across the country. This tradition involves improving the
lives of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens, protecting the
environment, contributing to public safety, responding to disasters,
and strengthening our educational system.
We recognize the real impact that AmeriCorps has and continues to
have on our Nation's communities. Since 1994, more than 570,000
individuals have served with the organization. These individuals have
tackled some of the Nation's toughest issues, including illiteracy,
gang violence, homelessness, and drug abuse. They have worked with
thousands of organizations ranging from Habitat for Humanity to the Red
Cross. After their terms of service, these members remain engaged in
their communities as volunteers, as teachers, and as nonprofit
professionals at disproportionately high levels.
In my district, in the capital region of New York State, we have a
large AmeriCorps program with the Self Advocacy Association of New
York. The AmeriCorps members, all with developmental disabilities,
travel around the State, giving presentations--promoting the importance
of self-advocacy for people with disabilities, the general awareness of
disability-related issues and the importance of full community
inclusion of people with disabilities.
This is important work, and I am so pleased we have these volunteers
back home in my congressional district. We realize that, as this
current economic downturn puts millions of Americans at risk, the need
for volunteers and national service will be more important than ever.
The recently signed Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act expands the
AmeriCorps program to incorporate some 250,000 volunteers each year. It
is important to recognize the commitment of these volunteers so that
future generations will continue to support the ideal of national
service. The strength of our Nation depends upon individuals who take
action towards building better communities.
We observed AmeriCorps Week May 9 through May 16. AmeriCorps Week
provides current volunteers, alums, grantees, program partners, and
friends with the opportunity to highlight the important work done by
this great organization. It is a chance for us to thank those
individuals whose service to society cannot be fully measured.
It is also a wonderful opportunity for us to motivate future
individuals to pursue the ethic of service, whether in organizations
such as AmeriCorps or in the various other service opportunities that
exist in our Nation. The ethic of service is a manifestation of the
greater ideal of democracy. The AmeriCorps pledge begins: ``I will get
things done for America to make our people safer, smarter, and
healthier.'' It is important that we recognize that service is a civic
duty. Not only do we express gratitude for service, but we express
gratitude through service. When we acknowledge the significant
accomplishments of AmeriCorps as an organization, we affirm the
importance of service as a necessary component of any democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to take a moment to appreciate the
contributions made by AmeriCorps. These volunteers are the muscle of
America, and they deserve this recognition.
I want to thank Representative Matsui for bringing this resolution to
the floor, and I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 453, a
resolution recognizing AmeriCorps Week observed last month on May 9
through May 16.
AmeriCorps recognizes the individuals who have chosen to participate
in the AmeriCorps program, and they have dedicated a significant amount
of time helping others in local communities.
In 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush signed the National
Service Act, a network of national service programs that engage
Americans in intensive service to meet the Nation's vital needs in
education, public safety, health, and the environment.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the National Community Service
Trust Act, which established the Corporation for National and Community
Service, which brought the full range of domestic community service
programs under the umbrella of one central organization.
Finally, just a few months ago, President Obama signed the latest
reauthorization of the Corporation for National
[[Page 14381]]
and Community Service, a bill that was developed and passed in a strong
bipartisan fashion in both Chambers. This legislation builds on the
reforms to the corporation, started by the previous administration, to
ensure additional accountability in national service programs. This
most recent legislation will also help smaller organizations
participate in national service, and it will ensure that the unique
skills of America's veterans are well-utilized.
AmeriCorps offers 75,000 opportunities for adults of all ages and
backgrounds to address a myriad of needs in communities all across
America, such as tutoring and mentoring disadvantaged youth, fighting
illiteracy, building affordable housing, and assisting communities in
times of natural disaster. For example, in the last 3 years, more than
4 million service hours have been spent helping gulf coast communities
recover and rebuild after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That's 4 million
hours of service made possible by the organizations and by the
individuals who chose to participate in the AmeriCorps programs.
This resolution recognizes one week where we salute current and
former AmeriCorps members for their important work. It also allows us
to thank all community partners who make it possible for AmeriCorps
members to serve.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my fellow cochairs on the
National Service Caucus, Representatives Matsui, Ehlers and Price, for
introducing this resolution. I ask my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my colleague of Pennsylvania for
yielding me some time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill encourages Americans to support AmeriCorps.
There are some around the country who would agree with that. There are
others who would not because there are problems with AmeriCorps, such
as moneys that have been expended on ACORN. Other funds and efforts by
AmeriCorps volunteers have been utilized in campaigns, which I don't
think is quite appropriate, particularly when we're trying to promote
volunteerism.
Whether people would support AmeriCorps or not, I think that there is
another issue that, if the American people were to fully comprehend and
understand, the vast majority of this country would not support. It's
what the liberals in this Congress are calling cap-and-trade
legislation. I call it tax-and-cap legislation because that's what it's
all about. It's about taxes. In fact, the President recently said, if
this bill were not passed, he would not have the money to fund his
socialized medicine program for which he is actually pushing very hard
and for which he wants passed by the end of this year.
Now, socialized medicine is going to take people's choices away. It's
going to take their choices of doctors away, their choices of
hospitals, their choices of what medications they can utilize, whether
they can even have a procedure or have surgery that is so desperately
needed. It's going to be a program that's going to literally kill
people because it's going to deny them care that's desperately needed.
So this tax-and-cap legislation--``cap-and-trade'' as it's called--is
about money. It's not about the environment. It's about money. It's
about more funds being brought into the Federal government to foster
what I call a ``steamroll of socialism'' that's being shoved down the
throats of the American people. It's going to slay the American
economy. It's going to cost jobs.
The President has talked about using Spain as the icon for what we
should look at. Well, in Spain, the icon that the President looks to,
we have already seen that for every single green job that it has
produced another 2.2 jobs, which were real jobs, permanent jobs, were
destroyed.
In my congressional district in northeast Georgia, right now, today,
in many counties, we have an unemployment rate of nearly 14 percent.
The national average is over 9 percent. In northeast Georgia, it's
higher, much higher. I have manufacturing entities within my district
that tell me, if this cap-and-trade/tax-and-cap legislation is passed,
they're going to lock the doors, and the unemployment rate in northeast
Georgia is going to go up markedly from what it is today, which is
roughly 14 percent. I think we're going to see 18 percent, 20 percent,
maybe 25 percent unemployment in northeast Georgia because of one bill,
because of one bill that is being pushed down the throats of the
American people: this cap-and-tax--``tax-and-cap'' as I call it--cap-
and-trade legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill.
{time} 1515
It's going to be disastrous for the American economy, it's going to
be disastrous for American workers, and it's going to be disastrous for
the poor and those who are on limited incomes.
Why do I say that? Well, I say that because every single person in
this country utilizes energy. Every single person, when they flip on
their light switch, their electric bill is going up. Every single
person in this country is dependent upon gasoline or diesel fuel. Why?
Even if they don't have a car, even if they use public transportation,
it is gasoline and diesel fuel that motivates America. But it's more
than that. Groceries don't grow in the grocery store. Grocery prices
are going to go up markedly because of this tax-and-cap legislation.
Every single good and service in this country is going to go up because
of this tax-and-cap legislation.
Now I'm a conservationist. I fought in the conservation movement for
a long period of time. We have to be good stewards of our environment.
There's no question. I want clean air and clean water just as much as
the most ardent, rabid environmental activist in this country. I'm a
physician, and I know what dirty air does to my patients who have
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic asthma and lung
diseases. We must have clean air. We can do that, but we can do that
without destroying our economy. We can do that without costing American
jobs.
All we're going to do is run jobs overseas instead of having them
here in America. We ought to have public policy that grows our economic
base, not kills it. Tax-and-cap legislation would kill it. We ought to
have public policy that stimulates the economy instead of kills it.
Tax-and-cap will kill it.
We are in a bad economic situation today. People are hurting all over
this country. We are borrowing too much. We're spending too much. We're
taxing too much. We see the policy from this administration and the
liberal leadership of Congress in both the House and the Senate that is
going to not only extend this current recession, but I believe it's
going to deepen it. I believe it will even take us into a severe
recession to the point of a frank, outright depression. Tax-and-cap
legislation is going to be the locomotive that takes us down those
tracks, and it's going to be a high-speed train taking us toward
economic ruin. That high-speed train is going to run off a cliff, and
it's going to take the American economy and the American people with
it. It's going to kill small business. It's going to kill big business.
It's going to kill jobs. It's going to hurt poor people. It's going to
hurt the elderly, those on limited incomes. It's going to raise the
cost of medicine, raise the cost of health care.
And why are we doing this? It is so, as the President himself has
said, that he can have the funds to create a bigger socialized medicine
program and other socialized programs, bigger government, bigger
spending, more economic doom and gloom that's going to be foisted upon
the American people. We've got to stop it. And if the American people
realized what was happening, they'd stand up and say no to cap-and-tax,
cap-and-trade, what I call tax-and-cap legislation, as well as the
socialized medicine program, the two big things that this
administration and the liberal leadership in this Congress are pushing.
Both of them are going to be disastrous. Both of them are going to kill
jobs. Both of them are going to
[[Page 14382]]
take away choices. Both of them are going to destroy our economy. Both
of them are going to put our children and grandchildren in severe
economic peril. And believe me, I believe it's immoral. I think it's
totally immoral because we are robbing our children and our
grandchildren of their economic futures. They will live at a standard
that's much below ours today.
We have a clear picture of where the leadership in this Congress is
taking us and the way the administration is taking us. All we have to
do is look in Venezuela. This administration and the liberal leadership
in this Congress is going down the same road that Hugo Chavez has taken
the Venezuelans. Venezuela nationalized their energy systems. That's
exactly what we're trying to do here with cap-and-trade. In Venezuela,
Hugo Chavez nationalized the financial institutions. We've already done
that. We've nationalized Chrysler and GM, and they're trying to force
Ford into the same trap. We've nationalized the insurance industry.
We're nationalizing everything of major consequence in this country
economically. And now the leadership wants to nationalize, federalize,
socialize the health care system in America.
Now where is that train going to take us? We've got a clear picture
of that, too. All we have to do is look in Cuba, look in the Soviet-
controlled Soviet Union prior to them making their reforms and turning
toward a more capitalistic system. But we can look at Cuba. Cuba, prior
to Fidel Castro taking over that government, was very prosperous.
Certainly they had problems, but not the problems that they have today.
In Cuba we have a very rich elite, headed by a Marxist, Fidel Castro.
The vast majority of the people in that country are struggling, very
poor, with no choices. That's exactly where we're heading in America
today if we continue down this road, this steamroller of socialism,
this high-speed train that's going to drive us off the economic cliff.
We've got to stop it.
Republicans have offered alternative after alternative. We had
alternatives to the housing crisis. The liberals on the other side were
obstructionists. They wouldn't let our alternatives be heard. We had
alternatives to the stimulus bill. I call it the nonstimulus bill
because it has not and will not stimulate the economy. We had
alternatives. The other side were obstructionists. They would not allow
our ideas to be heard or brought to this floor for debate.
We've offered alternatives to the banking crisis. But what have we
done? We've bailed out Wall Street. Republicans have offered many
alternatives to bail out Main Street, but they are not heard on this
floor. Over and over again, the other side has been obstructionist.
They've blocked every effort that we have brought on our side, from the
Republican side, to bring forth commonsense, market-based free
enterprise solutions that would not have put our children and
grandchildren's futures at peril. But the other side have been
obstructionists. They have not allowed those things to be heard. They
have been buried in committee. We introduced the bills. We had press
conferences. The Main Street media around this country are very
compliant with the leadership on the liberal side because they bury it
and don't even report the alternatives.
We hear on the other side that the Republicans are the Party of No.
Well actually we are the Party of Know, but it's K-N-O-W. We know how
to solve these problems in America. We know how to solve the banking
problems. We know how to solve the stimulus/economic problems. We know
how to solve the environmental problems, the energy problems, the
health care problems that America faces. But are our ideas heard? The
other side is the side of no, N-O, because they say no to every
proposal that we've made on our side.
The press also is the party of no, N-O, because they've not reported
on any of the proposals that we've offered, and it's not right. It's
actually going to be disastrous to the American people, and the
American people need to stand up and say no to this steamroller of
socialism. Stop this high-speed train running off the cliff of economic
doom that's going to take our children and grandchildren down into the
chasm of a poor economy, struggling to try to pay off the debt for this
totally inappropriate outright steamroller of socialism that's being
forced down the throats of the American people.
We've got to stop it. And we can stop it if the American people rise
up and say no to the steamroller, put a stop to this high-speed train
that Nancy Pelosi's driving and Harry Reid's driving that is going to
hurt our children, it's going to hurt our grandchildren, it's going to
hurt America, and I'm not sure that we can recover in the next 10
decades, century. It may take that long to put us back on the right
track, if we can ever get back on the right track.
We've seen over and over throughout history societies destroyed
because of people doing things in a self-centered manner, and that's
exactly what's happening in this country today. We are self-centered as
a people. We need to look at serving other people, particularly our
children and grandchildren, put this country back on the right track,
and we can do that.
Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen one time said, when he feels the
heat, he sees the light. The American people need to put the heat on
Members of Congress in the House and the Senate and say no to cap-and-
tax, cap-and-trade legislation, to the Waxman-Markey bill. They need to
say no to the socialized medicine program that the liberal leadership
on the Democratic side is trying to force upon us which will take our
choices away. They need to say no to the steamroller of socialism, no
to big government, and yes to free enterprise, yes to personal
responsibility and accountability, yes to small business. We cannot
borrow and spend our way to prosperity. We have to stimulate the
economy by stimulating small business. We have to have money in the
hands of small businessmen and -women around this country to create
jobs. We have to have money in the hands of the taxpayers so that they
can have money for a college education for their children, buy clothes,
buy food.
The bill just before this one was about encouraging physical
education for our children. I'm a medical doctor, and I have seen over
and over again how fat and out of shape the kids in this country are.
But our economy is going to be skinny and poor because of a fat,
bloated Federal Government that the liberal leadership in this House
and this Senate are trying to force upon the American people.
So the American people need to stand up and say no to all these
steamroller of socialism programs, to the cap-and-trade, to socialized
medicine; and say yes to the Republican alternatives that will look to
the free marketplace and will stimulate the economy, get us back on the
right track and help us have a strong economic future not only for us
today but for our children and our grandchildren for the next decades
to come.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional speakers, and I
would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, if there is a common thread woven through the
fabric of volunteers across this great country of ours, it's a sense of
positive, a positive spirit, a positive attitude, positive energy going
forward and building stronger communities, enhancing the quality of
life of American citizens. Their deeds speak to our needs.
So to focus effectively and most positively on the subject at hand,
bringing us to House Resolution 453, I will close with my comments
focused in great respect for the volunteers of this country, the spirit
of this House resolution. I would suggest that they are that muscle of
America. They make a total difference. They enhance the quality of life
of each and every American, and the recognition of our volunteers
through AmeriCorps, the spirit of House Resolution 453, should be
recognized and responded to by our colleagues. I would encourage a
``yes'' vote on the resolution.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
453, which recognizes the significant accomplishments of the
[[Page 14383]]
AmeriCorps programs, encourages all citizens to join in a national
effort to salute AmeriCorps members and alumni, and helps raise
awareness about the importance of national and community service to our
country.
AmeriCorps Week is celebrated each year to honor the important work
that AmeriCorps volunteers provide to our communities.
This year, we celebrated National AmeriCorps Week with a renewed
sense of purpose after the passage of the Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Serve America Act. Already we have seen a rise in AmeriCorps
applications and a tremendous interest in national and community
service as a direct result of this legislation.
The Serve America Act restores the promise of our national service
programs by expanding the AmeriCorps programs' volunteer capacity from
75,000 to 250,000 volunteers across the country, and reauthorizes the
Corporation for National and Community Service for the first time in 15
years.
In my district of Sacramento, AmeriCorps National Civilian Community
Corps, or as we say NCCC, volunteers provide immense benefits to our
community and our region. Trained in CPR, first aid, disaster response
and firefighting, NCCC teams have responded to every national disaster
since the program was established.
As a Co-Chair of the National Service Caucus, it is a pleasure to
call attention to the tremendous work of those involved at every level
and in every AmeriCorps program.
As a result of the great work of these volunteers, extraordinary
things are happening all around America. The service programs and new
initiatives help address some of our nation's toughest problems, from
poverty and unmet education needs, to natural disasters.
I urge my colleagues to continue to support AmeriCorps volunteers and
take this opportunity to thank them for their dedication to our country
and to their communities.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I rise in support of House Resolution 453 which
recognizes the significant accomplishments of the AmeriCorps and
encourages all citizens to join in a national effort to salute
AmeriCorps members and alumni, and raise awareness about the importance
of national and community service.
I want to commend my good friend from the 5th district of California,
Ms. Doris Matsui, for introducing this important resolution. I also
want to recognize the cosponsors for their strong support of House
Resolution 453.
Ever since its creation in 1993 by President Clinton, AmeriCorps has
honorably served our nation's communities. I am also encouraged by the
recent decision by the Obama Administration to increase the total
number of volunteers in AmeriCorps to 250,000 by the year 2012, which
further demonstrates that AmeriCorps is fulfilling its mission and
honorably serving its purpose.
Today, this legislation honors the thousands of volunteers who have
selflessly served communities in areas such as education, public
safety, health, and the environment. As a result of all their hard work
and service, communities across the nation have benefitted
tremendously. For example, AmeriCorps has provided mentoring programs
to children of incarcerated parents. The program recruits and provides
knowledgeable and caring mentors for these children with parents in
prison. In 2007, statistics show the program provided mentoring to
93,400 children of incarcerated parents, more than double its target
goal of 36,000 children. In addition, AmeriCorps has also been endorsed
by a growing number of higher education institutions. In the 2007
fiscal year, 76 institutions matched the AmeriCorps Education Award, an
award that provides up to 5,000 dollars a year to volunteers who
demonstrate outstanding service in the AmeriCorps programs. This goes
to show the support the AmeriCorps is getting from higher-education
institutions around the country.
Back in 2003, I co-sponsored House Resolution 2125, introduced by my
friend, Ms. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the Rite of Passage Community
Service Act, which created a national network of service programs that
allowed for young people who were part of community-based, after-
school, and summer service corps programs to work with older AmeriCorps
members who could organize service projects and act as mentors to new
AmeriCorps members. In the midst of this economic downturn millions of
Americans are without jobs and AmeriCorps can provide opportunities for
many to become involved in their communities and benefit our nation.
I recognize that there are still some areas that need improvements,
but the overall purpose of AmeriCorps programs has been a success. The
program has become the number one catalyst for service and voluntary
work, in the country.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
announce my support for AmeriCorps and to salute all AmeriCorps members
nationwide. Since AmeriCorps was created in 1994, Texas has benefited
from over 22,000 young people serving a year or more in our
communities. Through programs such as the National Civilian Community
Corps, City Year and Teach For America, AmeriCorps volunteers address
critical Texas needs in education, public safety, disaster response and
recovery, and environment preservation. These programs serve an
important role as they provide an outlet for people to serve their
country in a manner that had previously not been afforded.
In the last 14 years more than 500,000 individuals have served
through AmeriCorps and have earned education awards worth more than
$1.5 billion, making the dream of higher education more attainable.
This national service program has provided opportunities for growing
numbers of Americans to serve our nation.
AmeriCorps members serve thousands of nonprofit organizations,
schools, and faith-based and community organizations each year. With
the enactment of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which
President Obama signed on April 21, 2009, three times as many
American's will now have the opportunity to serve. This program has
engaged millions of Americans in results-driven service in the Nation's
most vulnerable communities, providing hope and help to people facing
economic and social needs. With the current economic downturn putting
millions of Americans at risk, national service and volunteering are
more important than ever.
Mr. Speaker, the AmeriCorps program has done great things for Texas
and the country as a whole. I am indeed honored to support the
significant accomplishments of this wonderful program which represents
the very best of the United States of America.
Mr. TONKO. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 453.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
{time} 1530
SUPPORTING INTERMEDIATE SPACE CHALLENGE
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 411) supporting the goals and ideals of the
Intermediate Space Challenge in Mojave, California.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 411
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge in Mojave,
California, is a program designed to capture the imagination
of youths regarding outer space;
Whereas the aspiration of the Intermediate Space Challenge
is to introduce, instill, and energize youths' interest in
the engineering, mathematics, and science career fields;
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge focuses on 4th,
5th, and 6th grade students during their formative years;
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge provides students
the opportunity to visit the Mojave Air and Space Port, a
3,300 acre flight research center;
Whereas aviation legends and private space pioneers such as
Burt Rutan, Dick Rutan, Brian Binnie, and Mike Melvill have
worked with and spoken to students participating in the
program;
Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge enables students
to work together in a team environment to choose a team name,
create team banners, craft an essay, and develop and use
their math and science skills to construct and launch a small
rocket under appropriate supervision; and
Whereas the program judges student rocket teams on banner
designs, essays, and rocket construction and performance:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space
Challenge;
[[Page 14384]]
(2) commends the volunteers who run the Intermediate Space
Challenge and the Mojave Air and Space Port for opening its
facility to the young leaders of the future in the science
and engineering fields; and
(3) encourages teachers and school administrators across
the country to implement similar programs to stimulate
students and infuse them with a love of engineering,
mathematics, and science.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which
Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on House
Resolution 411 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. TONKO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the goals and ideals of the
Intermediate Space Challenge in Mojave, California. The Intermediate
Space Challenge Program captures children's imaginations as it relates
to science, math, space, and experimental learning.
The competition began in response to the Ansari X Prize manned
spaceflight contest in 2004, won by Mojave's own SpaceShipOne in 2004.
In twin flights from the Mojave Air and Space Port, the spacecraft
designed by Burt Rutan took pilots Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie to
space and back, claiming a $10 million prize.
Marie Walker originally founded the Intermediate Space Challenge. She
coordinated with Stu Witt, Mojave Airport's general manager, and they
planned the first challenge in 2004. It has been a great success in the
Mojave community. Now in its fifth year, students look forward to the
annual competition, with younger students anticipating the time when
they are old enough to participate.
The Intermediate Space Challenge hosts a student rocket launch
competition, where fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade students compete to
build a model rocket that reaches the highest point during launches.
Points are awarded on rocket altitude, color, marketing strategy, and
spirit. In some cases, the handmade rockets reach up to 600 before
parachuting downward.
Individual awards are given in each category, with the overall winner
announced at the end of the event. The challenge allows students to
work in teams, create a team banner, craft an essay, and develop their
small rocket. During the events, many of the students get a chance to
view professional rockets and hear how they operate.
The Intermediate Space Challenge fosters great interest in science,
in technology, in engineering, and in math among these students and
certainly is expected to serve to develop the next great aerospace
adventurer of our time.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I express my support for this resolution,
and I want to thank Representative McCarthy for bringing this
resolution forward. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, especially
in light of our critical need for additional scientists,
mathematicians, engineers and related professions. This program that we
are recognizing through this resolution is so important to encouraging
young people to pursue study in these fields.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 411, a
resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space
Challenge that takes place every year in Mojave, California.
Each May 4th, 5th and 6th graders from school districts around the
Mojave Air and Spaceport gather at the Spaceport to show off their
homemade rockets and compete to see how far the rockets can actually
fly. Points get awarded based on altitude, color, marketing strategy,
and spirit of the final product. The Challenge was designed to spark
interest in the science and engineering career fields early in a
student's educational career. The hands-on nature of the event allows
students to see how the concepts they learn about in the classroom can
be applied to actually make a rocket soar.
We have all heard about the critical need for American scientists,
mathematicians, engineers and other professionals in the Science,
Technology, Engineering or Math--STEM--fields for short. For that
reason, we passed the America COMPETES Act last Congress. We have also
continued to think about the importance of STEM throughout the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and I expect it to be a big
topic of conversation when we start on the reauthorization of No Child
Left Behind. with several leaders in the area of STEM education on our
Committee, such as Representatives Ehlers, McMorris-Rodgers and Holt,
we have ensured that programs such as the Adjunct Teacher Corps got
incorporated into our education laws. Through the Adjunct Teacher
Corps, we allow professionals in STEM fields to come into the classroom
to teach or to provide ongoing professional development to classroom
teachers who do not have that subject matter expertise. Programs like
this and the others included in both the Higher Education Act and the
America COMPETES Act demonstrate the federal government's commitment to
trying to help fill the shortfall that currently exists in the STEM
pipeline.
Programs such as the Intermediate Space Challenge show what local
communities are doing to try and light that spark at an early age for
students to become interested in STEM subjects. We should recognize
these efforts and encourage other communities to utilize their own
resources to develop hands-on projects. These types of projects show
students how their classroom knowledge can be translated into real life
applications. I support the goals and ideals put forward by the
Intermediate Space Challenge and I encourage my colleagues to vote in
favor of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the prime sponsor
of this legislation, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
House Resolution 411, a resolution I introduced that honors the goals
and ideals of the Intermediate Space Challenge at the Mojave Air and
Space Port located in my district in Mojave, California.
Mojave Air and Space Port has a long history of firsts, from Burt and
Dick Rutan's collaboration on the Voyager around-the-world flight in
1986 to 2004's flight of SpaceShipOne, the first privately funded
manned spacecraft.
Nearby are Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Naval Weapons
Center, which are cutting-edge research and testing facilities that are
continuing to push the envelope. In fact, when I visit the National Air
and Space Museum here in Washington, D.C., I feel at home. There are so
many aircraft from my district, like SpaceShipOne, Voyager, Chuck
Yeager's Glamorous Glennis that broke the sound barrier, and the X-15,
which, incidentally, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the X-15's
first flight yesterday.
The Intermediate Space Challenge started in 2005 under the direction
of Marie Walker. Marie is the CEO of Fiberset, a Mojave company that
manufactures composite products and components. She saw an opportunity
in and around Mojave to bring together fourth, fifth and sixth-grade
students with aerospace leaders to educate them and inspire them to
become the next generation of aerospace pioneers. I am proud to
recognize their hard work on this fifth anniversary year of the
program, and I appreciate being able to participate.
Marie Walker and all those who have been instrumental in organizing
and executing the Intermediate Space Challenge recognized the
opportunities to grab the attention of our students through the
Intermediate Space Challenge and get them interested in science and
engineering.
Students work in teams to write an essay, create a banner, and then
build and design a rocket. They get assistance from high school
students as mentors, so the program engages students from multiple age
groups. The teams of fourth, fifth and sixth-graders then compete both
on rocket performance
[[Page 14385]]
and on a team spirit. Paralleling the X-Prize's requirement for a
privately funded manned spacecraft to go up into space twice in two
weeks, students' rockets make two flights.
During the course of the events, the students hear from special guest
speakers. Students have heard from aviation pioneers Burt and Dick
Rutan and the SpaceShipOne astronauts in past years. Through the words
and actions of these real, live aerospace heroes, students can see that
the opportunities are limitless.
I appreciate the support of Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
McKeon, who are also original cosponsors, and my colleague Jim Costa,
who has always been supportive of the activities at the Mojave Air and
Space Port.
Congratulations to all the students who have participated in this
event. I look forward to many more years of successful student rocket
launches, and with that, I am proud to support and bring this
resolution to the floor.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have any
further speakers?
Mr. PLATTS. I do have additional speakers, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. TONKO. I reserve my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
and I do rise to support the Intermediate Space Challenge.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, many of the young people that are growing
up and participating in this are going to find they are going to grow
up in a very different America than we have grown up in because of the
increase in taxes that are taking place every single day and the way
this crowds out opportunity for young people.
Indeed, my colleagues across the aisle have become the party of
punishment, and that is what I am hearing from my constituents as I
traveled across the Seventh Congressional District this past week, and
they are very, very concerned.
What they are telling me is they know that clean air and clean water
and clean energy are important, and, Mr. Speaker, I think we as
politicians would say we are even for clean mud. We are just not for
taxing people out of their house and home to pay for clean energy. And
that is exactly what this cap-and-trade bill, or cap-and-tax, as we
call it, cap our growth, tax our people, trade our jobs, and that is
what it is going to do, as the Democrats put a price on the very air
that we breathe.
The cap-and-trade bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce
Committee last week, the Federal building standards that are in that
bill are of concern to our Realtors, to our commercial property
holders, knowing that there will be these standards that are going to
be very, very difficult for them to comply with, knowing that there are
going to be energy audits put on their houses, knowing that they are
going to have to buy carbon credits if they don't have solar panels on
their roof or a windmill in the yard, knowing that they literally are
going to see the air that they breathe taxed.
As my colleague from Georgia had previously said, you know, groceries
don't grow in a grocery store. They don't grow in a grocery store, Mr.
Speaker; they grow out in the fields. They require this carbon dioxide
in order to grow and be green and be healthy and provide the food and
the forestation that we need here in the United States and certainly
around the globe.
The cap-and-trade bill is something that is going to limit
opportunity. It is something that we are going to see affect jobs and
future jobs. We know that it is expected to cost us over 1 million jobs
lost and that we are going to see our unemployment numbers rise
substantially, and we are going to see our electricity rates go up by
90 percent.
When we were in committee, we offered an amendment that would have
ended cap-and-trade if gas went over $5 a gallon. Mr. Speaker, our
colleagues across the aisle sought to defeat that.
We said, let's end it if unemployment goes past 15 percent, and our
colleagues across the aisle said no, they were not going to end it if
employment went past 15 percent.
We said, let's tell everybody what this costs, how much is it
increasing the cost of your electric power, how much is it increasing
the cost of the gas you buy, how much is it increasing the cost of the
food you eat. And our colleagues across the aisle said no, they were
not going to disclose that and vote for and support that amendment.
We even offered an amendment that would protect the innovators of
tomorrow who are going to solve the energy issues that we have before
us, and they sought not to provide that intellectual property
protection for all these young boys and girls, many who are going
through the Intermediate Space Challenge now, many who will be the
innovators of tomorrow, who will solve the energy issues for future
decades, who will create the electric cars.
Indeed, when you look at the electric cars and the lithium ion
batteries, the three States that hold the most patents for furthering
this invention are California, Ohio, and my great State of Tennessee.
Intellectual property protection should have been provided for those.
Many of those innovators of tomorrow are in this program that we are
celebrating. It is very sad that the party of punishment doesn't
provide the protection that those young men and women need to be the
innovators of tomorrow.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have any
further speakers?
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. TONKO. I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I also rise in support today of what this would mean to our young
people in this country. In my old State Senate district I represented
an area in Erie County near Plum Brook Station, which is a large NASA
testing facility. Just to the east of there, we had NASA Glenn, which
is in Cuyahoga County.
The things that we can do and achieve in this country through the
space program are limitless. However, if we stand by what we are seeing
happening across Congress today with this cap-and-tax legislation, we
are in trouble.
One of the things I am proud of is the fact that in my Fifth
Congressional District I represent an area where we manufacture solar
panels with First Solar. We have another company coming on line this
fall that will also be in solar manufacturing. We also in my district
have wind turbines, ethanol, hydrogen, biomass, and we are doing all
these things in the alternative.
Also though it is very, very important in this country that we have
that base load capacity that we have to have to be able to manufacture,
that we have to have if we want to continue to be able to be
independent in this country, especially when we are talking about
manufacturing in the new age of space. We have to make sure that we
have these homegrown companies here today. It is going to be very, very
difficult to do that if we don't have the manufacturing capacity and if
we also don't have that base load capacity.
One of the things we have found, of course, is that we don't have
that base load capacity in certain areas, and we also don't have the
ability of being able to go out there on the nuclear facilities. I
think 1977 was the last time that we had a nuclear facility permitted
in this country. And the problem that we have today is if we want to
have more nuclear, to be able to produce more power, to be able to keep
our manufacturing capacity, it is going to be very tough to do, because
a lot of these parts are no longer made in this country.
{time} 1545
We have to go overseas to buy these if we can get them today. And
some of the very large components are made in Japan. And there's a long
waiting list because so many countries are out there wanting to build
nuclear facilities and keep up that base load capacity. Why is it
important?
[[Page 14386]]
Well, again, if we don't utilize that all-of-the-above policy of not
only having the alternatives because we all want to make sure in this
country that we have a clean environment, but we also want to make sure
that we have nuclear, clean coal, oil, natural gas and geothermal.
We've all seen the headlines in the paper of course where, you know,
CBO score saying that we're looking at $846 billion on this new cap-
and-tax, which would be a massive energy tax on the American people.
But at the same time, as the gentlelady from Tennessee was just talking
about, is the tremendous cost on individuals.
One of the analyses from the Heritage Foundation shows that they're
looking at around a $4,300 per year tax on an average family. And how
do they get to that number? It says, our $1,500 number is just the
direct impact of household energy bills. Your energy bill, your natural
gas bill, your home heating bill, and of course the amount of gas you
put in your tank, and that would be around $1,500.
But also, there is that ripple effect that goes through the economy
that takes it up to $4,300. And in the year 2035 alone, the cost is
$8,276, and the cost per family for the whole energy tax aggregated
from 2012 to 2030 is $116,680.
And compare it if we did not have a cap-and-tax, the real GDP losses
increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the
original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft.
Compared to no cap-and-trade, the average economic or unemployment
increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the
original draft to 1.1 million jobs under the new draft.
Also, interesting enough in the paper today in the Washington Times
is an article, ``GDP hit found with cap, trade.'' This is from the
Brookings Institution. ``The Brookings Institution on Monday said cap-
and-trade legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would lower
the Nation's gross domestic product in 2050 by 2.5 percent, compared
with levels it would reach if the legislation is not implemented.''
It also says that, ``About 35 percent of crude-oil-related jobs and
40 percent of coal-related jobs would be lost in 2025.''
It goes on to say: ``It assumes that the majority of workers would
find new jobs, but the net job loss would be 0.5 percent over the first
10 years that the legislation is in effect.''
I don't think that this country can afford it because, again, to go
on, you know, when you're looking at reducing the aggregate gross GDP
by $9.6 trillion, destroying 1.1 million jobs, raising electric rates,
as the gentlelady from Tennessee just mentioned, by 90 percent after
adjusting for inflation, seeing gasoline prices up to 74 percent,
raising residential natural gas prices by 55----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. PLATTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
--raising natural gas prices by 55 percent, raising an average
family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and again, increase the
inflation-adjusted Federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional
Federal debt per person after adjusting for inflation.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have any
further speakers?
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, decades ago, a global space race inspired all
sorts of ingenuity and innovation. It enabled this country to stretch
its thinking, provide for lofty opportunities, and emerge with a higher
level of status in the global community because it had won that space
race.
Providing many, many opportunities, it is indeed the inspiration for
today's House Resolution 411, as witnessed through the Intermediate
Space Challenge in Mojave, California. Today, we have that same
opportunity to stretch our thinking, to provide that loftiness, to be
able to emerge with an innovation economy driven by another sort of
global race, one called an energy race, which will find the winner to
be the exporter of energy innovation, energy thinking, energy ideas,
and energy intellect.
And so I think the moves forward by this House can perhaps inspire
another saga of intermediate space challenge. But today we recognize
and support the goals and ideals of that great Intermediate Space
Challenge through House Resolution 411.
I would encourage our colleagues to support this resolution. It is
most meritorious.
I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 411.
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.
____________________
CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND SAVE ACT
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2751) to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and
provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles
to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting
automobiles.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2751
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 ``Consumer Assistance to
Recycle and Save Act''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY VEHICLE TRADE-IN PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration a voluntary program to
be known as the ``Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save
Program'' through which the Secretary of Transportation
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the
``Secretary''), in accordance with this Act and the
regulations promulgated under subsection (d), shall--
(1) authorize the issuance of an electronic voucher,
subject to the specifications set forth in subsection (c), to
offset the purchase price or lease price for a qualifying
lease of a new fuel efficient automobile upon the surrender
of an eligible trade-in vehicle to a dealer participating in
the Program;
(2) register dealers for participation in the Program and
require all registered dealers--
(A) to accept vouchers as provided in this section as
partial payment or down payment for the purchase or
qualifying lease of any new fuel efficient automobile offered
for sale or lease by that dealer; and
(B) in accordance with subsection (c)(2), to transfer each
eligible trade-in vehicle surrendered to the dealer under the
Program to an entity for disposal;
(3) in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury,
make electronic payments to dealers for eligible transactions
accepted by such dealers, in accordance with the regulations
issued under subsection (d); and
(4) in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the
Inspector General of the Department of Transportation,
establish and provide for the enforcement of measures to
prevent and penalize fraud under the Program.
(b) Qualifications for and Value of Vouchers.--A voucher
issued under the Program shall have a value that may be
applied to offset the purchase price or lease price for a
qualifying lease of a new fuel efficient automobile as
follows:
(1) $3,500 value.--The voucher may be used to offset the
purchase price or lease price of the new fuel efficient
automobile by $3,500 if--
(A) the new fuel efficient automobile is a passenger
automobile and the combined fuel economy value of such
automobile is at least 4 miles per gallon higher than the
combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle;
(B) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 1 truck
and the combined fuel economy value of such truck is at least
2 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy
value of the eligible trade-in vehicle;
(C) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 2 truck
that has a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles
per gallon and--
(i) the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 2 truck and
the combined fuel economy value of the new fuel efficient
automobile is at least 1 mile per gallon higher
[[Page 14387]]
than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in
vehicle; or
(ii) the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 3 truck of
model year 2001 or earlier; or
(D) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 3 truck
and the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 3 truck of
model year of 2001 or earlier and is of similar size or
larger than the new fuel efficient automobile as determined
in a manner prescribed by the Secretary.
(2) $4,500 value.--The voucher may be used to offset the
purchase price or lease price of the new fuel efficient
automobile by $4,500 if--
(A) the new fuel efficient automobile is a passenger
automobile and the combined fuel economy value of such
automobile is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the
combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle;
(B) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 1 truck
and the combined fuel economy value of such truck is at least
5 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy
value of the eligible trade-in vehicle; or
(C) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 2 truck
that has a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles
per gallon and the combined fuel economy value of such truck
is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel
economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle and the
eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 2 truck.
(c) Program Specifications.--
(1) Limitations.--
(A) General period of eligibility.--A voucher issued under
the Program shall be used only in connection with the
purchase or qualifying lease of new fuel efficient
automobiles that occur between--
(i) the date of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) the date that is 1 year after the date on which the
regulations promulgated under subsection (d) are implemented.
(B) Number of vouchers per person and per trade-in
vehicle.--Not more than 1 voucher may be issued for a single
person and not more than 1 voucher may be issued for the
joint registered owners of a single eligible trade-in
vehicle.
(C) No combination of vouchers.--Only 1 voucher issued
under the Program may be applied toward the purchase or
qualifying lease of a single new fuel efficient automobile.
(D) Cap on funds for category 3 trucks.--Not more than 7.5
percent of the total funds made available for the Program
shall be used for vouchers for the purchase or qualifying
lease of category 3 trucks.
(E) Combination with other incentives permitted.--The
availability or use of a Federal, State, or local incentive
or a State-issued voucher for the purchase or lease of a new
fuel efficient automobile shall not limit the value or
issuance of a voucher under the Program to any person
otherwise eligible to receive such a voucher.
(F) No additional fees.--A dealer participating in the
program may not charge a person purchasing or leasing a new
fuel efficient automobile any additional fees associated with
the use of a voucher under the Program.
(G) Number and amount.--The total number and value of
vouchers issued under the Program may not exceed the amounts
appropriated for such purpose.
(2) Disposition of eligible trade-in vehicles.--
(A) In general.--For each eligible trade-in vehicle
surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer shall
certify to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe by rule, that the dealer--
(i) will arrange for the vehicle's title to be transferred
to the United States and will accept possession of the
vehicle on behalf of the United States;
(ii) has not and will not sell, lease, exchange, or
otherwise dispose of the vehicle for use as an automobile in
the United States or in any other country; and
(iii) will transfer, on behalf of the United States, the
vehicle (including the engine block) and the vehicle's title,
in such manner as the Secretary prescribes, to an entity that
will ensure that the vehicle--
(I) will be crushed or shredded within such period and in
such manner as the Secretary prescribes; and
(II) has not been, and will not be, sold, leased,
exchanged, or otherwise disposed of for use as an automobile
in the United States or in any other country.
(B) Savings provision.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be
construed to preclude a person who is responsible for
ensuring that the vehicle is crushed or shredded from--
(i) selling any parts of the disposed vehicle other than
the engine block and drive train (unless the transmission,
drive shaft, or rear end are sold as separate parts); or
(ii) retaining the proceeds from such sale.
(C) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the
Attorney General to ensure that the National Motor Vehicle
Title Information System and other publicly accessible
systems are appropriately updated on a timely basis to
reflect the crushing or shredding of vehicles under this Act
and appropriate re-classification of the vehicles' titles.
The commercial market shall also have electronic and
commercial access to the vehicle identification numbers of
vehicles that have been disposed of on a timely basis.
(d) Regulations.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary
shall promulgate final regulations to implement the Program
not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act. Such regulations shall--
(1) provide for a means of registering dealers for
participation in the program;
(2) establish procedures for the reimbursement of dealers
participating in the Program to be made through electronic
transfer of funds for the amount of the vouchers as soon as
practicable but no longer than 10 days after the submission
of information supporting the eligible transaction, as
determined appropriate by the Secretary;
(3) require the dealer to use the voucher in addition to
any other rebate or discount advertised by the dealer or
offered by the manufacturer for the new fuel efficient
automobile and prohibit the dealer from using the voucher to
offset any such other rebate or discount;
(4) require dealers to disclose to the person trading in an
eligible trade in vehicle the best estimate of the scrappage
value of such vehicle;
(5) require dealers to accept on behalf of the United
States, and Transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury, the
amount paid for scrappage of the vehicle up to $60;
(6) permit the dealer to retain any amounts paid to the
dealer for scrappage of the automobile in excess of the $60
amount referred to in paragraph (5) and designate $50 of such
excess as payment for any administrative costs to the dealer
associated with participation in the Program;
(7) clarify that dealers will not be reimbursed for any
storage fees or other costs associated with their custodial
handling of the eligible trade-in vehicle;
(8) consistent with subsection (c)(2), establish
requirements and procedures for the disposal of eligible
trade-in vehicles and provide such information as may be
necessary to entities engaged in such disposal to ensure that
such vehicles are disposed of in accordance with such
requirements and procedures, including--
(A) requirements for the removal and appropriate
disposition of refrigerants, antifreeze, lead products,
mercury switches, and such other toxic or hazardous vehicle
components prior to the crushing or shredding of an eligible
trade-in vehicle, in accordance with rules established by the
Secretary in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and in accordance with other
applicable Federal or State requirements;
(B) a mechanism for dealers to certify to the Secretary
that each eligible trade-in vehicle will be transferred by
the dealer on behalf of the United States to an entity that
will ensure that the vehicle is disposed of, in accordance
with such requirements and procedures, and to submit the
vehicle identification numbers of the vehicles disposed of
and the new fuel efficient automobile purchased with each
voucher;
(C) a mechanism for obtaining such other certifications as
determined necessary by the Secretary from entities engaged
in vehicle disposal; and
(D) a list of entities to which dealers may transfer
eligible trade-in vehicles for disposal; and
(9) provide for the enforcement of the penalties described
in subsection (e).
(e) Anti-Fraud Provisions.--
(1) Violation.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
violate any provision under this Act or any regulations
issued pursuant to subsection (d) (other than by making a
clerical error).
(2) Penalties.--Any person who commits a violation
described in paragraph (1) shall be liable to the United
States Government for a civil penalty of not more than
$15,000 for each violation. The Secretary shall have the
authority to assess and compromise such penalties, and shall
have the authority to require from any entity the records and
inspections necessary to enforce this program. In determining
the amount of the civil penalty, the severity of the
violation and the intent of the person committing the
violation shall be taken into account.
(f) Information to Consumers and Dealers.--Not later than
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and promptly
upon the update of any relevant information, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall make available on an Internet
website and through other means determined by the Secretary
information about the Program, including--
(1) how to determine if a vehicle is an eligible trade-in
vehicle;
(2) how to participate in the Program, including how to
determine participating dealers; and
(3) a comprehensive list, by make and model, of new fuel
efficient automobiles meeting the requirements of the
Program.
Once such information is available, the Secretary shall
conduct a public awareness campaign to inform consumers about
the Program and where to obtain additional information.
(g) Record Keeping and Report.--
(1) Database.--The Secretary shall maintain a database of
the vehicle identification
[[Page 14388]]
numbers of all new fuel efficient vehicles purchased or
leased and all eligible trade-in vehicles disposed of under
the Program.
(2) Report on the efficacy of the program.--Not later than
60 days after the termination date described in subsection
(c)(1)(A)(ii), the Secretary shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate describing the efficacy of the
Program, including--
(A) a description of program results, including--
(i) the total number and amount of vouchers issued for
purchase or lease of new fuel efficient automobiles by
manufacturer (including aggregate information concerning the
make, model, model year) and category of automobile;
(ii) aggregate information regarding the make, model, model
year, and manufacturing location of vehicles traded in under
the Program; and
(iii) the location of sale or lease;
(B) an estimate of the overall increase in fuel efficiency
in terms of miles per gallon, total annual oil savings, and
total annual greenhouse gas reductions, as a result of the
Program; and
(C) an estimate of the overall economic and employment
effects of the Program.
(h) Treatment of Payment.--
(1) For federal and state programs.--A voucher under this
Act or any payment made for such a voucher pursuant to
subsection (a)(3) shall not be considered income and shall
not be considered as a resource for the month of receipt and
the following 12 months, for purposes of determining the
eligibility of the recipient (or the recipient's spouse or
other family or household members) for benefits or
assistance, or the amount or extent of benefits or
assistance, under any Federal or State program.
(2) For purposes of taxation.--A voucher under this Act, or
any payment made for such a voucher pursuant to subsection
(a)(3), shall not be considered as gross income of the
purchaser of a vehicle under this Act for purposes of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(i) Definitions.--As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``passenger automobile'' means a passenger
automobile, as defined in section 32901(a)(18) of title 49,
United States Code, that has a combined fuel economy value of
at least 22 miles per gallon;
(2) the term ``category 1 truck'' means a non-passenger
automobile, as defined in section 32901(a)(17) of title 49,
United States Code, that has a combined fuel economy value of
at least 18 miles per gallon, except that such term does not
include a category 2 truck;
(3) the term ``category 2 truck'' means a large van or a
large pickup, as categorized by the Secretary using the
method used by the Environmental Protection Agency and
described in the report entitled ``Light-Duty Automotive
Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008'';
(4) the term ``category 3 truck'' means a work truck, as
defined in section 32901(a)(19) of title 49, United States
Code;
(5) the term ``combined fuel economy value'' means--
(A) with respect to a new fuel efficient automobile, the
number, expressed in miles per gallon, centered below the
words ``Combined Fuel Economy'' on the label required to be
affixed or caused to be affixed on a new automobile pursuant
to subpart D of part 600 of title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations;
(B) with respect to an eligible trade-in vehicle, the
equivalent of the number described in subparagraph (A), and
posted under the words ``Estimated New EPA MPG'' and above
the word ``Combined'' for vehicles of model year 1985 through
2007, or posted under the words ``New EPA MPG'' and above the
word ``Combined'' for vehicles of model year 2008 or later on
the fueleconomy.gov website of the Environmental Protection
Agency for the make, model, and year of such vehicle; or
(C) with respect to an eligible trade-in vehicle
manufactured between model years 1978 through 1984, the
equivalent of the number described in subparagraph (A) as
determined by the Secretary (and posted on the website of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) using data
maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency for the
make, model, and year of such vehicle;
(6) the term ``dealer'' means a person licensed by a State
who engages in the sale of new automobiles to ultimate
purchasers;
(7) the term ``eligible trade-in vehicle'' means an
automobile or a work truck (as such terms are defined in
section 32901(a) of title 49, United States Code) that, at
the time it is presented for trade-in under this Act--
(A) is in drivable condition;
(B) has been continuously insured consistent with the
applicable State law and registered to the same owner for a
period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to such
trade-in;
(C) was manufactured in model year 1984 or later; and
(D) in the case of an automobile, has a combined fuel
economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less;
(8) the term ``new fuel efficient automobile'' means an
automobile described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4)--
(A) the equitable or legal title of which has not been
transferred to any person other than the ultimate purchaser;
(B) that carries a manufacturer's suggested retail price of
$45,000 or less;
(C) that--
(i) in the case of passenger automobiles, category 1
trucks, or category 2 trucks, is certified to applicable
standards under section 86.1811-04 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations; or
(ii) in the case of category 3 trucks, is certified to the
applicable vehicle or engine standards under section 86.1816-
08, 86-007-11, or 86.008-10 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
(D) that has the combined fuel economy value of at least--
(i) 22 miles per gallon for a passenger automobile;
(ii) 18 miles per gallon for a category 1 truck; or
(iii) 15 miles per gallon for a category 2 truck;
(9) the term ``Program'' means the Consumer Assistance to
Recycle and Save Program established by this Act;
(10) the term ``qualifying lease'' means a lease of an
automobile for a period of not less than 5 years;
(11) the term ``scrappage value'' means the amount received
by the dealer for a vehicle upon transferring title of such
vehicle to the person responsible for ensuring the
dismantling and destroying the vehicle;
(12) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Transportation acting through the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration;
(13) the term ``ultimate purchaser'' means, with respect to
any new automobile, the first person who in good faith
purchases such automobile for purposes other than resale;
(14) the term ``voucher'' means an electronic transfer of
funds to a dealer based on an eligible transaction under this
program; and
(15) the term ``vehicle identification number'' means the
17-character number used by the automobile industry to
identify individual automobiles.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation
$4,000,000,000 to carry out this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Sutton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
General Leave
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of over 2,000 men and women who
work in the Ohio assembly plant in my district and approximately 50,000
Ohioans whose jobs are associated with that plant. I rise for the
159,000 Ohioans with auto-related jobs and the 3 to 5 million Americans
who rely on the auto industry to provide for their families.
I rise today on behalf of the environment, as we turn the corner to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve fuel economy, and to help
reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
I rise today on behalf of the consumers throughout our great country
who continue to struggle during this global recession. And I rise today
as the proud sponsor of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save
Act, also known as the CARS Act.
And I want to thank President Obama for his support of this
legislation. And I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for supporting this
effort and thank Majority Leader Hoyer for all of the help that he has
provided as we worked to deliver the benefits of this bill to the
American people.
And I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, Chairman
Emeritus Dingell, and Representatives Israel, Inslee, Stupak and Upton
for their collaboration and support on this bill. And thank you to my
colleagues, Representative Candice Miller and Representative Bruce
Braley, who started this process with me back in March.
Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan CARS Act will shore up millions of jobs
and stimulate local economies. It will improve our environment and
reduce our
[[Page 14389]]
dependence on foreign oil. It will provide much-needed financial
assistance to consumers to trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles for
vehicles which achieve a measured increased fuel-efficient.
What the CARS Act will not do is allow someone to trade in a vehicle
and receive a voucher to purchase a vehicle that is less fuel
efficient.
We have ensured environmental integrity in this bill, and this bill
demonstrates that we do not have to bind ourselves to the arguments of
the past. We no longer have to give in to the temptation of either/or
thinking. The CARS Act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the
false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for
jobs. We can do both. We must do both, and that's exactly what the CARS
Act does.
2009 auto sales are down nearly 42 percent below the 2005 peak. We
have not seen such a decline since 1955, and this decline jeopardizes
our country's largest manufacturing industry.
These are not ordinary times. These times call for bold action. Three
to 5 million jobs are at risk. Auto-related jobs number in the
thousands in every State in our Nation, and though it's called the CARS
Act, this bill is far more than about just cars. It's about people.
It's about the millions of families in this great Nation who depend on
the strength of our auto and related industries for their livelihood.
It's about our friends and our neighbors, and it's about our
communities that depend on auto-related jobs for their tax base to
support their schools, their police, fire and other city services.
By passing the CARS Act, we can shore up these jobs, get customers
back into the showrooms, help our dealers move cars, and improve the
environment.
Nations across the world have instituted incentive programs. In May,
while our auto sales in this country fell 34 percent, sales in Germany
increased 40 percent after they instituted a program.
On May 19, the Committee on Energy and Commerce passed an amendment
of the CARS Act to the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a
bipartisan vote of 50-4.
Under the CARS Act, consumers will trade in less fuel-efficient
vehicles and receive an electronic voucher for $3,500 to $4,500 at the
point of sale toward the lease or purchase of a vehicle with increased
fuel efficiency. Light-duty trucks, both small and large, also qualify
under the program, and work trucks, often used by small businesses,
will be eligible for replacement as well.
And though our fleet modernization program is open to vehicles,
regardless of where they are made, I encourage everyone who
participates in this program to think about the families who depend
upon cars made in the United States and ask you to purchase a fuel-
efficient vehicle assembled right here at home to help shore up jobs
and help our environment.
Some refer to this bill as the ``Cash for Clunkers'' bill. Others use
a gentler term, ``fleet modernization.'' But by any name, by any title,
the CARS Act offers significant multiple benefits.
This bill has earned broad-based support. It has the support of Ford
and GM and Chrysler, the United Auto Workers, the Business Round Table,
the Automotive Trade Policy Council, the Ohio Automobile Dealers
Association, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, PPG Industries, National
Paint and Coatings Association, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Specialty
Equipment Market Association, the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, the American Iron and Steel Institute,
Automotive Recyclers Association, the United Steel Workers, the
National Automobile Dealers Association, the American International
Automobile Dealers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-
CIO, and the United States Chamber of Commerce. These groups have
provided letters of support for this bill, and Mr. Speaker, I would
like to include them in the Record.
Washington, DC,
June 9, 2009.
Hon. Betty Sutton,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sutton: Ford Motor Company strongly
supports the adoption of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle
and Save Act of 2009 (CARS Act) introduced by Rep. Betty
Sutton. This ``cash-for-clunkers'' proposal would provide an
incentive to consumers to trade-in an older, less-efficient
vehicle for a new, higher fuel-economy one.
During the recession, foreign and domestic automakers have
experienced a steep decline in auto sales not seen in over
fifty years. Last week, in fact, automakers reported that
U.S. auto sales for May 2009 were down 33 percent from the
same month a year ago. Action by Congress is urgently needed
to jumpstart vehicle sales and the automotive sector of the
U.S. economy.
The CARS Act would help consumers, support jobs and also
improve the environment. Consumers will benefit from a robust
incentive to purchase a new, more efficient vehicle and the
cost savings from buying less fuel.
While the vouchers provide direct help to consumers, it
also helps support jobs across the industry. Automakers,
autoworkers, suppliers and dealers all benefit from increased
sales and that's why the proposal has been endorsed by both
labor and business, including the UAW and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
For the environment, the plan would help reduce fuel
consumption and decrease emissions by taking old vehicles off
the road and replacing them with new, cleaner ones. Plus, the
program would have the added benefit of generating as much as
S2 billion in needed sales tax revenue for the states.
Thirteen governors have written Congressional leaders in
support of rapid action on a cash-for-clunkers program.
The CARS Act is timely, temporary, and targeted and is
urgently needed. We request that Members of Congress work to
quickly enact this important legislation by voting ``'yes''
on the CARS Act. Thank you for consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Peter Lawson,
Vice President, Government Relations.
____
June 9, 2009.
Hon. Betty Sutton,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Sutton: Chrysler LLC strongly supports
the Consumers Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, H.R. 2751,
that you have introduced. Your bill will establish a fleet
modernization program that will encourage consumers to turn
in older vehicles to be scrapped and receive in return a
voucher to be used towards the purchase of cars and trucks
with better fuel economy. The Act is designed to provide
consumers with a wide variety of vehicles to purchase.
Similar programs in other countries have helped to counter
the effects of this global recession, while improving fleet-
wide fuel economy. As such, the Act will greatly benefit
consumers, dealers, automakers, and suppliers, while moving
this country towards energy independence and environmental
sustainability.
Your bill deserves broad bipartisan support, and we urge
all members of the House to vote in favor of the Consumers
Assistance to Recycle and Save Act.
Sincerely,
John Bozzella,
Senior Vice President, Chrysler.
____
General Motors,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2009.
Dear Representative Sutton: The House of Representatives
will soon consider the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and
Save (CARS) Act by Representatives Sutton, Dingell and Upton.
I urge you to support this legislation which creates a
carefully balanced fleet modernization program to stimulate
U.S. auto sales and jump start the economic recovery.
This bill is supported by the Automotive Alliance,
Automotive Trade Policy Council and all of their member
companies (see attached letters). It includes input from the
domestic and foreign brand auto companies and auto dealers.
Nearly every major industrial country around the world now
has all emergency auto `scrappage' program in place and the
results have been immediate and impressive. In Europe and
Latin America, these programs have been instantly
successfully, with countries such as Germany seeing
dealerships flooded with consumers and up to 400% increase in
sales. In contrast, here in the U.S. auto sales have shown
consistent declines of 30-40% from last year, month after
month.
We believe this is an enormous win for consumers, for the
American economy, and for our combined national commitment to
environmental progress and stewardship. We urge you to
support the Sutton, Dingell, Upton CARS bill.
Sincerely,
Ken W. Cole,
Vice President, Global Public Policy
and Government Relations.
____
Dear Representative: This Tuesday the House is scheduled to
take up fleet modernization (so-called ``cash-for-clunkers'')
[[Page 14390]]
legislation sponsored by Representative Betty Sutton. The UAW
strongly urges you to vote for this important legislation.
The Sutton fleet modernization bill incorporates the
compromise provisions that were agreed to by the Obama
administration, House leaders, including Chairmen Waxman,
Markey and Dingell, and Representatives Upton, Candice
Miller, Stupak, Israel and Inslee. The provisions of this
compromise were previously approved by the House Energy &
Commerce Committee by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote.
By providing incentives for consumers to scrap older, less
fuel efficient vehicles and to purchase new, higher mpg
vehicles, this measure would result in significant reductions
in oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. At the same
time, it would provide an immediate boost to auto sales,
thereby helping auto dealers and automotive production and
jobs in this country. Significantly, the structure of this
program is carefully crafted so it would apply to all auto
companies in a balanced, competitively neutral manner.
Due to the financial and economic crises that have engulfed
our nation, the auto industry has experienced a sharp drop in
auto sales from over 16 million vehicles per year to less
than 10 million. This has resulted in unprecedented
difficulties for automakers, suppliers, dealers, workers and
retirees. One immediate action that Congress can take to
respond to this dire situation is to act promptly to pass the
Sutton fleet modernization legislation. Accordingly, the UAW
strongly urges you to vote for this measure when it is taken
up by the House this Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Alan Reuther,
Legislative Director.
____
Hon. Betty Sutton,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sutton: Mazda North American Operations
urges the House to pass a fleet modernization, or ``cash for
clunkers,'' bill that will benefit American consumers and
increase vehicle sales, especially now when demand is
extremely depressed. Additionally, older, less fuel-efficient
models will be replaced by newer ones that are cleaner for
the environment, more fuel-efficient, and include many new
safety technologies. To that end, President Obama last week
repeated his call to Congress to enact such legislation. We
understand that Representative Sutton's fleet modernization
bill, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, will be
considered on the suspension calendar as soon as tonight.
The bipartisan framework created by Representative Sutton's
bill, will achieve significant economic stimulus and
environmental benefits. We would have preferred a simpler
program that allowed broader participation with regard to the
types of vehicles turned in and the replacement vehicles. In
particular, we would have liked all vehicle leases to be
included. Despite our concerns over the details of the
current proposal, on balance, we believe Representative
Sutton's bill will result in incremental sales volume at a
time when the industry is badly in need of assistance.
Around the world, consumers are already benefitting from
similar programs, and the resulting economic stimulus has
been significant. In January, Germany implemented a fleet
modernization program. At the end of the first month of the
program, sales in Germany were up 21% over 2008.
Corresponding sales in the U.S. were down 41% for the same
period. To date, 15 countries have enacted automotive fleet
modernization programs and many more are considering
enactment.
A fleet modernization program can deliver real benefits to
consumers, the environment and the economy. The U.S. is
already well behind other major economies in adopting a fleet
modernization program, and many buyers are now delaying
purchase decisions until the Congress acts.
We urge you to vote for Representative Sutton's fleet
modernization bill.
Sincerely,
Tim O'Sullivan.
____
June 5, 2009.
Dear Congresswoman Sutton: On behalf of the automobile
dealers in northeast Ohio, I want to offer our support of the
``Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act'' (CARS Act).
It is our understanding that this bill will be considered
early next week and we urge its passage.
As you know, the current economic environment of automotive
retailing has now reached historic lows in both sales and
consumer confidence. This bill, also known as ``Cash for
Clunkers'', could well provide the needed incentive for
consumers to trade in older vehicles and purchase more fuel
efficient and safe automobiles.
Providing an incentive to stimulate sales is a critical
step in the recovery of the automobile industry and
congressional passage of the CARS Act represents an
opportunity to benefit both the economy and the environment.
We very much appreciate your assistance and support of
franchised new automobile dealers and urge Congress to act
swiftly to stimulate the economy with this program.
Sincerely,
Terry Metcalf,
Executive Vice President.
____
Dear Representative: This Tuesday the House is scheduled to
take up the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS
Act) fleet modernization bill sponsored by Representative
Betty Sutton. The United Steelworkers (USW) urges your
support for this legislation.
The USW is the largest industrial union in North America
and we represent more workers in the auto sector than any
other union. Hundreds of thousands of our members work in
jobs supplying the auto industry. From the glass, to the
tires, to the plastic, to the hundreds of pounds of metal
that comprise every vehicle; Steelworkers manufacture these
products in locations all across the country. Even paper, the
catalogs and brochures that the automakers use to market
their vehicles, are often the product of the work of
Steelworkers. But, countless other citizens--union and non-
union--such as auto dealers, accountants, restaurant and shop
owners, have their jobs tied to the auto industry.
The auto industry has experienced a sharp drop in auto
sales from over 16 million vehicles per year to less than 10
million, resulting in extraordinary challenges for
automakers, suppliers, dealers, workers, retirees and entire
communities. Our members in the supply chain have suffered
significant layoffs as a result of the financial and economic
crises that brought auto buying to a halt. Those layoffs may
only be the top of iceberg as the effects of the Chrysler and
GM bankruptcies are to yet to be felt.
One immediate action Congress can take to respond to this
dire situation is to vote to pass the Sutton fleet
modernization bill which incorporates the compromise
provisions that were agreed to by the Obama administration,
House leaders, including Chairman Waxman, Markey and Dingell,
and Representatives Upton, Candice Miller, Stupak, Israel,
and Inslee.
Providing incentives for consumers to scrap older, less
fuel efficient vehicles and to purchase new, higher mpg
vehicles, from all auto companies, will result in reductions
in oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while
providing an immediate boost to auto sales, thereby helping
auto suppliers, dealers and automotive production and jobs in
this country.
Sincerely,
Holly R. Hart,
Legislative Director.
____
Dear Congresswoman Sutton: This week, the House is likely
to take up the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS)
Act introduced by Representative Betty Sutton and a number of
other colleagues. This bill will create a carefully balanced
program to stimulate U.S. auto sales and jumpstart the
economy. The Automotive Trade Policy Council and its member
companies--Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company and General
Motors Corporation--strongly support this bill and we urge
you to vote for it.
Nearly every major industrial country around the world now
has an emergency auto `scrappage' program in place and the
results have been immediate and impressive. In Europe and
Latin America, these programs have been instantly
successfully, with countries such as Germany seeing
dealerships flooded with consumers and a 28% increase in
sales. In contrast, here in the U.S. auto sales have shown
consistent declines of 30-40% from last year, month after
month.
The Sutton CARS bill will establish a well-crafted and
balanced fleet modernization program. The CARS bill is a
compromise measure resulting from months of work between the
Administration, domestic and foreign brand auto companies,
environmental organizations and auto dealers. The measure
offers a solid program that will give consumers with older
vehicles an immediate cash incentive from the U.S. government
to purchase new more fuel efficient cars and trucks. In
addition, the bill was structured to be environmentally
progressive i.e., the incentives to consumers are higher for
vehicles that achieve fuel economy ratings above current
government CAFE standards.
The CARS legislation will both accelerate national economic
recovery by creating an estimated one million new sales of
fuel efficient vehicles and provide clear incentives to move
toward our environmental goals more quickly.
This is a winner for consumers, for the American economy,
and for our combined national commitment to environmental
progress and stewardship. We thank you and urge you to vote
for the Sutton CARS legislation.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Collins,
President.
____
June 8, 2009.
Dear Congresswoman Sutton: On behalf of PPG Industries'
15,000 U.S. employees, and the 299 at our Barberton and
Strongsville facilities in your district, I deeply appreciate
your sponsorship of H.R. 1550, the Consumer Assistance to
Recycle and Save Act, also known as the CARS Act, designed to
help get the American automobile industry back on
[[Page 14391]]
its feet by offering incentives for Americans to trade in
their old cars for new, more fuel-efficient automobiles.
About 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is
in the auto industry, making it the nation's largest
manufacturing sector. PPG's automotive coatings and fiber
glass are an important part of the auto supply chain. Last
year, the U.S. auto industry provided hundreds of millions in
sales and more than 1,260 manufacturing and research and
development jobs to PPG.
As a global supplier of paints, coatings, chemicals,
optical products, specialty materials, glass and fiber glass,
our vision is to become the world's leading coatings and
specialty products and services company. We operate on the
leading edge of new technologies and solutions and are a
streamlined, efficient manufacturer.
Members of the coatings and related industries have been
particularly hit hard by the dramatic decrease in sales of
new automobiles in America. While the auto manufacturers
themselves have received almost all of the focus of
attention--and deservedly so--there are countless suppliers
to the industry who are hurting as well. The answer is to
increase demand, which the CARS Act achieves with incentives
for fuel efficient vehicles.
Again, thank you for your continued leadership on this
issue. I look forward to continuing to work with you on
policy matters important to the success of PPG, our employees
and our retirees and their families.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Bunch,
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
PPG Industries.
____
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing
to urge you to support legislation introduced by Rep. Sutton
to establish a fleet modernization program, which we expect
the House to consider this week on the suspension calendar.
The Sutton bill would establish a program to provide
incentives for consumers to scrap older, less fuel-efficient
vehicles and purchase new, higher mile-per-gallon vehicles,
resulting in significant reductions in oil consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. This ``cash for clunkers'' program
would provide an immediate boost to auto sales, helping to
preserve domestic auto production and American jobs.
The program is carefully crafted so it applies to all auto
companies in a balanced, competitively neutral manner. The
legislation in corporate compromise provisions agreed to by
the Obama administration, House leaders (including Chairmen
Waxman, Markey and Dingell), and Reps. Candice Miller,
Stupak, Upton, Israel and Inslee. The House Energy & Commerce
Committee recently approved the provisions of this compromise
by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote.
Due to the financial and economic crises that have engulfed
our nation, the auto industry has experienced a sharp drop in
auto sales resulting in unprecedented difficulties for
automakers, suppliers, dealers, workers and retirees.
Congress can take immediate action to help the auto industry
by promptly passing the ``cash for clunkers'' legislation.
The AFL-CIO urges you to support Rep. Sutton's fleet
modernization bill.
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
____
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the ``Consumer
Assistance to Recycle and Save Act,'' which is expected to be
voted on tomorrow. This important legislation is urgently
needed to help jumpstart U.S. auto sales, generate economic
growth, and help protect jobs.
This bill would provide incentives to Americans to purchase
new vehicles that meet a set of criteria to ensure that the
new vehicles will be more fuel efficient than the vehicles
they would replace. Not only would this ``cash for clunkers''
proposal provide an important environmental benefit, but the
legislation would help an industry in crisis. The recession
has affected industries across the United States, but the
auto sector has been particularly hard hit as industry sales
have declined rapidly. U.S. light vehicle sales were more
than 16 million units as recently as 2007. Last week, J.D.
Power & Associates estimated that sales will not exceed 10
million units for all of 2009, an approximately 40 percent
drop in just two years.
The auto industry is one of the most important sectors of
the U.S. economy, representing four percent of the U.S. gross
domestic product and accounting for one in 10 American jobs.
The steep drop in vehicle sales is not only affecting foreign
and domestic automakers and workers, but also their network
of dealers, suppliers, vendors, and other businesses that
provide goods and services to them.
The Chamber, the world's largest business federation
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to
support the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act. The
Chamber may consider votes on, or in relation to, this issue
in our annual How They Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
Dear Speaker Pelosi: The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) writes to urge the House to pass a
fleet modernization, or ``cash for clunkers,'' bill to
benefit American consumers as soon as possible. A well
crafted fleet modernization program will provide two
beneficial effects: helping to stimulate auto sales during
the current economic/credit crisis and replacing older, less
fuel-efficient vehicles with cleaner, safer, more fuel-
efficient ones. To that end, President Obama last week
repeated his call to Congress to enact such legislation, and
we understand that Representative Sutton's fleet
modernization bill, which enjoys broad bipartisan support,
will be considered on tomorrow's suspension calendar.
While Alliance members would have preferred a program open
to all new vehicles that meet the mileage targets, the
bipartisan framework created by Representative Sutton's bill,
will achieve significant economic stimulus and environmental
benefits, because it provides a the broad array of eligible
vehicles and will appeal to a large segment of consumers.
Ultimately, oil savings and emissions reductions will happen
only if buyers can use vouchers to buy vehicles that meet
their needs.
Around the world, consumers are already benefitting from
similar programs, and the resulting economic stimulus has
been significant. In January, Germany implemented a fleet
modernization program. At the end of the first month of the
program, sales in Germany were up 21% over 2008.
Corresponding sales in the U.S. were down 41% for the same
period. As of this writing, fleet modernization programs have
been adopted in China, Japan, UK, Brazil, Spain, Austria,
France, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia, and are under
consideration in several others.
A fleet modernization program can deliver real benefits to
consumers, the environment and the economy. The U.S. is
already well behind other major economies in adopting a fleet
modernization program, and many buyers are now delaying
purchase decisions until the Congress acts. We strongly urge
the Congress to send a message to American car buyers by
sending a bill to the President's desk without delay.
We urge Representative Sutton to vote for Representative
Sutton's fleet modernization bill.
Sincerely,
Dave McCurdy,
President and CEO, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers.
____
Dear Representative Sutton: On behalf of the Specialty
Equipment Market Association (SEMA), we wish to extend our
sincere appreciation to you for including a provision within
the CARS Act to exclude vehicles of model year 1983 and
earlier from the scope of the program. This provision serves
to safeguard vehicles that may possess unique historic or
aesthetic value qualities, and are irreplaceable to motor
vehicle hobbyists and related businesses as a source of
restoration parts.
SEMA also takes this opportunity to thank you and your
staff for being available during the cash for clunker debate
to discuss the challenges facing the entire scope of the
automotive industry. We look forward to working with you on
other auto industry issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Stephen B. McDonald,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
____
Dear Representative Sutton: The Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) is pleased to
support your ``Cash for Clunkers'' legislation. AIAM
represents 13 international motor vehicle manufacturers who
account for 35 percent of all light duty motor vehicles
produced in the United States. AIAM members have invested
over $40 billion in U.S.-based production facilities, have
over 6,500 locally owned dealerships, directly employ over
90,000 Americans, and indirectly generate almost 600,000
thousand U.S. jobs in dealerships and suppliers nationwide.
The automobile industry is experiencing one of the worst
slumps in its history. Passage of a broad, stimulative, fleet
modernization measure, as the President has requested, would
help consumers purchase new more fuel efficient vehicles,
reduce dealer inventories and provide a much needed boost to
the industry and the economy. Ideally, this legislation
should be administratively simple and cover as many new cars
and light trucks as possible, whether purchased or leased.
This type of approach has been implemented in numerous other
countries with impressive results.
Again, we applaud you for your leadership on this issue and
urge immediate passage of this much needed legislation.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stanton,
President & CEO.
____
June 9, 2009.
United States House of Representatives: On behalf of
Business Roundtable, I am writing to support the fleet
modernization bill proposed by Congresswoman Sutton that is
expected to be considered by the
[[Page 14392]]
House of Representatives today. This bill provides a
financial incentive for consumers to purchase new and more
energy efficient vehicles resulting in the removal of less
energy efficient vehicles from the nation's highways. It will
also increase needed jobs to spur the economy, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and increase national energy
security. We believe that this legislation will give a boost
to the economy at a time of great economic uncertainty. We
also note that the legislation will be financed by the
already allocated money in the stimulus package and will not
require financing through additional deficit spending. Thank
you for your leadership on this important subject.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Morris,
Chairman, President and CEO,
American Electric Power Company, Inc.,
Chairman, Sustainable Growth Initiative,
Business Roundtable.
____
Dear Representative Sutton: On behalf of the Automotive
Recyclers Association (ARA), an international trade
association representing over 4,500 automotive recycling
facilities through memberships in the United States and
fourteen other countries around the world, we are pleased to
support the ``Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act''
(CARS). This legislation seeks to address the distress of
anemic motor vehicle sales that have generated negative
economic issues throughout our country.
The CARS Act allows for the reuse of nearly all parts from
the vehicles retired under the program. The recovery,
recycling, and resale of automotive parts are important
because it maximizes the availability of replacement parts.
Consumers and businesses rely on parts from recycled vehicles
because of their substantial savings in reduced repair costs
and lower insurance premiums.
ARA looks forward to working with staff from your office
and others as the regulatory phase of this program moves
forward. We believe there are important issues regarding the
adequate handling of these vehicles under the National Motor
Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) and steps to ensure
that these vehicles are properly handled environmentally that
need particular attention during the rulemaking process.
On behalf of its members, ARA thanks you for your
consideration of the concerns of America's automobile
recyclers, and we look forward to working with you on this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Wilson,
Executive Vice President.
____
June 9, 2009.
Dear Representative: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM)--the nation's largest industrial trade
association--supports the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and
Save Act (H.R. 2751), which is scheduled to be voted on
today. This legislation would provide incentives for the
purchase of new, fuel efficient motor vehicles. The auto
industry represents the country's largest manufacturing base
and we believe H.R. 2751 will help jump start the industry
and save well paying jobs by stimulating the production and
sales of new cars and trucks.
As you well know, the auto industry currently faces
challenges of historic proportions. Over the past 16 months,
retail sales of motor vehicles have fallen 26 percent,
vehicle production has fallen 41 percent and the sector has
lost 281,000 jobs. Nearly a fifth (17%) of the 1.6 million
manufacturing jobs lost during this recession has come from
the auto sector.
At the same time, the industry is critical to our nation's
economic recovery and future growth. Almost four percent of
U.S. gross domestic product is auto-related. One out of every
10 U.S. jobs, or about 13 million, is auto-related, and auto
workers receive $335 billion annually in compensation. In
2006, the motor vehicle sector spent $16.6 billion in R&D
alone.
By providing temporary incentives for the purchase of new
more fuel efficient vehicles, this fleet modernization
amendment will provide a much-needed boost to the struggling
auto industry, including manufacturers, dealers, suppliers
and other related industries.
NAM members believe strongly that a vibrant manufacturing
sector is key to our nation's economic recovery and future
growth. Similarly, a revitalized auto industry is key to a
strong manufacturing sector. This legislation, which provides
timely targeted tax incentives to jump start the auto
industry, will help get our nation's economy back on track
and ensure job creation and sustainable economic growth.
Thank you in advance for supporting this important bill.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Coleman,
Vice President, Tax &
Domestic Economic Policy.
____
Dear congresswoman Sutton: On behalf of the more than
17,000 members of the National Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA), I want to offer our support for your bill
establishing a temporary vehicle fleet modernization (also
known as ``Cash for Clunkers'') program. It is our
understanding that this bill will be considered in the U.S.
House of Representatives sometime today.
As you may know, the current state of all automotive
retailing is dire and consumer confidence is near historic
lows. When measured on a per capita basis, annual sales of
new vehicles have reached levels not seen since World War II.
A successful fleet modernization program could well encourage
hundreds of thousands of consumers to trade in older vehicles
in return for an incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient,
safer vehicles. This program is modeled after several
successful programs in other states and in other countries.
We very much appreciate the time and attention you have
devoted to bringing together a broad coalition of
stakeholders into the legislative process and to developing a
workable program. As the bill moves forward, NADA is
committed to working with you to ensure legislation is passed
by Congress and signed into law. We will also need the same
sense of urgency that you brought to the legislative process
as this important initiative moves through the regulatory
process within the Department of Transportation.
Thank you again for your help and support of America's
franchised new automobile dealers.
Sincerely,
David W. Regan,
Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
National Automobile Dealers Association.
____
The Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company,
Akron, OH.
Dear Representative Sutton: I am writing to thank you for
your personal help in sponsoring the Consumer Assistance to
Recycle and Save Act (CARS) Act and respectfully ask that
Congress take swift action to pass this important
legislation.
Passage of this measure will provide immediate assistance
to the automobile industry by providing direct support
incentives to consumers to purchase new fuel efficient
vehicles. With estimates that the CARS Act will provide
incentives for Americans to purchase approximately one
million new cars and light trucks, this action by Congress
will provide an immediate and timely boost to the automobile
industry.
Similar legislation offered by you in the House Energy and
Commerce Committee was passed by a 50-4 bipartisan vote,
showing widespread support for this program.
On behalf of Goodyear and our associates across the United
States, thank you for your continued support and assistance.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and
other issues of importance to Goodyear.
Sincerely,
Isabel H. Jasinowski.
____
The Ohio Automobile Dealers
Association,
June 5, 2009.
Dear Congresswoman Sutton: On behalf of our members in your
district as well as those throughout Ohio, I am writing to
voice our strong support for your ``Consumer Assistance to
Recycle & Save'' proposal, which we understand may receive
full House consideration in the near future.
It's no secret Ohio's auto sales are weak, which impacts
both our industry as well as Ohio's state and local
governments. Your proposal encourages the removal of older
vehicles from the road in favor of more fuel-efficient and
safe vehicles, which benefits consumers, our industry and the
environment.
Thanks again for your strong leadership on this proposal
and your support of Ohio's automobile retail industry.
Sincerely,
Tim Doran,
President.
____
June 9, 2009.
Dear Representative: Support H.R. 2751, the Consumer
Assistance to Recycle and Save Act--Automobile dealerships
across the country again watched sales decline in May--for
the first time in 2009 no single brand saw an improvement
over 2008 sales. U.S. sales dropped by an average of 33.7
percent this month, setting the seasonally adjusted annual
sales rate (SAAR) at 9.9 million vehicles. Annual sales for
2008 was 13.8 and 2007 was 16.4 million units. I start off
reporting these numbers so you can better understand the
urgency of my request--we need a ``cash for clunkers''
program now.
The American International Automobile Dealers Association
(AIADA), representing 11,000 international nameplate
automobile franchises and their more than 500,000 employees,
write today urging you to vote to support the cash for
clunkers legislation introduced by Congresswoman Betty
Sutton, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, H.R.
2751. The entire auto industry needs to focus fully on
recovery. The first element of that recovery is incentivizing
customers to buy. Today, we look to the House of
Representatives to do just that by passing a cash for
clunkers plan that will quickly and effectively stimulate
sales.
Done with the right balance, cash for clunkers is an
opportunity to benefit both the economy and the environment.
AIADA, and its dealer members, support H.R. 2751, the
Consumer Assistance to Recycle and
[[Page 14393]]
Save Act, and again urge you and your colleagues to act
swiftly to stimulate the economy with this program and pass
this legislation.
Sincerely,
Cody L. Lusk,
President.
____
UAW Local 2000.
Dear Congresswoman Sutton: I, on behalf of the working men
and women of Ohio Assembly Plant and the approximate 50,000
Ohioans whose jobs are associated with the Ohio Assembly
Plant, write to express all of our gratitude to you for your
work on and for support of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle
and Save Act (CARS Act).
Passage of this important legislation will not only help
the consumer and public by putting cars on the road that run
cleaner and maintain better fuel efficiency, but it will
provide assistance by boosting car sales to the struggling
auto industry in America. This will also help to create a
safer driving atmosphere as the older and potentially
dangerous vehicles on our roads are replaced with new ones.
The authors of this legislation should be highly commended
for their efforts in providing equal support for ALL the auto
companies in a competitively, neutral manner. The members of
Local 2000 wish to extend our thanks to you for your
continual efforts where the security of our jobs at Ohio
Assembly Plant and the safety and well being of the citizens
of the 13th District and the entire country are concerned.
If the members of UAW Local 2000 or I can assist you in
these efforts in any way in the future, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Jim Donovan,
President.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass the bipartisan CARS Act today for our
workers, for our environment, for consumers, for our economy, for our
country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Ohio and my colleague
from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. This is not the perfect bill, but this is
it. There is no plan B. This is not the original bill that Ms. Sutton
and Mrs. Miller introduced, but this is the bill that passed our
committee 50-4.
One in 10 jobs in America are auto-related. In the last couple of
years now, particularly through this tough recession, we have lost one
in five manufacturing jobs, and certainly the Midwest has been
critically hurt.
The auto sector, we've seen auto sales plummet from 17 million car
sales just 2 or 3 years ago to probably what will be less than 10
million, not only this year, but next year as well. Not only the Big 3
supports this, but Toyota, Honda, the Chamber, a whole number of
different groups, the UAW, the Auto Manufacturers, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the auto dealers as well. You know what
this bill is? It's a jobs bill.
{time} 1600
But more important than that, it's an American jobs bill, and it's
time to stop the dominos from falling the wrong way and beginning to
turn the switch from ``red'' to ``green'' for auto jobs and get
something in the hands of consumers that will boost their confidence.
Now, who else has done this bill? Well, 16. And guess what? The sales
are up. Germany, sales have increased by 40 percent; France, sales are
up March through May; the UK, Japan, China, Korea, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Malaysia, Austria, Romania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands. Even
Slovakia, auto sales have increased by some 18 percent.
Madam Speaker, this is a very good bill. It's one that has bipartisan
support. It's time to put American jobs first and begin to move this
process forward. We know we have a majority in this House for this
bill. The question is do we have two-thirds. I would like to think we
do. This is it. We're not going to have another bill. It's not going
back to Rules. We need to pass this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. At this time, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman, my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, this bill is about putting America
first. We heard this all throughout the last campaign about how we need
to invest in America and we need to protect American jobs. And
Congresswoman Betty Sutton has stood up for American jobs, and she is
putting new meaning to ``putting old Betty back in the garage and
putting new cars on our streets.'' That's why it's imperative that the
auto industry, especially in Ohio, be preserved under this bill.
Twenty-five percent of Ohio's economy is based on how well or how
poorly the automotive industry performs. There were 560,000 new vehicle
registrations alone last year in Ohio. That averages to more than $24
million per dealership in Ohio.
This bill is about putting America first and putting Americans back
in American-built cars. I will be proud to support this bill today on
the House floor.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor from Virginia.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. It was my
sincere hope that this bill would have come to the floor under a
process that would have allowed Members to offer amendments. Had we
been permitted to do so, I would have offered an amendment to allow
individuals to use the credit for the purchase of a fuel-efficient,
previously owned vehicle. Even after a generous credit, for many
American families, a new car is financially out of reach. Yet with gas
prices rising again, these families deserve the same opportunity to
upgrade their current vehicle to a more fuel-efficient model. For these
families, the credit that can be used towards the purchase of a fuel-
efficient, pre-owned car could make all of the difference.
Indeed, there is already a substantial inventory of previously owned,
fuel-efficient vehicles on dealer lots available for purchase. As a
result, these purchases will promote the goals of the program by
increasing the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. It is
also important to remember that the livelihood of tens of thousands of
Americans depend on the used car market.
Used car sales outnumber new car sales 3-1 in the U.S., and there are
more than twice as many used car dealers as new car dealers in this
country. Treating cars that meet the same fuel-efficiency standards
differently, based on whether they are new or previously owned,
effectively picks winners and losers among these dealers. Given the
difficult economic situation faced by all Americans, I do not believe
that it is wise or necessary to reward some Americans while punishing
others.
If we were to expand this bill to include the purchase of previously
owned vehicles, it would truly be a win-win. As it helps the
environment by encouraging more fuel-efficient vehicles, it would also
help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and it would provide another
incentive to help jump-start the economy.
Madam Speaker, I'm saddened I was not permitted to offer my
amendment, but I'm hopeful as this bill works its way through the
process we can work to address the concerns of those who make their
living selling previously owned vehicles.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentlewoman from Ohio
controls 13 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan controls 16
minutes.
Ms. SUTTON. It's my honor, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Chairman Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding time for me to speak in
favor of H.R. 2751, the CARS Act.
I worked closely with Representative Sutton and other members of our
committee to negotiate this legislation, and I believe it hits the
trifecta: it's good for the economy, good for consumers, and good for
the environment.
For the auto industry, it means a big leap in sales right when the
industry needs it most. CBO estimates that this program will help sell
600,000 cars, many of them made right here in America. It's no wonder
that the Big Three, the UAW, and the auto industry support the bill.
For consumers, it
[[Page 14394]]
means a chance to get rid of the old gas guzzling clunker and receive a
voucher worth up to $4,500 to get a new, more fuel-efficient car. The
better gas mileage, the higher the subsidy. And for the environment, it
means a win. With every new sale, every car or truck sold under this
program will be more fuel efficient or cleaner than the car or truck it
replaces.
I appreciate the work of Representative Sutton and my other
colleagues on the committee for this legislation. I want to acknowledge
their efforts on behalf of the American auto industry and American
autoworkers. This legislation was an amendment added to the ACES energy
bill passed by our committee by a strong bipartisan 50-4 vote.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes": ``yes'' for the economic benefits
of the bill, ``yes'' for the benefits of consumers, and ``yes'' for the
improvement in environmental quality.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield to 2
minutes to one of the cofounders of the Manufacturing Caucus and
certainly a member of the Automotive Caucus, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, this bill will spur auto sales and
revitalize our manufacturing sector. Without a strong manufacturing
sector, we will not have an economic recovery. While I would have
preferred a simple $5,000 voucher for any new car purchase,
Congresswoman Betty Sutton moved this bipartisan bill so it really
stimulates the economy because it sets the chain of supply into motion.
It gets people back to work in our factories. If the first-time home
buyer tax credit for $8,000 is working to spur the housing market, just
think what this will do for the auto industry.
Stimulating sales is the only way to get the auto industry back on
its feet--not further top-down infusions of money from the top. The
bill gets the American people involved because it's bottom-up. It sets
the fire of manufacturing. It gets us going again. And even if somebody
does not want to buy an automobile, this person will still indirectly
benefit from the positive ripple effect.
Look what happens when 1 million automobiles are sold in America
today. The Caliber--proudly built in the 16th Congressional District of
Illinois, along with the two smaller Jeeps--the sale of 1 million
automobiles in this country means 60,000 people go back to work, $1.4
billion is returned in sales tax to the State and local governments,
$750 million in Federal taxes is paid by the workers and savings of
unemployment, COBRA, food stamps and job training of almost $3 billion.
This bill almost pays for itself.
But the beauty of it is the fact that it returns the supply chain. It
gets people working again. It gets the economy moving again. Instead of
communities having to come to Washington looking for money, the money
gets restocked simply because of the payment of the taxes.
Vote for H.R. 2751. This is a real stimulus.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, at this time it's my honor to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 2 minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2751, the
Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act. This bill will provide
incentives for the purchase of new, more efficient vehicles helping to
revitalize our auto industry, preserve jobs, and clean up our
environment. The need for this bill could not be greater. As we all
know too well, our domestic industry has been suffering a prolonged
downturn, and our families are feeling the effects. The recent
bankruptcy filings by Chrysler and General Motors further underscore
the critical need for action.
H.R. 2751 will provide consumers with up to $4,500 in vouchers for
trading in their old vehicles and purchasing new, more fuel-efficient
models. Not only will this provide a much-needed boost to the auto
industry, including manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers, but it will
help preserve jobs in our communities.
Additionally, we are cleaning up the environment by reducing our
demand on foreign oil. I have always said that what America drives
drives America. And I am committed to a strong and vibrant automobile
industry. This legislation will help us get through this difficult time
and get our automakers on the path to being the economic engine that
has driven the American economy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, at this point I would yield 2 minutes to
the gentlelady from the great State of Michigan, who was an original
author with Ms. Sutton of the first bill, Mrs. Miller, for 2 minutes.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this bill that
will help support American jobs. We all understand the challenges
facing our auto industry. This industry, which is so vital to our
national economy, has been hit literally by an economic hurricane which
has caused hardships not only for the automakers, but also the
suppliers, the dealers, and everyone who has a stake in this industry
and its success.
This legislation is a very strong bipartisan approach that will help
get the assembly lines moving, keep traffic in the showrooms, protect
jobs, and give our economy a desperately needed jolt. And how do we
know that it will work? Because it has already been implemented in
nations across the globe. Because in every nation that has implemented
a similar program, auto sales have risen, and in every nation that has
not--like us--the sales continue to fall. That's why this legislation
has the strong support of groups like the UAW, the National Auto
Dealers, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Mazda, the Alliance of
Automotive Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, the National Paint and Coatings Association, the Motor
and Equipment Manufacturer's Association, the Specialty Equipment
Manufacturing Association, the American Iron Steel Institute, the AFL,
the CIO, the Chamber of Commerce. I could go on and on.
And why do they all support this legislation? Because they understand
that the best way to jump-start our economy is to get auto sales
moving. The plight of the auto industry is a national problem affecting
our entire Nation. And we know this because of the troubles of Chrysler
and General Motors dealers across the Nation that are being closed with
countless jobs being lost. We know this because suppliers who serve the
industry are struggling to stay afloat with countless more jobs being
lost and at risk. And we know this because two of our iconic industrial
giants--both Chrysler and General Motors--are today in bankruptcy
court.
All of these providers are clamoring for action, and they deserve the
help of this Congress. Simply put, we must act. So let us support
legislation that will protect American manufacturing jobs. And this
legislation will also give our economy the boost that it needs. I
certainly do want to thank my colleagues for all of their support. And
I urge support of this passage.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished chairman emeritus and a leader in this
effort as well, the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman John Dingell.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fine,
bipartisan bill, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act,
authored by my friend and colleague, Ms. Sutton of Ohio. I commend her
and her bipartisan cosponsors for their work on behalf of this.
The bill has the support of the Obama administration, the UAW,
domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers, suppliers, and dealers.
{time} 1615
It also will result in meaningful reductions in vehicle fleet carbon
emissions and fuel consumption while providing much-needed stimulus to
our ailing automakers and economy.
[[Page 14395]]
I express my deep gratitude to Chairman Waxman, Mr. Markey, Mr.
Stupak, as well as Representatives Sutton, Israel and Inslee, for their
collaborate, collegial approach during the negotiations on the
legislation. And I want to commend my friend, Mr. Upton, and others of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as the entire
Michigan delegation, for their work on behalf of this.
This legislation cannot wait. The longer it is put off, the more auto
sales will be depressed. And consumers who are excited about this
proposal will continue to wait for Congress to pass this bill before
buying that new car that we want them to have.
In view of the unprecedented turmoil faced by the domestic automakers
and growing imperatives to address global warming, Ms. Sutton's fleet
modernization bill stands out as a really practical mechanism by which
to achieve consumer savings, reduce fuel consumption, lower carbon
dioxide and criteria pollutant emissions, as well as increase sales for
a critical sector of the national economy. Indeed, in countries such as
Germany, fleet modernization programs have been wildly successful in
all of these areas.
This is a good bill. It will help us with the environment, and it
will help us with employment. It will see to it that the United States
moves forward rapidly towards a full and adequate recovery from this
terrible recession in which we find ourselves.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I commend its author
again.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama and a member in good standing of the Auto Caucus, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I rise today to offer my reluctant support of
the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, also known as the Cash
for Clunkers program.
All of us have witnessed the devastation felt by our automotive
sector. In my home State of Alabama, as in many other States, workers
have lost their jobs or had their hours cut. Many hardworking dealers
have simply been forced to close their doors.
To help protect our jobs and stimulate the automotive sector, we must
work to stimulate consumer credit markets and restore consumer
confidence. That is why I recently introduced my bill, the Consumer
Auto Relief Act. Unlike the bill we are considering today, my proposal
would help all sectors of the automotive industry.
In addition to offering tax credits to working families to help
purchase new vehicles, the bill would also help incentivize lenders to
finance new vehicles. The bill would also place no limitations on
eligibility to participate in the program. Unfortunately, my bill is
not what is on the floor today. Nonetheless, despite my reservations
about H.R. 2751, I believe that passing it is better than doing
nothing, but not by much. I offer my support for the bill and urge its
passage.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to now yield 1 minute to
the distinguished Speaker of the House to speak on this bill, Speaker
Nancy Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I commend her for
her tremendous leadership in putting together this legislation that we
have before us. She, Representative Israel and Representative Inslee
all worked very hard to come to a position that we can all support
today. Mr. Markey is here of the Select Committee, and of course Mr.
Dingell, the Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Others, Mr. Braley, Mr. Stupak--well, all of our colleagues have had an
important role--Mr. Kildee and our colleagues on the Republican side of
the aisle. Hopefully we will have a good, strong bipartisan vote today
on this legislation.
Because you all have given us an opportunity to pass legislation that
is a benefit to our economy and a benefit to our environment, we can
create and save jobs while addressing the air pollution issue, so
important to our children's health. We will do this by allowing
Americans to trade in their own gas-guzzling vehicles and receive
vouchers worth up to $4,500 to help pay for the new, more fuel-
efficient cars and trucks.
I will go into some specifics--I know we've heard it over and over
again, but this CARS bill is quite a remarkable piece of legislation,
and the timing is perfect. And when they trade in these cars, they will
strengthen America's auto industry, creating jobs and reducing layoffs,
and save more than 250 million gallons of gas. This has been tried and
true around the world in recent months with great success. In Germany,
for example, it boosted auto sales by 20 percent.
Because this legislation will deliver consumer savings, increase
vehicle demand, help save American jobs while cutting greenhouse gas
emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it is supported
by a broad coalition. That coalition includes the Big Three automakers,
the United Auto Workers, car dealers, business groups such as the
National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and, in
the lead, the Obama administration.
Today, with this legislation, we will ensure a strong American
manufacturing base. As much as anything that we can do in terms of
addressing the issue of the auto industry in our country, this is a
national security issue. The auto industry's success is essential to
ensuring that we have a strong manufacturing base. This legislation
today will ensure that we have a strong manufacturing base and get more
fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, which is essential to our economy,
to our national security, and a clean, green future.
I commend my colleagues once again. I commend Congresswoman Sutton
for her determination to accelerate the pace of when we would bring
this legislation to the floor and urge strong bipartisan support for
the bill, which it certainly deserves.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan controls 11
minutes, and the gentlewoman from Ohio controls 7 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad idea spawned by a bad idea that was
spawned by still yet another bad idea--and it will likely spawn a lot
of other bad ideas in the future.
The first bad idea was to bail out the auto industry in the first
place. The second bad idea was for the government to essentially take
over the auto industries. We all know that government is not very good
at manufacturing anything, so it has to manufacture demand. And that's
what this bill is about. It is defying the laws of economics and saying
we can manufacture enough demand to keep the auto industries afloat
without other measures that they need to take to stay afloat. We can't
simply manufacture demand any more than we can defy any of the other
laws of economics.
A list was given of those who support this legislation. It says it
has broad support from Ford, GM, Chrysler, the Automobile Dealers
Association, the labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce. Can anybody
tell me honestly if anybody on that list has ever turned down a
government subsidy of any type? I would submit I've never heard it, not
in the time that I've been here. So it shouldn't surprise anybody that
this list of individuals or organizations supports this legislation.
That doesn't mean that we should. We have a duty to represent the
taxpayers as well here.
I should note that just this morning there was a press conference
about PAYGO--pay-as-you-go, don't pay out anymore than you take in.
Where is the money going to come from for this? Perhaps that's why it
is on the suspension calendar so that what should govern this place--
what kind of PAYGO rules that we have--don't actually apply. But you've
got to pay the piper at some point, and we simply can't continue to go
down this road.
Madam Speaker, this is a bad idea. This is a clunker of a bill that
ought to be retired, and we ought to apply the cash toward our
unsustainable deficit.
[[Page 14396]]
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished chairman from Massachusetts, Chairman Markey.
Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlelady, and I
congratulate the gentlelady for her excellent work on this legislation.
To Mr. Dingell, to Mr. Inslee, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Israel, to Mr. Braley,
to Mr. Waxman, this is truly the work of a lot of people coming
together. And ultimately, the approach has produced a win-win-win
situation: a win for our consumers who get a new, more efficient
vehicle; a win for reducing our dependence on imported oil; and a win
for an industry struggling to regain its footing. And I will add one
more win because it is always a win when Members from the Rust Belt and
the two coasts can join together and come up with a compromise that all
sides can support.
The price of a gallon of gasoline is rising inexorably, back up to $4
a gallon. It has gone up $1 at the pump on a national average since
December. The price of a barrel of oil has gone from $30 to $69 since
December. This is the kind of bill we need to put in place. My
congratulations to the gentlelady.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time the gentleman
from Michigan controls.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan controls 9
remaining minutes, and the gentlewoman from Ohio 6 remaining minutes.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my honor to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Bart
Stupak.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, as one of the authors of H.R. 2751, I urge
support of the Cash for Clunkers program that will provide cash
vouchers of up to $4,500 at auto dealerships for consumers who trade in
aging, less fuel-efficient automobiles and replace them with modern
fuel-efficient models.
The Cash for Clunkers program accomplishes a dual task of reducing
emissions and stimulating sales in the auto industry. I applaud
Congresswoman Sutton for her leadership on this important issue. And I
appreciate the support of Chairman Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell,
Chairman Markey, Chairman Inslee, and Majority Leader Hoyer in helping
to bring this agreement to the House floor.
The Cash for Clunkers program provides an incentive for Americans to
do their part to reduce emissions without imposing new regulations on
industry or consumers. This bill results in cleaner cars on the road
and an increase in sales for the struggling auto industry.
The value of the voucher and the criteria used to determine
eligibility vary based on the type of car you are trading in and the
type of car you are buying. The agreement we have reached on Cash for
Clunkers ensures that a variety of needs of consumers are covered under
the program.
The Cash for Clunkers program encourages consumers to buy 1 million
new cars and trucks. This program bolsters the automotive industry at
its weakest point in years while revitalizing manufacturing and jump-
starting our economy.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I would just note that I have a list of
folks wanting to speak, but they're not here. That is why I am
reserving the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. I would just inquire of the gentleman, we have an
abundance of speakers and not quite enough time, would you like to
yield some time?
Mr. UPTON. I will yield the gentlelady 4 minutes of my time to
control.
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman very much.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to my
colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady and want to congratulate
her.
I would like to make two quick points. One is, the gentleman from
Arizona, when he was here, mentioned about manufacturing demand. It was
the tax credit for SUVs that actually manufactured the demand that led
to a lot of the issues we are dealing with now with the environment.
And also, the gentleman was critical of the auto industry. I would like
to remind him that it was the auto industry and the tax dollars that
the Midwest sent out to build the West. All the water lines and sewer
lines in congressional districts that were made out West were made by
the taxpayers and the auto industry and the steel industry that sent
their money out. So I just wanted to clear the record.
I thank the gentlelady from Ohio. I get nervous anytime I see Ohio
and Michigan working together, but in this particular instance, it's a
good deal.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield
1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative
Peters.
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, the CARS Act of 2009 is critical not only
to spur growth in America's auto industry but to save and create jobs
throughout our country.
History shows that one of the quickest ways to end a recession is to
sell more automobiles. New car sales constitute a major percentage of a
nation's consumer spending.
Increasing vehicle sales also stimulates demand for raw goods from
which automobiles are manufactured. Production of glass, steel,
plastics, and other primary materials will be increased as more new
cars are sold, creating jobs throughout the country.
{time} 1630
Many other nations have acted to strengthen their economies with
policies to design and to sell more automobiles, and the U.S. should
not be left behind. Many Members of the House have recently expressed
their desire to support auto dealers in their States. There is no
better way to help car dealers going forward than to pass this
important legislation. We must pass the CARS Act today to create a
recovery not just for our auto industry but for the entire economy.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Let me thank Mr. Upton. I assume I'm using 2 of his
minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. LEVIN. No, that's fine. I may yield back, but this is true
bipartisanship.
We all know there's a major restructuring of the auto industry going
on as we are here today, and there is a very simple truth: If there is
not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed. And I think
only rigid ideologues would say it's impossible to stimulate demand.
There has been a historic drop in demand for vehicles in this country.
It's about one-half of what it was not so long ago. And it remains true
globally. This is not only a national phenomenon; it's a global
phenomenon.
Other countries have acted. And I salute Representative Sutton and
all who have worked on this to step up to the plate for the basic
manufacturing base of the United States of America.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, at this point, it is my privilege to yield
2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington,
Representative Jay Inslee.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out something about
the benefits of efficiency in this bill. We know it's going to help the
important auto industry, but I want to point out how it will help
consumers in efficiency.
Under this bill, Americans who participate will save an average of
133 gallons of gasoline a year by having access to a more efficient
car. At the price of $2.71 a gallon, that's a saving of $368 a year in
gasoline. That is 250 million gallons of gasoline that we otherwise
will not be burning.
Now, the reason I point this out is there is a benefit to the
environment in our efforts to stop global warming in this bill, and Mr.
Israel and I had earlier introduced a piece generally in the same
direction, heading with the great leadership of Betty Sutton and John
Dingell and Bart Stupak, and we put our bills together, and this is the
product.
Some folks have argued that the efficiency provisions of this bill
are not
[[Page 14397]]
aggressive enough. The bill I introduced with Mr. Israel had more
aggressive targets.
But I want to point out something that is a singular achievement of
this bill, and I want to thank Betty Sutton for her leadership on this.
If we are going to stop global warming, we indeed are going to have to
come together all across the country. Folks in the steel industry are
going to need to work with people on the coast. People in the Midwest,
in the Rust Belt States in the auto industry are going to need to work
with those folks in the San Francisco Bay region.
Congress means coming together, and this bill, I think, represents a
perfect example of how our Nation needs to come together to tackle the
many challenges we have in dealing with global warming. And when we
pass this bill today, it will be one step, one brick in the wall of
that effort, for a true clean energy revolution in America that we can
all be proud of across the country.
Congratulations.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, it is time to get America moving again, and that's
exactly what this bill does. The auto sector is so important to our
country in virtually every single community. It doesn't have to just be
a community that has an assembly line. It's the communities that build
parts, whether it be a gas cap or a part for a brake, a side panel, a
piece of trim, a window. Auto dealers are in virtually every community
across the country, and they average about 50 employees per dealership.
So this bill impacts every single community across America.
No one here today has talked about what this bill also does. We will
rely less on foreign oil because the average consumer, by taking
advantage of this program, will save $780 in fuel costs because they're
going to trade in that old car and they're going to have a more fuel-
efficient, better emission vehicle than they had before; $780 per
household for those that take advantage of it. We have fraud and abuse
provisions in here so that they won't be taken advantage of.
And to my good friend Mr. Flake, yes, there is a sunset. This program
doesn't go on forever. There is a sunset. It's a temporary Band-Aid to
fix an economic problem that needs America's attention.
Isn't it better, isn't it better to have people work and have a job
and pay taxes than having them laid off and receive benefits? I think
most Americans would rather have that job. They want to pay their
taxes. This is a bill that helps America, and that's one of the reasons
why it passed in our committee 50-4.
I would urge all of my colleagues to support this. And, sadly,
because of the procedure, it does have to pass tonight by a two-thirds
vote rather than a majority. I would like to think that we can exceed
that two-thirds and pass it.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, we have heard overwhelming support for the
CARS Act on the floor today and from across the country throughout this
process. I want to thank, first of all, the gentleman from Michigan for
what a fantastic job he has done in moving this bill on the floor this
afternoon and for all of the work that he put into making it a success.
I also want to thank all of those, many of whom we have heard from
today here on the floor, for all of their help and their support in
getting this innovative measure to the floor and on the way to the
beneficial effects for the American people. I also want to thank all of
the staff who worked on this bill and bringing it together: my staff,
Nicole Francis Reynolds and Christine Corcoran, as well as the staff on
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and others, Representative
Dingell's staff. It has been a truly collaborative process, and we have
a good result.
We have heard about how this bill will improve our environment, serve
as an economic stimulus, and shore up the 3 to 5 million jobs in the
auto and related industries. Close to home in my district, the Akron
Area Auto Dealers Association put it this way: ``Providing an incentive
to stimulate sales is a critical step in the recovery of the automobile
industry, and congressional passage of the CARS Act represents an
opportunity to benefit both the economy and the environment.''
Local 2000 of the United Auto Workers, which assembles the Ford E-
Series line of vehicles in my district in Avon Lake, has stated:
``Passage of this important legislation will not only help the consumer
and public by putting cars on the road that run cleaner and maintain
better fuel efficiency, but it will provide assistance by boosting car
sales to the struggling auto industry in America.''
And the United Steelworkers, who represent hundreds of thousands of
workers in jobs supplying the auto industry, summed it up like this:
``From the glass, to the tires, to the plastic, to the hundreds of
pounds of metal that comprise every vehicle, steelworkers manufacture
these products in locations all across the country. Even the paper, the
catalogues, and brochures that the automakers use to market their
vehicles are often the product of the work of steelworkers. But
countless other citizens, union and nonunion, such as auto dealers,
accountants, restaurant and shop owners, have their jobs tied to the
auto industry.''
Governors from 12 States, including Governor Strickland from Ohio,
the Governors of Michigan, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin all support this effort today.
It's time to act, Madam Speaker. It's time to pass the CARS Act, and
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand today in strong
support of H.R. 2751, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act.
This bipartisan piece of legislation is desperately needed to
reinvigorate our domestic auto industry and replace high-emission
vehicles with cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.
This fleet modernization bill will help stimulate auto sales across
the country by replacing approximately one million new cars or trucks
on the road.
Specifically, old passenger cars and light duty trucks or SUV's must
receive 18 miles per gallon (mpg) or less to participate in the
program.
Consumers can receive vouchers--ranging from $3,500 to $4,500--to
help reduce the cost of a new vehicle if the new vehicles receive
greater fuel efficiency.
The greater the increase in fuel efficiency, the greater the value of
the voucher.
New passenger cars must receive at least 22 mpg and light trucks or
SUV's must receive at least 18 mpg. Large light-duty trucks and work
trucks are also eligible for the program.
By replacing aging vehicles with more fuel-efficient ones, this bill
will help reduce oil consumption in America, lower overall fuel costs
and reduce transportation emissions to help us meet any national
climate program.
I want to thank Representative Sutton, Chairman-Emeritus John
Dingell, and others for their leadership in moving this legislation
forward, and I hope this legislation swiftly becomes law.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, in Texas we implemented a program
called Air Check Texas, which was designed to replace older, polluting
vehicles with newer ones. The program succeeded in getting vehicles 10
years or older--or those that had failed an emissions test--off of the
road. The program in Texas focused mostly on older vehicles because
they emit 10 to 30 times as much pollution as newer vehicles. In fact,
vehicles that are 13 years old and older account for just 25 percent of
miles driven, but 75 percent of all tailpipe emissions.
While I support Representative Sutton in her Cash for Clunkers and I
am a co-sponsor because I believe in both the stimulative and
environmental benefits of getting older vehicles off of the road, I
don't believe that the arbitrary 18 mpg combined efficiency requirement
for the trade-in vehicle is beneficial. Setting an arbitrary number
like 18 mpg leaves a lot of folks with older, polluting vehicles behind
the wheel of these cars because they can't afford a new car without the
$3500 or $4500 this voucher would provide.
As the bill is currently written, a 1986 Peugeot station wagon with a
20 mile per gallon combined efficiency would not qualify for the
voucher, but a 2009 Mercedes Benz station wagon would, because it has
an EPA combined efficiency rating of 15.5 miles per
[[Page 14398]]
gallon fuel. Clearly the intent of the bill is not to subsidize the new
car purchase of a 2009 Mercedes driver. So let's think a bit more about
our 1986 Peugeot driver and helping him or her improve the efficiency
and tailpipe emissions of that car.
Expanding this program to model years and failed emissions tests--
like the successful program in Texas--will achieve a more far-reaching
success than the program as written. I support this legislation, but as
the legislation moves forward I believe the combined efficiency
requirements for the trade-in vehicle should be dropped and a model-
year approach should be explored.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2751, the
Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act.
The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act would strengthen
demand for automobiles in the United States and provide much needed
relief to struggling car companies and dealerships. More commonly known
as the ``Cash for Clunkers Act,'' this legislation would allow car
owners to trade in their old inefficient automobiles for new more fuel
efficient automobiles. The Cash for Clunkers Act could spur the sales
of up to 1 million more fuel efficient cars and trucks. It would help
to save jobs and shore up car dealerships, and it would help save more
than 250 million gallons of gas a year.
Our national car companies are struggling in the floundering economy.
Since last year ago, national car sales have fallen by 34 percent. Car
dealerships across the nation are closing their doors, and it is
estimated that in my home state of New Jersey 8,000 jobs in the
automobile industry could be lost by the end of the year.
This legislation allows consumers to receive a voucher for $3,500 if
they turn in their old car for a new automobile that is 4 miles per
gallon more fuel efficient. Those who buy new models that are 10 miles
per gallon more fuel efficient would receive a $4,500 voucher. Owners
of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans that get 18 miles
per gallon or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new
truck or SUV is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than their old
vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new
truck or SUV is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the older
vehicle.
Programs like the Cash for Clunkers Act have proven effective in
increasing car purchases; Germany enacted a similar measure that
increased car sales by more than 20 percent. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation that would spur our economy and decrease
dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, though I voted for the Consumer
Assistance to Recycle and Save or the CARS Act, I have serious
reservations about it. Unfortunately, despite its good intentions, it
will send jobs overseas and it does little to help our ailing climate.
I cosponsored H.R. 1550, an earlier version of the bill. That version
allowed consumers to get a voucher for cars assembled in the U.S. The
version under consideration today has no such assurances, which means
that significant amounts of the funds will go toward the purchase of
cars made in countries like China. We are giving with one hand and
taking with the other.
Our auto industry needs our help more than ever. Yet we are handing
over money, jobs and infrastructure to our international competition.
It is made worse by the terms of the GM bankruptcy which requires that
plants in the U.S. are closed while shipping auto manufacturing jobs to
other countries like Mexico and South Korea. We can't protect the auto
industry by sending their work to other countries.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the CARS Act for
the fleetwide fuel efficiency gains it will create, the energy security
it will enhance, the air quality it will improve and the boost it will
give our flagging economy.
Under this ``Cash for Clunkers'' legislation, consumers with vehicles
getting less than 18 MPG can get vouchers for $3500 towards the
purchase of a new vehicle that gets at least 4 MPG better than the
vehicle they are retiring--and $4500 towards the purchase of a new
vehicle that gets at least 10 MPG better than the vehicle they are
retiring.
While I am among those who would favor even stronger standards, this
legislation nevertheless points American drivers in the right direction
and will stimulate new car sales during a period of time when the auto
industry and their dealer networks can use that business the most. I
urge my colleagues' support.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 2751.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to suspend on H.R. 2751 will be followed by
5-minute votes on motions to suspend on H.R. 1741 and House Resolution
505.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 298,
nays 119, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
YEAS--298
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--119
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Cantor
Carter
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Doggett
Duncan
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
[[Page 14399]]
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Platts
Polis (CO)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Buchanan
Deal (GA)
NOT VOTING--15
Bishop (UT)
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Conyers
Gonzalez
Kennedy
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Mack
Putnam
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sessions
Sullivan
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1707
Messrs. REHBERG, MARSHALL, KIRK, ROONEY, DOGGETT, and BARTLETT
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GINGREY of Georgia and POE of Texas changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 314, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 314, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have vote ``yea.''
____________________
WITNESS SECURITY AND PROTECTION GRANT PROGRAM ACT OF 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1741, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1741, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 11, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 315]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--11
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Duncan
Flake
Foxx
Inglis
Lummis
McClintock
Paul
Rooney
Shadegg
NOT VOTING--10
Bono Mack
Gonzalez
Kennedy
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Mack
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sullivan
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have less than 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1715
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to require the Attorney
General to make competitive grants to eligible State, tribal, and local
governments to establish and maintain certain protection and witness
assistance programs.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 14400]]
____________________
CONDEMNING THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE TILLER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 505,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 505.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423,
nays 0, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 316]
YEAS--423
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bono Mack
Buyer
Gonzalez
Kennedy
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Mack
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sullivan
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1722
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative), the rules were suspended
and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Mrs. Wanda Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
RECOGNIZING 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND
EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 454) recognizing the 25th anniversary of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 454
Whereas an estimated 800,000 children are reported missing
each year in the United States;
Whereas 200,000 of that number are abducted by family
members, and 58,000 are abducted by non-family members, for
which the primary motive is sexual assault;
Whereas each year 115 children are the victims of the most
serious abductions, kidnapped by non-family members and
either ransomed, murdered, or taken with the intent to keep;
Whereas the National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children (NCMEC) serves as the national resource center and
information clearinghouse for missing and exploited children;
Whereas NCMEC was established by Congress in 1984;
Whereas NCMEC has assisted law enforcement in the recovery
of more than 138,500 children;
Whereas NCMEC's Amber Alert program has led to 443
recoveries;
Whereas in 2008, NCMEC helped recover more children than
any other year in the organization's 25-year history, raising
the recovery rate from 62 percent in 1990 to 97 percent
today;
Whereas NCMEC operates the toll-free 24-hour national
missing children's hotline, which has handled more than
2,377,000 calls;
Whereas NCMEC provides assistance to families and law
enforcement agencies in locating and recovering missing and
exploited children, both nationally and internationally;
Whereas NCMEC offers technical assistance and training to
law enforcement in identifying and locating non-compliant sex
offenders;
Whereas NCMEC has a team of forensic artists who create age
progression photos, which has assisted in the successful
recovery of 895 children;
Whereas NCMEC CyberTipline has handled more than 686,000
reports;
Whereas NCMEC's Child Victim Identification Program has
reviewed and analyzed 23,000,000 child pornography images and
videos, 8,600,000 in 2008 alone;
Whereas NCMEC's sex offender tracking team has already
located 402 missing sex offenders;
[[Page 14401]]
Whereas NCMEC operates a child victim identification
program to assist law enforcement in identifying victims of
child pornography;
Whereas NCMEC develops and disseminates programs and
information about Internet safety and the prevention of child
abduction and sexual exploitation;
Whereas NCMEC facilitates the deployment of the National
Emergency Child Locator Center during periods of national
disasters; and
Whereas NCMEC deploys Team Adam, a rapid response and
support system comprised of retired law enforcement officers,
to provide on-site technical assistance to local law
enforcement agencies investigating cases of child abduction
and sexual exploitation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the
25th anniversary of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona). Pursuant to
the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which
Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous
material on H. Res. 454.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 454, which
recognizes the 25th anniversary of the National Center For Missing and
Exploited Children. The NCMEC serves as the national resource center
for missing and exploited children.
It is estimated that 800,000 children are reported missing every year
in the United States. Two hundred thousand of that number are abducted
by family members, and 58,000 are abducted by nonfamily members, for
which the primary motive is sexual assault. It is with great sadness
that this national tragedy continues year after year.
We recognize today the National Center's persistent efforts in
reuniting families and stopping the abuse and exploitation of our
children. During its 25-year history, the organization has assisted in
the recovery of more than 138,000 children. NCMEC's Amber Alert Program
alone has led to 443 recoveries. NCMEC's efforts have led to a rise in
the recovery rate of missing children from 62 percent in 1990 to 97
percent today.
The organization offers assistance and training to law enforcement
around the country in identifying and locating missing and exploited
children, as well as non-compliant sex offenders. NCMEC also actively
combats children's pornography by reviewing millions of images and
videos in a national effort to identify victims of child pornography
and the perpetrators behind these heinous crimes.
Madam Speaker, NCMEC acts as the ultimate advocate for our Nation's
most vulnerable individuals. The organization sends a message to
parents around the country that our Nation will never abandon its
search for the thousands of children missing at any given moment. It is
important to recognize that for the individuals at the NCMEC, the
mission is never quite complete.
{time} 1730
On May 25th of 2009, we recognize the 27th National Missing
Children's Day. The day marks the anniversary of the disappearance of
6-year-old Etan Patz. For nearly three decades, the search for Etan and
many other children has continued as part of the persistent efforts of
the NCMEC.
Madam Speaker, once again I express my support for the center, and I
thank Representative Poe for bringing this resolution to the floor. I
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which
seeks to pay tribute and recognize the important work of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
I am honored to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of
this important resolution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Pennsylvania yielding and the support of the gentleman from New York.
I'm proud to sponsor H. Res. 454, which recognizes the 25th
anniversary of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
As founder and co-Chair of the Victims' Rights Caucus, along with my
friend from California, Mr. Costa, I am thankful for the work that the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children does to protect the
Nation's children.
At the time the Center was founded 25 years ago, there were little or
no resources available to assist law enforcement with the cases of
missing children. In fact, there was no way for police to enter
information about missing children into the FBI's national crime
computer. Today, thanks to the work of the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, this is no longer the case.
Each year, approximately 800,000 American children are reported
missing. When a child is missing, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children works tirelessly alongside families and law
enforcement agencies in locating, finding, and recovering the children
and bringing them home to their parents.
Many people may be familiar with John Walsh from his TV show
America's Most Wanted, but they may not realize the tragic events that
led to his advocating on behalf of children and his work with America's
Most Wanted.
In 1981, Adam Walsh, son of John and Reve Walsh, was abducted from a
toy department store in Florida at a shopping mall. Two weeks later,
fishermen found Adam's decapitated head. They never found his body. He
was 6 years old.
Last year, after 27 years of not knowing who killed their son, police
announced that Adam's murderer was a serial killer who had died a
decade earlier while serving five life sentences in prison. Ottis Toole
was his killer's name, and although we know this knowledge did not take
away the Walshes' pain, we hope that it gave them some peace of mind
and a sense of justice.
Even during the years of unanswered questions, John Walsh turned his
loss into advocating on behalf of children. He helped fight for the
passage of the important Federal legislation, such as the Missing
Children's Act of 1982 and the Missing Children's Assistance Act of
1984.
The Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984 established a national
resource center and a clearinghouse for missing and exploited children,
thus creating the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
President Reagan officially opened the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children on June 13, 1984. Twenty-five years later, we thank
John Walsh for his pioneer efforts and recognize the center for their
work on behalf of America's children.
We celebrate today that, since 1990, the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children's recovery rate of missing children has
increased from 62 percent to 97 percent. Many children owe their rescue
to the center, and many parents are grateful for the return of their
kids, thanks to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
This legislation is sponsored by both the Victims' Rights Caucus and
the Caucus for Missing and Exploited and Runaway Children. I would like
to thank my friend and fellow co-Chair of the Victims' Rights Caucus,
Jim Costa, and the co-Chairs of the Missing and Exploited Children's
Caucus, Judy Biggert, Bart Stupak, Zoe Lofgren and Frank Wolf.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. TONKO. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have any further
speakers?
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, yes, I do. I have at least two additional
speakers.
[[Page 14402]]
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. I think,
in recognizing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
here on its 25th anniversary, it is time for us to reflect on just what
a role it played in terms of increasing the recovery rate over time of
missing children.
If you think about the last 25 years and the fact that 138,000
missing children have been recovered, returned to their families, but
that in the early years that rate ran at 62 percent and now that rate
is up to 97 percent, you begin to get an appreciation for just what the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were able to do for
humanity, for these children, for these families.
As mentioned, it was officially opened in June of 1984 by President
Ronald Reagan, and since its inception, it has become the leading
organization worldwide dealing with the issue of missing and exploited
kids.
I've been pleased to support many of the initiatives that it's worked
for, including:
The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Registration Act, which
was in 1994, and it mandated that sex offender registries be
established in every State;
Megan's Law of 1996, which mandated that every State provide
community notification when dangerous sex offenders are released, was
driven by the push from the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children;
The PROTECT Act of 2003, which created a national AMBER Alert Program
and strengthened law enforcement's ability to punish violent criminals
who prey upon children;
And, of course, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
2006, which created a national sex offender public database. And it's
because of that work over the years that that rate is up to 97 percent
today.
Now, despite all that's been accomplished, I'm sure there is much
more that can be done, should be done. I congratulate the NCMEC for its
25th anniversary. I congratulate it for its work on behalf of so many
child recoveries to date.
And let this resolution remind us that there is nothing more
important than the safety of our Nation's children, and that the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has done such great
work in this regard.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who played an
important role in the foundation and formation of the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children in 1984, as much time as he may
consume.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, it is hard to
believe that it was 25 years ago that this Congress worked to
facilitate the establishment of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.
I recall being on the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee when
John Walsh and his wife testified before us. It was at a time when they
did not know who had murdered their child.
It was at a time in this country where we specifically prohibited the
use of the FBI in attempting to participate in any activities to try
and find missing children. We had a statutory delay for any
participation by the FBI. There was a lack of coordination that was not
only in existence, but was promoted by law at that time.
And I recall, after John Walsh and his wife testified before us, the
shrugging of shoulders by some who basically had to tell the Walshes
that there was nothing that we could do here on the Federal level.
John Walsh and his wife did not take that as an answer. They spoke to
many of us here in the Chamber, but actually those of us on the
subcommittee and committee at that time, and challenged us to try and
find a way to make it possible that we could have a seamless web
between the Federal Government, the State government and local
government when the question was a missing child. And the strength and
persistence of that couple, combined with others who joined them around
the country was extraordinary at that time.
It seems so commonplace now for us to talk about the 25th anniversary
of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It seems so
commonplace for us to talk about hundreds of thousands of children
being reported missing yearly, and the fact that there was almost a
collective shrug of the shoulder at that time saying, it is a terrible
tragedy, but there's nothing we can do about it.
It seems so commonplace now that when a child is missing, with all of
the various laws that have followed after the creation of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, that almost instantaneously
you have law enforcement across the board communicating with one
another and creating a mechanism by which there can be the exchange of
information and the encouragement of the exchange of information so
that we can find these children.
One thing we knew 25 years ago, and it remains the same today, the
sooner you know that a child is missing, the better the chances are of
being able to find that child. The sooner you have law enforcement
involved, along with the communities, the better the chances are that
you will have a successful recovery of that child and a successful
reuniting of that family.
So I hope people understand why we celebrate the 25th anniversary of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and that it has
been the result of thousands upon thousands of people working for this
effort.
Had it not been for a single couple, the Walshes, who, out of
tragedy, decided to make something positive, had it not been for them
coming here to the Congress and insisting that we look at this issue
and insisting that there was something that can be done and insisting
that just because we used to do it the old way was no reason or no
excuse for not trying to do something different, had it not been for
them, we would not be celebrating the 25th anniversary, nor would we be
celebrating the thousands upon thousands of successful reunitings that
have taken place around this country.
So this is a wonderful recognition of the center, but I hope it will
also be a tremendous recognition of the contributions made by two
wonderful Americans, the Walshes.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I, again, urge a ``yes'' vote in support
of this important resolution and commend Mr. Poe for his sponsorship,
as well as Mr. Lungren for his important work in the foundation of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 454,
recognizing the 25th anniversary of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.
In 1979, while on his way to school, 6-year-old Etan Patz disappeared
from the streets of New York City. In 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh
disappeared from a Florida shopping mall. The media attention and
search efforts that resulted from these two cases focused the nation's
attention on the problem of child abduction and the need for a
coordinated effort to address this problem.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, as it
is called in acronym, was created by Congress in 1984, through the
Missing Children's Assistance Act. NCMEC works in partnership with the
U.S. Department of Justice and is the nation's resource center and
clearinghouse for information on missing and exploited children. Since
1984, NCMEC has assisted law enforcement with more than 154,000 missing
child cases, resulting in the recovery of more than 138,000 children.
NCMEC's mission includes helping to prevent child abduction and
sexual exploitation; helping to find missing children; and assisting
victims of child abduction and sexual exploitation, their families, and
the professionals who serve them. NCMEC provides assistance to families
and law enforcement agencies in
[[Page 14403]]
locating and recovering missing and exploited children, both nationally
and internationally.
NCMEC offers many services, including a 24-hour call center. NCMEC's
toll-free national hotline, 1-800-THE-LOST, has handled more than 2.3
million calls.
NCMEC also manages a distribution system for missing-child photos; a
system of case management and technical assistance for law enforcement
and families; training programs for Federal, State and local law
enforcement; and programs designed to help stop the sexual exploitation
of children.
NCMEC is the only private, non-profit organization that combines
these resources to provide support to law enforcement, state
clearinghouses, and parents working to find missing children.
I stand in support of this resolution recognizing the 25th
Anniversary of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
I ask for my colleagues' support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, the resolution before the House, H. Res.
454, recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, is one that obviously brings with it
many happy endings for at least 138,000 families.
And while not all of the stories are those happy endings, the center
has provided itself as a resource, as a network that has devoted itself
to the reconnection of our youth to their families. And so, with that
outstanding record and with the concerns for missing children still
alive and haunting us as a society, I strongly encourage a ``yes'' vote
on the resolution.
I yield back my remaining time, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 454.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
{time} 1745
CONGRATULATING AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION ON ITS 70TH
ANNIVERSARY
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 472) congratulating and saluting the seventieth
anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and
their dedication to general aviation, safety and the important
contribution general aviation provides to the United States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 472
Whereas the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
was formed 70 years ago, in May 1939, on the eve of World War
II;
Whereas the AOPA is committed to improving general aviation
safety;
Whereas the AOPA created the AOPA Air Safety Foundation,
the only organization dedicated solely to that end, nearly 60
years ago;
Whereas the AOPA represents more than 415,000 members, or 7
out of every 10 pilots in the United States;
Whereas the AOPA has, for 7 decades, provided those pilots
with education, information, and advocacy at all levels of
government;
Whereas the AOPA was among the earliest proponents of
civilian use of the Global Positioning Satellite System,
setting the stage for development of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System;
Whereas the AOPA was a leading advocate of the General
Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, which led to the
recovery of the United States general aviation light aircraft
manufacturing industry, a major United States export and a
plus on the trade balance sheet;
Whereas the AOPA has developed and maintained close working
relationships with agencies of the Federal Government,
especially the Department of Transportation, the Department
of Homeland Security, the Federal Aviation Administration,
and the Transportation Security Administration; and
Whereas those relationships have allowed the public and
private sectors to address various issues of legitimate
concern to the Federal government in ways that impose the
least possible burden on general aviation pilots and aircraft
owners: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) congratulates and salutes the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA) for celebrating its 70th
anniversary;
(2) commends the AOPA for creating the AOPA Air Safety
Foundation nearly 60 years ago to improve general aviation
safety;
(3) commends the AOPA for helping lead the recovery of the
United States general aviation light aircraft manufacturing
industry; and
(4) commends the AOPA for setting the stage for development
of the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 472.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of House Resolution 472, congratulating and
saluting the 70th anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association and their dedication to the general aviation, safety, and
the important contribution that general aviation provides to the United
States of America.
AOPA was incorporated on May 15, 1939, as a nonprofit organization
dedicated to general aviation. AOPA represents more than 414,000
members, which is about 70 percent of all United States pilots. In
1950, AOPA created the Air Safety Foundation, which provides general
aviation pilots with training, education, and research on information
and safety that are important to all pilots.
AOPA was a leading advocate in the General Aviation Revitalization
Act of 1994 which led to the recovery of the U.S. general aviation and
light aircraft manufacturing industry. In recent years, AOPA has been
active on many general aviation issues such as global positioning
navigation, flight service station modernization, FAA reauthorization,
and the Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen.
House Resolution 472 congratulates and salutes the 70th anniversary
of AOPA and its dedication to general aviation, safety, and the
important contribution made by all aviators to the United States. In
addition, the resolution commends AOPA for creating the Air Safety
Foundation, leading the recovery of general aviation of light aircraft
in the manufacturing industry and setting the stage for the development
of NextGen.
For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to support House
Resolution 472.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 472.
I'm a cosponsor of the resolution introduced by my colleague, Mr. Dent
of Pennsylvania, congratulating the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association on the organization's 70th anniversary.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 472. I am a
cosponsor of the resolution introduced by Mr. Dent congratulating the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) on the organization's
70th anniversary.
For decades, AOPA has provided important safety information to pilots
all over the country, making it a valuable safety partner with the FAA
and the House Transportation Committee.
In addition, AOPA continues to perform an advocacy function for
pilots and aircraft owners providing a helpful voice both at the FAA
and here in Congress. Representing roughly 415,000 pilots and aircraft
owners, AOPA has been a valuable stakeholder helping to shape policy
solutions to safety issues facing the general aviation industry.
[[Page 14404]]
Finally, in representing pilots and aircraft owners, AOPA represents
a general aviation industry that is critical to our nation's economy.
The manufacturing of general aviation aircraft as well as the
maintenance and operation of general aviation aircraft supports
1,265,000 high-quality jobs here in the United States. General aviation
also inspires the love for flying that has led to so many U.S.
commercial airline pilot careers.
I support the adoption of the resolution.
I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution,
Representative Charles Dent.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Congressman Petri, for your part of this
legislation.
On May 15, 2009, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, or AOPA,
celebrated its 70th anniversary. Since its inception on the eve of the
Second World War, AOPA has grown to be one of the strongest voices for
general aviation in the United States.
Throughout its rich history, AOPA has developed and maintained close
working relationships with Federal Government agencies including the
Department of Transportation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Transportation Security
Administration. By working closely with these agencies, AOPA has helped
us create the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.
For the last 7 years, AOPA has also fostered a dynamic relationship
with Congress, and specifically the members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on which I serve. The association's
first political activity was to urge the U.S. Senate to pass
legislation establishing the civilian pilot training program which
allows thousands of American pilots to gain their certification through
Federal Government support. Decades later, AOPA remains a key actor in
the development in our Nation's aviation policy having played a vital
role in the crafting and passage of this year's FAA Reauthorization
Act.
Today, AOPA's membership exceeds 400,000, including seven out of
every 10 pilots in this Nation. I'm confident every Member of Congress
currently has a valuable relationship with the general aviation pilots
flying in their districts.
On a personal note, AOPA members from the Lehigh Valley area serve on
my aviation advisory board proved to be some of the most informed and
influential participants. Their expertise has truly been a great
resource for me as I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee and the Aviation Subcommittee.
Madam Speaker, I believe the passage of this resolution
congratulating AOPA on its 70 years of service is a fitting way to
salute the many pilots who help make our aviation system the safest and
most efficient in the world. And at this time I would like to encourage
everybody to support this legislation and urge its adoption.
Mr. PETRI. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he
may consume to my colleague from Michigan, Vern Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As a student pilot, and as the cochairman of the House General
Aviation Caucus, as well as a proud member of the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 472, honoring
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on their 70th anniversary.
Since 1939, AOPA has effectively represented the general aviation
community at the local, State, and Federal levels. With a membership of
more than 415,000--or two-thirds of all of the pilots in the United
States--AOPA is the largest and one of the most influential aviation
associations in the world. I have been a member for a number of years.
General aviation is a catch-all category that includes all
nonscheduled, all nonmilitary aviation. There are more than 230,000
general aviation aircraft in the United States, which use nearly 19,000
small and regional airports. These airports help connect people and
industries that do not always have easy access to our commercial
airports.
Recently, general aviation has come under attack by the media and
those that view general aviation as a corporate indulgence or an
expensive toy used exclusively by the wealthy. That is simply not true.
Actually, the fact is that companies that utilize general aviation are
more productive and, thus, more competitive.
I can give two examples from my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Recently, I was talking to a businessman there. He's a contractor.
He's built a number of buildings. They've decided to expand into the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan and into Canada. As you know, Michigan is
surrounded by the Great Lakes so it's very hard to get from point A to
point B quickly. However, they bought an airplane, and they were able
to zip easily from the Grand Rapids headquarters to all the work sites
in Canada and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. More often than not,
these airplanes pay for themselves.
I have another businessman in Grand Rapids who told me that his
airplane saved him a considerable amount of money because when his
executives went to visit his plants scattered around the U.S.--most of
them in forests because he's in the lumbering business and he has 30-
some businesses around the country--it takes at least one person one
day to get to any of these sites using commercial aviation because they
have to go to a major commercial airport, rent a car and drive 30, 40
miles into the forest to their site. But with their own private
airplane, they could usually land within a few miles. They can complete
three business visits in 1 day instead of one.
So, as they say, these airplanes pay for themselves.
In addition, most of the private pilots I know are not rich but
middle class working people that love to fly. In the wake of these
disparaging stories that have appeared in the media, the AOPA and its
supporters in Congress have worked hard to educate the public and
spread the word about the importance of general aviation to our economy
and our transportation system.
Every private pilot is passionate about flying, and the AOPA is the
organization they rely on to stay abreast of current political events
and aviation events and to advocate on their behalf.
I congratulate the AOPA on this historic anniversary, and I wish them
continued success, and I look forward to celebrating future
anniversaries with them as well. And I hope by then, I am able to fly
more often than I am while I'm in the Congress.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
efforts to promote general aviation. It's very clear, having, myself,
several classifications as a multiengine commercial instrument single
engineer, that general aviation needs to do all it can to promote and
respond to the needs of its pilots--in particular, training of the
pilots. It is very important that we recognize the significance of this
organization and what it means to general aviation.
I concur with the remarks of the ranking member and also concur with
the gentleman and his remarks with respect to the importance of this
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
H. Res. 472, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent),
which congratulates and salutes the 70th anniversary of the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and its dedication to general
aviation (GA), safety, and the important contribution that GA provides
to the United States. The resolution also commends AOPA for: creating
the Air Safety Foundation, leading the recovery of the GA light
aircraft manufacturing industry, and setting the stage for the
development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System by being
an early proponent of the civilian use of the Global Positioning
System. I thank Representative Dent for his leadership on this measure.
AOPA was incorporated on May 15, 1939, as a non-profit organization
dedicated to GA. Since then, the organization has been a leading
advocate for GA pilots and now represents about 415,000 members. AOPA
has also provided GA pilots with valuable safety education
[[Page 14405]]
and training through the Air Safety Foundation, which was created in
1950. The Air Safety Foundation is the largest non-profit organization
dedicated solely to GA safety.
AOPA was a primary supporter of the General Aviation Revitalization
Act (GARA) of 1994. The GA industry boomed following the passage of
GARA, which placed fair and reasonable limitations on the time period
during which a manufacturer would be legally liable for aircraft
defects.
I congratulate AOPA for working to support GA over the past 70 years.
GA stimulates local and regional economies--it comprises over one
percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and supports almost 1.2
million jobs. In addition, GA provides communities with essential
services, and affords businesses the flexibility and mobility that they
require. Many industries and public services depend on GA to be
successful and efficient, including emergency medicine, firefighting,
news services, energy exploration, and farming.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 472.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H. Res 472, a resolution to congratulate the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association on their seventieth anniversary, and speak to
their dedication to general aviation, to safety, and the important
contribution general aviation provides to the United States.
The AOPA was established seventy years ago, on the eve of World War
II. This non-profit association has been dedicated to general aviation,
improving general aviation safety, providing pilots with training,
education and advocating on their behalf at every level of government.
More than 75% of all flights in the United States are general
aviation. America relies on general aviation for business, medical
delivery services, sightseeing and for just plain fun and a love of
flying.
General aviation is a vital industry in America's economy. Currently
there are 19,000 airports nationwide that provide jobs for 1.3 million
Americans and bring in more than $100 billion dollars annually.
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the AOPA responded by partnering
with the TSA to develop a nationwide Airport Watch Program that uses
pilots as eyes and ears for observing and reporting suspicious
activity.
Flight Safety has remained a principal focus for the AOPA, so they
have supported new technologies to make aviation safer. AOPA was a
principle advocator of the GPS navigation systems which helped lead the
way for the Next Gen Air Transportation System--with aviation-specific
applications and advanced innovations such as weather forecasting.
And today, the AOPA represents more than 289,000 American general
aviation pilots--including my husband who is a long time member. He
started flying when he was a fighter pilot in Vietnam, and now we fly
an RV-8, which he built in our garage.
I am proud to support the resolution to honor the AOPA for the
commendable work they do in the aviation field.
Their dedication to aviation, aviation safety, training general
aviation pilots, and to new technologies makes me proud to support this
association.
Congratulations on your first 70 years.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge
passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, the swift passage of this bill is very
important.
I yield back my time as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 472.
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.
____________________
RALPH REGULA FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1687) to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at McKinley Avenue and Third Street, SW., Canton,
Ohio, as the ``Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States
Courthouse,'' as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1687
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RALPH REGULA FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES
COURTHOUSE.
(a) Designation.--The Administrator of General Services
shall ensure that the federally occupied building located at
McKinley Avenue and Third Street, SW., Canton, Ohio, is known
and designated as the ``Ralph Regula Federal Building and
United States Courthouse''.
(b) References.--With respect to the period in which the
building referred to in subsection (a) is federally occupied,
any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or
other record of the United States to that building shall be
deemed to be a reference to the ``Ralph Regula Federal
Building and United States Courthouse''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1687.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
{time} 1800
Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill I introduced,
H.R. 1687, as amended, and urge its quick passage.
This bill designates the building located at McKinley and Third
Streets, S.W., Canton, Ohio, as the Ralph Regula Federal Building and
United States Courthouse. The bill has strong, bipartisan support.
While I know Congressman Regula as my predecessor, many of you on
both sides of the aisle were also fortunate enough to call him a
colleague, a mentor, and a friend. He was a true steward of his
district and earned every accolade from his constituents, who knew him
only as Ralph. He combined a unique blend of procedural acumen, hard
work, and collegial personality in rising to a position of leadership
on the House Appropriations Committee. All the while, he never forgot
where he came from, consistently setting the standard and making sure
that his constituents received the assistance they needed with their
problems.
As a former teacher and principal, Ralph was a leader in pushing to
improve our students' reading skills, develop teacher training, and
increase Pell Grant funding. He also increased by millions of dollars
the amount of Federal money committed to research in fighting cancer,
heart disease, and birth defects.
Ralph was a leader in alternative energy. And he was an early
champion of fuel cell technology, helping my district earn a reputation
as a national leader in fuel cell research and development.
Congressman Ralph Regula served with distinction and represented the
16th District of Ohio for over 30 years--in fact, it was 36 years. He
is a native Ohioan, born in Beach City, Ohio, on December 3, 1924.
After high school, Congressman Ralph Regula served in the United States
Navy with distinction and honor in World War II. He later graduated
from college and earned his law degree in Canton, Ohio, at William
McKinley School of Law. He went on to become a lawyer and later a State
legislator.
He was first elected to Congress in 1972 and served 18 consecutive
terms, retiring last year to spend more time with his lovely, lovely
wife, Mary, and college sweetheart, as well as their three children and
four grandchildren.
As much as I wish to claim this as an original idea, I have to give
thanks and credit to Senator Sherrod Brown, who first introduced this
legislation last December before I was sworn in.
It is appropriate that we honor Congressman Ralph Regula with this
bill because in many ways this building would not exist without his
efforts, having laid the groundwork for it many, many years ago.
The Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse will
continue Ralph's legacy, serving Stark
[[Page 14406]]
County for many years to come. It is most fitting and proper to honor
Congressman Regula with this designation.
I support this bill, as amended, and urge its immediate passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the chairman and the sponsor, the gentleman from
Ohio, for sponsoring this legislation. He mentioned the history of Mr.
Regula. He obviously served honorably the people of the 16th District
in Ohio for 18 consecutive terms, from 1973 until last Congress,
becoming the second longest-serving Republican Member in the House, Mr.
Speaker.
Congressman Regula has a great legacy and has had a long and
distinguished career in public service, always, always serving his
country. Early on, he served in I think the most honorable way that one
can ever serve this country, and that is in the Armed Forces, in the
Navy. After completing his legal education, he went into private
practice of law. In the early 1960s, Congressman Regula served as a
member of the Ohio State Board of Education, and then he went on to
serve in the Ohio House of Representatives, also in the Ohio State
Senate prior to his election in the Congress.
Naming this Federal building in Ohio is appropriate to recognize
Congressman Regula's commitment to public service, to his constituents,
and to this Nation. The respect that he earned while serving in
Congress is really demonstrated by what we are seeing today, the fact
that this bill is sponsored by Ohio representatives from both sides of
the aisle.
Again, I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation. I support the
passage of this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Again, this
is a man who has served this country with distinction.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman.
Today, I rise in support of H.R. 1687, legislation to bring well-
deserved recognition to Congressman Ralph Regula, who was first elected
to Congress in 1972.
Congressman Regula retired in January of this year after serving in
Congress for 18 consecutive terms. He had a wealth of experience on the
House Appropriations Committee, serving as chairman of both the Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee and the Interior
Subcommittee.
When I assumed the chairmanship of the House Financial Services
Appropriations Committee in this Congress, Congressman Regula was the
ranking member, and he was a mentor and a partner. I learned a lot
about how to be an effective chairman from Congressman Regula by
watching him in action and talking to him as my ranking member.
As a Member from an urban district, New York City, I also learned a
lot about him and about farming. And I must tell you, I learned
something that may sound funny to some folks, but I learned the
difference between jelly and jam, and he was an expert on the subject.
What I most treasure is his friendship because Congressman Regula was a
true and generous friend to me.
The designation of this Federal building and courthouse in Canton,
Ohio, as the Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse
is an appropriate honor for this man who has devoted his life to public
service. He served in the Navy, was a lawyer, a member of the Ohio
State Board of Education, the Ohio House of Representatives, and the
Ohio State Senate before joining Congress and beginning his many years
of distinguished and dedicated service on behalf of his constituents of
the 16th Congressional District of Ohio.
We are doing something really good today; we are honoring a man who
deserved this. And let me just conclude by saying this: I imagine when
we leave here--when the day comes that I leave here--you want to be
remembered for your work, but I think more than that you want to be
remembered by your colleagues as how you treated them and how you
interacted with them. Ralph Regula was a gentleman. Ralph Regula was a
colleague. Ralph Regula never had anything nasty to say about anyone.
And as I said before, coming from a community where I came from and
coming from a community where he would tell me about driving his pickup
truck and going out to his farm, it was two different worlds, and yet I
learned to admire him, to love him, and to respect him.
And so today I wanted to join this celebration to say thank you to
him. And I know, Mr. Speaker, it's somewhere outside the rules of the
House to speak to a TV audience or to people in the gallery, so I won't
do that, but I suspect that Congressman Regula is watching us today and
needs to know that we care about him, that we care a lot, and that this
is an honor, one of many, that he truly deserves.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for the recognition. And
I want to thank Mr. Boccieri of Ohio for introducing this piece of
legislation.
Mr. Boccieri--I can't call him Congressman Regula's replacement
because nobody can replace Congressman Regula, but he is his successor.
And, unluckily, I also happen to be his successor as the dean of the
Ohio Republican Delegation because in the last two elections you guys
have wiped everybody out, and at eight terms, I'm the head guy on our
side in the State of Ohio.
But, as has been mentioned, Ralph served 36 years here. And 36 years
is the longest that any Republican Member of Congress has served from
the State of Ohio. He had a lot to do, and I think Mr. Petri is going
to talk about his work with the parks when he was the chairman of the
Interior Subcommittee, but Ralph's real gift, when it came to our side
of the aisle at least, back in happier days--and Mr. Boccieri, happier
days are when the Republicans were in the majority, that definition.
Ralph guided us. And if you looked at the Ohio delegation back in the
1990s, most of us were the chairmen of full committees. We had two
cardinals, Mr. Regula and Mr. Hobson of Springfield. And that was all
Ralph's doing. He made a commitment to make sure that there was an
Ohioan on every committee that mattered.
When I was elected--I'm a lawyer by training--I said, Ralph, I think
I would like to be on the Judiciary Committee. And he said, What are
you, nuts? We need a Republican from Ohio on the Transportation
Committee. And he put me there, and it was one of the happiest times of
my life.
There are two things that I want to talk about. Mr. Serrano is right
about his observations, but I came in the Class of 1994, so I'm one of
those Republican revolutionaries that created the first majority since
1954. And Mr. Speaker, you may remember--and others may remember--that
at that time there was a lot of rhetoric in this Chamber and there were
some things that became targets. And parks became targets. But what I
will always remember is that it was the desire on my side of the aisle
to zero-fund things like the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. And I thought that was
misguided, and Congressman Regula, as the chairman of the Interior
Subcommittee, also felt that that was misguided. And as a result,
although those agencies saw reductions during that time, they were
never zeroed out. And I think in this appropriation cycle we will
finally get back to the level of funding that they received prior to
1994.
I will tell you that a few years before Congressman Regula's
retirement he was in line as the most senior guy to become the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee. And he worked very hard at that. He
created an organization called CARE, and worked hard--
[[Page 14407]]
raised a lot of money in what you had to do and all that other
business--and he was denied that honor, that opportunity. I will tell
you that, in my mind, it had a lot to do not with the quality of the
other candidates, who were both excellent. It had a lot to do with the
fact that Ralph had angered people back in the 1990s because he
wouldn't eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, he wouldn't
eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities, he wouldn't agree
to shut down the Department of Education. And as a result, even though
Ralph had a long and distinguished career here, I think he was
punished.
The other thing I want to say about Ralph is his partner, his life
partner, Mary--Mary, of course, is the brains behind the First Ladies'
Library. Mr. Speaker, if you ever happen to be traveling through the
State of Ohio and you have to take a restroom break or you have to get
off and get a soda, stop at the First Ladies' Library, because it
really is an amazing creation that wouldn't be in existence today if it
wasn't for Mary Regula, with the support of her husband, Ralph Regula.
So, Mr. Boccieri, I again want to thank you very much. This is an
amazingly wonderful bipartisan effort on your part, and Senator Brown,
who you mentioned, to name something after somebody who really deserves
to have something named after him. I never have served with a finer
public servant than Congressman Regula. I know that that building will
make him proud, and it should make the citizens of Canton, Ohio, proud
as well. And I thank you for honoring my friend.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I wish to thank the gentleman from Ohio. His remarks were not only
appropriate, they were well-guided in terms of what Mr. Regula meant
not only to our part of Ohio, but what he meant to America.
Campaigning through the district and having the occasion to work with
Congressman Regula while I was in the State legislature, people knew
him not as a conservative, not as a liberal, not as a Democrat or
Republican, but just as Ralph. And that type of leadership, that type
of portrayal of American politics is what we should all rise to
emulate. He was a man of his word, a man of integrity, and a man who
believed in the Constitution. And he told me, he said, When you go to
Congress, John, make sure that you protect the Constitution and, in
particular, the fact that we own the checkbook, we write the checks, we
appropriate the money, we here in Congress are responsible for the
taxpayers' dollars. He was responsible for millions and millions of
dollars coming back to the State of Ohio, whether it was research in
fuel-cell technology or whether it was the First Ladies' Library that
his wife had such a brilliant idea to anchor in our part of Ohio and
the Midwest, or just funding for all the medical research that we're
doing in our State, he was a leader. And he believed in the innovation
and creativity of the American people, and in particular of all
Ohioans. He was a man of great integrity, and someone who obviously I,
as Congressman LaTourette said, would not be able to replace, but
certainly respect as his successor.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentlelady from California,
our Speaker of the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank
him for giving us this opportunity to come to the floor to sing the
praises of our former colleague--we always will have him as a colleague
in our hearts, but former colleague on the floor, Congressman Ralph
Regula of Ohio.
{time} 1815
As many of you know and as has been acknowledged, Ralph Regula served
in the House with great distinction for 38 years of service, 38 years
of service and not only service, great leadership. Last year we sadly
said good-bye to him, but now tonight we will honor him by creating a
longstanding testament to his leadership, designating the courthouse
and Federal building in his hometown of Canton as the Ralph Regula
Federal Building and United States Courthouse.
I want to acknowledge Congressman John Boccieri for his work in
shepherding this legislation through Congress and for doing an
exceptional job, I believe, following in the footsteps of Ralph Regula
in representing Ohio's 16th Congressional District.
Congressman Regula's entire life was devoted to public service and
still is. He was a distinguished Navy veteran of World War II. He
served our country in that way, and he served in both the Ohio Senate
and the Ohio House of Representatives as well as the State Board of
Education. And aren't we fortunate that when he came to Congress, he
was already an experienced legislator with a strong commitment to
educating our children.
Thirty-eight years. Imagine that. Some of our Members weren't even
born when Ralph Regula came to the Congress. Thirty-eight years in the
House of Representatives, earning the distinction of being the second-
longest-serving Republican in the Congress.
Congressman Regula's leadership benefited our entire Nation. It was a
personal privilege for me to work with him on the Appropriations
Committee. I saw firsthand his leadership, his knowledge of the issues,
the respect that he commanded for all who came before him and the
respect he had from both sides of the aisle.
I personally am grateful to him for transforming San Francisco's
former Army base--he was very much a part of doing that--the Presidio,
into one of our Nation's premier parks, and we have honored him on many
occasions in San Francisco, most recently at Fort Baker.
None of us can come together and talk about Ralph Regula without
talking about Mary Regula because they served here in Congress as a
team. Ralph would be the first to say that it was the love of Mary and
their three children and four grandchildren that made his leadership
possible. And we all know that Mary is the one who made a decision that
we would have a National First Ladies' Library in Canton, Ohio, to
honor the contribution to our Nation of the First Ladies of America.
It's a phenomenal thing. She had an idea, she executed it, and now
people can visit and see that important part of American history thanks
to Mary Regula.
Today we honor a great congressional leader, a great friend to all of
us, and a great man. I urge all of my colleagues to understand the
privilege that we have of expressing our appreciation for Ralph
Regula's leadership by supporting this legislation, and I join my
colleagues from Ohio on both sides of the aisle for the honor that we
are paying to Ralph Regula tonight. And I again thank John Boccieri for
shepherding this through the Congress.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I concur with the Speaker's eloquent remarks, especially about Mary,
who champions women in their role in politics. And for my two daughters
who are sitting behind me and the ones I have at home, she has been a
shepherd for all in the 16th District as well as our country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank the previous
speakers, particularly the Speaker of the House for taking the time
from her busy schedule to come down here to honor a distinguished
colleague on the occasion of naming the Federal courthouse in his
hometown after him, and that's the gentleman I had the privilege of
serving with for nearly 30 years and getting to know and one whom I
admire a great deal, and that is Ralph Regula.
You've heard about the spirit with which Ralph Regula approached his
responsibilities as a legislator. It was positive. He worked with all
Members of this body, and he did what he thought was in the best
interest of this country and this institution.
[[Page 14408]]
You learn a lot about Members of this body when you visit their
districts. And my wife and young daughter and I had the habit, as we
would drive back to Wisconsin for the August break, of picking a
different route across the country and taking a few extra days and
stopping to see historic and interesting places and making it an
educational and fun thing rather than just an ordeal to go across the
country. And one year we decided to go through and visit John
Seiberling, another colleague in Akron, Ohio, from a distinguished
family, Seiberling Tire and all that, and he had his home which they
had lost in the Depression, Stan Hywet, which is one of the largest
private homes in the United States.
And in the course of doing that, he took us through the thing, and I
discovered that he and Ralph Regula had worked together for many years
to create what is now, I believe, the largest national park east of the
Mississippi, the Cuyahoga. I know they were both tremendously proud of
that. It was a wonderful opportunity for that area of Ohio because
there are large cities on various sides of this and it provides
recreational and other opportunities for a large population. And if
they had not acted when they did, it might not be there today. It was
done by those two Representatives working as best they could with
colleagues in both political parties and will stand, I think, as a
lasting monument to their joint efforts on behalf of our country and
certainly the people of their region in Ohio.
Ralph and Mary were and are a great team. And one other thing I think
I might mention, Ralph is kind of a gentleman farmer, I guess, and he
used to spend a lot of time working there, and he loved his
grandchildren and family and all of that. But Ronald Reagan was kind of
a gentleman farmer, too. He had this ranch out in California where he
cleared brush and was trying to develop it. And it turned out that he
and Ralph were talking over at the White House for some reason about
some other things, and Reagan discovered that Ralph was going back to
work on some fencing on his farm and he asked him if he could explain
how he did it. So Ralph came back to a meeting afterward and said that
Reagan had taken careful notes and everything else and then a week or
two later gave him, I think, a signed copy of the instructions that
Ralph had given to him, that it was a good fence.
Ralph did a great job and it's an appropriate honor. I strongly
support the passage of this legislation.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, just a few more comments and I think we
will be wrapping this up very soon.
To piggyback on what the gentleman was suggesting, as I said earlier,
Ralph was not known as a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a
liberal; he was just known as ``Ralph.'' I remember, in some closing
remarks at a recent banquet that we were at, I was telling folks, and I
feel at liberty to say this, I'm a freshman Member here, that this
collegiality that we are sharing right now becomes few and far between
at times and we need to return this Chamber, this body, our dialogue to
that kind of respect for each other, where we may disagree on ideas, as
Democrats and Republicans, we both believe in the end goal. And like a
married couple, we may argue about how we get to the end destination,
taking this exit ramp, that road, but at the end of the day, like a
married couple, we always end up where we need to go. And we need to
respect that. And I think that this bill respects the service of Ralph
Regula and his contributions to northeast Ohio, and in particular what
it will mean to the people of Stark County who go there to find relief
and find help from their government. And every day they walk into that
building, that building that's being built right now, they will see his
designation, his name, and it will be a remembrance of what he meant.
Just one last comment, Mr. Speaker. This district that I am currently
representing and serving in is, by all measures, arguably a swing
district. It has Democrat and Republican registrations, even
Independents inside the race. But yet he held this district for 36
years, and the Congressman before him held this district for 18 years,
and the other Federal building in the city is named after him, Frank T.
Bow. And so what this says is that the people of northeast Ohio, in
particular the 16th District, they respect legislators, they respect
Congressmen like Ralph Regula and his predecessor because they believe
in our greatest asset, which is our people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
I want to echo the words of the gentleman from Ohio. I think they
were very well-stated. I also want to thank the Speaker of the House
for coming down today and speaking in such well-deserved words but kind
words to a man that really loved this institution, loved this country,
and served both so very well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1687, as amended, introduced by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), designates the building located at
McKinley Avenue and Third Streets, SW. in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph
Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. The bill has
broad bipartisan support.
The designation honors the exemplary public service of our former
colleague from Canton, Ohio, Ralph Regula. Ralph represented the 16th
district of Ohio for 36 years, from January 3, 1973 to January 3, 2009.
Former President Gerald Ford, while serving as the House leader,
recommended Ralph Regula for an appointment to the Committee on
Appropriations. He served with distinction on the Subcommittee on the
Interior and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services.
Ralph Strauss Regula was born in Beach City, Ohio, on December 3,
1924. During World War II, Congressman Regula served in the United
States Navy. He later went on to earn a B.A. from Mount Union College
in 1948, and then graduated from the William McKinley School of Law in
Canton, Ohio, in 1952.
Congressman Regula served in many different capacities in his long
tenure in public service. He was a member of the Ohio State Board of
Education from 1960-1964. Regula was then elected to the Ohio State
House of Representatives from 1965-1967, and subsequently served in the
Ohio State Senate in 1967-1972. He then went on to be elected to the
U.S. House of Representatives in the 93rd Congress, and served for 36
years.
Congressman Regula last served as the ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government, and was one of the longest serving Republican Members of
Congress. Congressman Regula retired at the end of the 110th Congress
after a career of nearly 50 years of public service. Congressman Regula
is married to Mary Regula and has three children and four
grandchildren.
It is most fitting and proper to honor Congressman Regula with this
designation.
I support H.R. 1687, as amended, and urge its passage.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1687 . . .
to commemorate the career and service of our friend and colleague,
Congressman Ralph Regula, by designating the Federal Building and U.S.
courthouse in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph Regula Federal Building and
United States Courthouse.''
For 38 years, Congressman Ralph Regula was a dedicated public servant
and champion for Ohio.
While I served only one term with Congressman Regula, I worked with
him long enough to recognize his strong and dedicated service to our
country, as well as his great love for Ohio.
Congressman Regula is the consummate public servant. His career of
service began long before the 38 years that he dedicated to this House.
After graduating from high school, he served in the Navy during
World War II.
Congressman Regula continued his public service as a member of the
Ohio State Board of Education. He went on to serve in the Ohio House
and the Ohio Senate. When he arrived in Congress in 1973, Congressman
Regula's greatest years of serving our country were still ahead of him.
His leadership was apparent immediately. As a freshman member,
alongside Congressman John Seiberling, he fought hard to have President
Ford establish the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area.
Congressman Regula continued his fight to help build and protect the
Cuyahoga Valley over the next 34 years of his career.
In 1974, Congressman Regula said ``. . . we could be the architects
in preserving this
[[Page 14409]]
heritage for future generations; it goes far beyond today in terms of
the potential.''
Today, that potential has been fully recognized.
The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is one of the most heavily visited
national parks in the country.
It is one of the great treasures Congressman Regula has left us. And,
I am privileged to be able to carry on his efforts to continue to
preserve and expand the Park.
I want to thank Senator Brown and Congressman Boccieri for leading
the effort on this bill.
No one is more deserving of this great honor than Congressman Regula.
He left a great legacy for all of us to live up to.
It is clear that the citizens of Canton and the 16th congressional
district are eternally grateful for his endless contributions.
I thank him for his service, and I am glad to be a part of this
effort to recognize his importance by helping to pass this bill.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kissell). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1687, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE RECREATIONAL BOATING COMMUNITY
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 410) recognizing the numerous
contributions of the recreational boating community and the boating
industry to the continuing prosperity and affluence of the United
States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 410
Whereas the boating community in the United States includes
over 59,000,000 individuals, generates more than
$33,000,000,000 annually in the United States economy, and
provides jobs for 337,000 citizens of the United States who
earn wages totaling $10,400,000,000 annually;
Whereas boaters often serve as stewards of the marine
environment of the United States, educating future
generations of the value of these resources, and preserving
such resources for such generations' enjoyment;
Whereas there are approximately 1,400 active boat builders
in the United States, using materials and services
contributed from all 50 States;
Whereas boating, as an activity, provides opportunities for
families to be together, appeals to all age groups, and has a
beneficial effect on the physical fitness and scholastic
performance of those who participate; and
Whereas, July 1, 2009, would be an appropriate day to
establish as National Boating Day: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) the recreational boating community and the boating
industry of the United States should be commended for their
numerous contributions to the economy of the United States,
the well-being of United States citizens, and responsible
environmental stewardship of the marine resources of the
United States; and
(2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on
the people of the United States to observe National Boating
Day with appropriate programs and activities that emphasize
family involvement and provide an opportunity to promote the
boating industry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House
Resolution 410.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 410, recognizing the
numerous contributions of the recreational boating community and the
boating industry to the continuing prosperity and affluence of the
United States.
This bipartisan resolution was introduced by Representatives Ron
Klein of Florida and Henry Brown of South Carolina, along with the co-
Chairs of the Congressional Boating Caucus, Representatives Gene Taylor
of Mississippi and Candice Miller of Michigan.
House Resolution 410 honors the 59 million boaters in the United
States. As evidenced by the bipartisan cosponsors of this resolution,
American boaters span all across the country, including my constituents
in Washington State who take to the waters of the Puget Sound.
{time} 1830
Boating provides a great activity for thousands of families, Mr.
Speaker, on our lakes and certainly on our great coasts--to fish, to
dive, to snorkel or to simply enjoy America's stunning natural marine
resources.
Boating isn't just a recreational activity. The boating industry is
one of America's great industries that includes about 1,400 active boat
builders in the United States, including many in my district, using
materials and services contributed from all 50 States. These are
American jobs that are creating a uniquely American product. Additional
jobs include electricians, carpenters, painters, and engineers who work
to repair or to refit recreational vessels--along with all the crew
members and employees at our many marinas and harbors.
When taken together, boating in America generates more than $33
million annually for our economy, and it provides 337,000 jobs,
totaling $10.4 billion in wages every year. For these reasons, I am
urging my colleagues to support House Resolution 410.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of House Resolution 410, a resolution recognizing
the recreational boating community and industries.
I now recognize for as much time as he may consume our colleague from
South Carolina, Mr. Henry Brown.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for House Resolution
410, legislation I was proud to introduce with Representative Klein. As
the Representative for 75 percent of South Carolina's coast and for
many of my State's recreational and commercial boaters, I am proud of
this resolution, which recognizes the numerous contributions of the
recreational boating community and of the boating industry.
Boating is big business in the State of South Carolina, with more
than $826 million in sales a year and with nearly 9,000 boating
industry employees across the State. Boats are owned by families of all
income levels in communities across my State and the Nation. In my
district alone, there are 82,441 registered recreational boats, and
there are 145 boating businesses which range from small charter
operations and marinas to major boat engine manufacturers at Cummins
Marine, an employer of hundreds of my constituents.
Nationally, the recreational boating community includes over 59
million Americans, and it makes a significant impact on our economy.
Boaters also serve as stewards of the marine environment as the boating
community has a long history of educating future generations on the
value of these resources and on how to preserve them for their
enjoyment. Additionally, through annual motorboat fuel taxes, boaters
contribute more than $100 million towards
[[Page 14410]]
fish restoration and towards other environmental programs.
More than anything else, boating is important to American families as
it provides opportunities for them to spend quality time together. It
appeals to all age groups, and it has the beneficial effect on the
physical fitness and scholastic performance of those who participate.
At the request of my constituent, Mr. Bill Hanahan, I worked to
include language in this resolution, marking the important role that
boating plays for American families. As Mr. Hanahan said, Joining
family and friends on the water is a great way to escape the chaos of
our busy lives, create quality memories together and appreciate nature
in all its glory.
Boating does just that, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
support this resolution.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to
yield 4 minutes to the cosponsor of this resolution, Mr. Klein of
Florida.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) for yielding me time, and I also want to
commend him for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 410, a resolution I
introduced with my friend from South Carolina, the Honorable Henry
Brown, along with the distinguished co-Chairs of the Congressional
Boating Caucus, the Honorable Gene Taylor from Mississippi and the
Honorable Candice Miller from Michigan.
Our resolution highlights the important contributions of the
recreational boating community and the boating industry as to the
quality of our lives and as to our continued economic prosperity. I
urge President Obama to issue a proclamation calling upon the American
people to observe July 1 as National Boating Day.
Boating is a famous symbol for south Florida, where I come from, and
for other parts around the country. Millions of residents in our
community and tourists take to the waters of south Florida to boat, to
fish, to dive, to snorkel, and to view scenic tours along our pristine
coastline and along our unique intercoastal waterway. Palm Beach County
alone has over 40,000 registered boaters. Fort Lauderdale's majestic
canals have earned it the nickname ``the Venice of America.''
The significance of the boating community is not only symbolic. The
industry is a major economic engine in Florida, responsible for over
$2.8 billion in direct sales and for 30,000 jobs State-wide. In my
district alone, there are over 34,000 registered boats. The industry
produces $193 million, and it employs over 2,000 of my constituents.
As everyone here knows, the contributions of the boating community
extend far beyond the Sunshine State. The boating community includes 59
million people and 13.6 million registered boats throughout the United
States. In addition, the recreational boating industry provides more
than $37 billion in sales and in services to the U.S. economy, and it
provides over 300,000 jobs throughout our country.
One need only look at the geographic diversity among members of the
Congressional Boating Caucus, of which I am a proud member, to measure
the broad influence and contributions of the boating community and of
the boating industry. Members come from 33 States, including Tennessee,
Pennsylvania, Kansas, and West Virginia.
Clearly, boating is not just a coastal pastime. It is an American
pastime. Boating also brings us closer to our natural resources and
treasures. I strongly believe that an appreciation for environmental
stewardship comes through an interaction with nature. For example, it's
hard to comprehend the beauty of our coral reefs until you see it under
water with your own eyes through a boat. Once you do, you begin to
understand their importance and the need to protect them for the
continued health of our oceans.
Boating gives us these cherished opportunities to commune with
nature, and it should be no surprise that boaters can be impassioned
stewards of the environment, teaching future generations of boaters to
have a healthy respect and appreciation for our natural resources.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.
Res. 410, and I thank the gentleman from Washington again for bringing
H. Res. 410 to the floor.
I urge its passage.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our
colleague from Indiana, Representative Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his
leadership on Transportation and for the time to speak on this bill.
As a member of the Boating Caucus, since we first formed this, I am
really pleased to be supportive of this resolution. In northeast
Indiana, basically, I represent a lot of water with plants and farms in
between.
In Kosciusko County, we have 100 lakes. In Steuben County, we have
100 lakes. Along this ridge, one water system heads towards Lake Erie;
one water system heads towards Lake Michigan, and the other goes down
into the Mississippi Valley. Because of geological potholes basically
connected together, sometimes through small dams and sometimes in
natural larger lakes, we have the bulk of the lakes in Indiana. It is
when the glaciers pulled back. So in this zone, I would guess we may
have 40 to 60 percent of the natural lakes in the State of Indiana.
Some have been, historically in United States' history, big
attractions, not necessarily as big a tourist attraction as in Florida
or as in Wisconsin or, for that matter, as in Washington State, but
Winona Lake was a big Chautauqua area.
In Kosciusko County, we have a number of State parks on these lakes,
and so we're proud to bring in lots of regional tourism and people who
enjoy them. They're sometimes lined up to get to the open space on our
lakes in Indiana.
Yet, as the number one manufacturing district in the United States--I
can't remember the latest figures--I believe we're fifth in the
manufacturing of boats. Many of those boats go down to Florida and to
the coasts. The inboard-outboard engine and the jet engine were both
invented in my district, working with Volvo in Sweden. Many of the
larger boat companies are based there--everything from float boats to
fishing boats to high-powered speedboats. It is a critical part of our
district. It has been a pleasure to work with the boating industry as
we work on how to get retail floor plan financing for boats.
We hear a lot right now about GM and Chrysler--the auto companies. I
represent Elkhart County, along with Congressman Joe Donnelly. We've
been working to make sure of the RV industry, 58 percent of which is
there; but if you'll notice and look carefully at the retail floor plan
financing and at SBA and at what they've done through TALF and other
things, you'll see it says cars, trucks, RVs, motorcycles, and boats,
because the same challenge that we're facing in the auto industry is
true for the boating industry, which is how do we make sure there are
adequate boats being purchased from manufacturers; how do we make sure
there is the financing to keep them afloat, and then how do we make
sure of the dealers. If they can only get one-fourth of their normal
inventory there, here in this peak season for selling boats, it isn't
going to work.
So this is a very unusual time and an important time for the boating
industry. Not only are we entering the summer season in the Great Lakes
region and in other areas of the country where boating and recreation
are at a peak, but it's also a time of survival. It is probably the
biggest challenge to the boat manufacturers since the luxury tax nearly
sunk them years ago.
So I stand, honored to speak on behalf of this resolution because
it's very important that we call to the attention of the American
people not only the great pleasures of recreational boating but also
the importance of having our boating industry survive.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers.
So, at this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 14411]]
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I fully support House Resolution 410, and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 410,
introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), which recognizes
the recreational boating community and boating industry for their
contributions to the national economy and urges the President to issue
a proclamation to observe July 1, 2009 as National Boating Day.
In the United States, the boating community consists of over 59
million people and over 13 million registered recreational boats. The
boating community supports over 330,000 American jobs with total wages
totaling approximately $10.4 billion a year. There are approximately
1400 boat builders in the United States that construct and repair boats
using materials and services from all 50 States. In addition,
recreational boating and the boating industry contribute over $33
billion to the American economy annually.
In my state of Minnesota, there are over 866,000 registered boats--
the third largest number of boats of any state in the country. In fact,
Minnesota has the most boats per capita of any state: there is one boat
for every six people.
Whether it is on the river, a lake, along the ocean, inter-coastal or
intra-coastal waterway, recreational boaters support and depend on over
12,000 marinas all across the United States.
Recreational boating is an American pas-time. It is a family activity
that appeals to all age groups and is a constructive outlet for
entertainment. Whether water skiing, snorkeling, fishing, or just
relaxing on the water, boating is a perfect reason to turn off the
television and put away the video games and to bring families and
friends closer together. For these reasons, July 1, 2009, should be
established as National Boating Day.
I support H. Res. 410, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.
Res. 410. This resolution commends the recreational boating industry
and boating community for their sizable contribution to the economy of
United States, and for their stewardship of the environment.
There are more than 59 million boaters in the United States today,
helping to generate $33 billion dollars annually in economic activity.
As a result, the boating industry supports an estimated 337,000
employees, who manufacture and sell boats and operate the harbors and
marinas. The goods and services purchased to build and maintain boats
come from each of the fifty states. Therefore, boating does not only
help the water regions of our country, but benefits America as a whole.
That having been said, the boating industry and community are
especially important to Michigan and to Michigan's economy. They
provide invaluable assets to my district, which has Lakes Huron and St.
Clair and the St. Clair River on its eastern border. Boating is not
just an important recreational opportunity; for many, life on the water
becomes a way of life. The impact of boating spills over into other
sectors of the economy like tourism and hospitality industries.
Unfortunately, when the economy falters, it is often the recreational
boating industry that feels the impact first. Many people think of
boating as a recreation for only the rich, but in Michigan we know that
is simply not the case. The people who make the boating industry what
it is are the working class individuals who spend their weekends out on
the water with friends and family. When those people face economic
challenges, you will find that the boating industry does as well.
In this climate, the boating industry is facing some difficult times,
nowhere more difficult than in the state of Michigan. In Michigan, we
were once the number one state in terms of total boat registrations,
but we have since slipped to fourth. Given the challenges that have
faced the Michigan economy over the last few years, this is no
surprise. The boat manufacturers, dealers, and marina operators should
all be commended for their efforts to keep going through this economic
period.
Since coming to Congress, I have worked to promote issues that are
important to maintaining a thriving and profitable boating industry. I
am proud to co-chair of the Congressional Boating Caucus with Gene
Taylor, and together we have worked on a number of issues to help the
boating industry weather the storms that have come its way. This
resolution will acknowledge the contributions of the boating industry
as they fight through this difficult time.
I urge all of you to please join with me in supporting this bi-
partisan initiative to recognize our boaters and recommend that
President Obama issue a proclamation calling for the observation of
National Boating Day.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to
support House Resolution 410, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 410.
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.
____________________
SUPPORTING NATIONAL PIPELINE SAFETY DAY
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 484) expressing support for
designation of June 10th as ``National Pipeline Safety Day''.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 484
Whereas there are more than 2,000,000 miles of gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines in this country operated by over
3,000 companies;
Whereas these pipelines play a vital role in the lives of
people in the United States by delivering the energy we need
to heat our homes, drive our cars, cook our food and operate
our businesses;
Whereas in the past decade significant new pipelines have
been built to help move North American sources of oil and gas
to refineries and markets;
Whereas, on June 10, 1999, a hazardous liquid pipeline
ruptured and exploded in a park in Bellingham, Washington,
killing two 10-year-old boys and a young man, destroying a
salmon stream, and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in
damages and economic disruption;
Whereas in response to this June 10th pipeline tragedy
Congress passed significant new pipeline safety regulations
in the form of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
and the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and
Safety Act of 2006;
Whereas in the past decade the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, with support from a diverse group of
stakeholders, has instituted a variety of important new rules
and pipeline safety initiatives such as the Common Ground
Alliance, pipeline emergency training with the National
Association of State Fire Marshals, and the Pipelines and
Informed Planning Alliance;
Whereas even with all these new pipeline safety
improvements, in 2008 alone there were still 274 significant
pipeline incidents causing over $395,000,000 in property
damage and uncounted economic disruption;
Whereas even though pipelines are the safest method to
transport huge quantities of fuel, pipeline incidents such as
the 1994 pipeline explosion in Edison, New Jersey that left
100 people homeless, the 1996 butane pipeline explosion in
Texas that left 2 teenagers dead, the 2000 pipeline explosion
near Carlsbad, New Mexico, that killed 12 people in an
extended family, the 2004 pipeline explosion in Walnut Creek,
California, that killed 5 workers, and the 2007 propane
pipeline explosion in Mississippi that killed a teenager and
her grandmother are still occurring;
Whereas these millions of miles of pipelines are still out
of sight and therefore out of mind for the majority of
individuals, local governments, and businesses, leading to
pipeline damage and general lack of oversight;
Whereas greater awareness of pipelines and pipeline safety
can improve public safety;
Whereas a ``National Pipeline Safety Day'' can provide a
focal point for creating greater pipeline safety awareness;
and
Whereas June 10, 2009, is the 10th anniversary of the
Bellingham, Washington, pipeline tragedy that was the impetus
for many of the above-mentioned safety improvements and would
be an appropriate day to designate as ``National Pipeline
Safety Day'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the designation of National Pipeline Safety
Day;
(2) encourages State and local governments to observe the
day with appropriate activities that promote pipeline safety;
(3) encourages all pipeline safety stakeholders to use this
day to create greater public awareness of all the
advancements that can lead to even greater pipeline safety;
and
(4) encourages individuals across the Nation to become more
aware of the pipelines that run through our communities and
do what they can to encourage safe practices and damage
prevention.
[[Page 14412]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House
Resolution 484.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask the House of Representatives to
support the designation of June 10, tomorrow, as National Pipeline
Safety Day. There are more than 2 million miles of gas and hazardous
liquid pipelines in our country. Pipelines play a vital role in the
lives of the American people by delivering the energy we need to heat
our homes, to drive our cars, to cook our food, and to operate our
businesses.
In the past decade, significant new pipelines have been built to help
move oil and gas to refineries and to markets. These pipelines are
invisible to most people and, therefore, are out of sight and are out
of mind. This can lead to pipeline damage and to a general lack of
government oversight.
On June 10 of 1999, a pipeline leak caused a massive explosion in my
district in Bellingham, Washington. The rupture released more than a
quarter of a million gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. The
gasoline ignited, sending a fireball racing down the creek, which
killed two 10-year-old boys and an 18-year-old man. The two boys--
Stephen Tsiorvas and Wade King--were playing in the creek on a summer
day, near their homes, and 18-year-old Liam Wood had just graduated
from high school and was fly fishing for trout.
{time} 1845
Previous generations certainly ask themselves, Where were you when
President Kennedy was shot? But in my district, people literally ask
the question and know the answer to, Where were you when the pipeline
exploded? It had that much of an impact in my district.
In response to this tragedy and several other pipeline explosions
across the country, Congress passed legislation to strengthen pipeline
safety regulations. The 2002 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act increased
penalty fines, improved pipeline testing timelines, provided
whistleblower protection, and allowed for State oversight. In 2006,
Congress reauthorized the 2002 law by passing the Pipeline Inspection,
Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act, or the PIPES Act. Since that
day in June, we've made significant progress in ensuring the safety of
our Nation's pipelines. The frequency of so-called ``high-consequence
events'' to pipelines has diminished almost 35 percent in the last 10
years. Due to the integrity management program required by the new law,
pipeline operators have made extensive repairs to their pipelines that
otherwise would have led to future accidents.
The 811 One-Call program now provides a number that people can call
before they dig to make sure that they won't hit a pipeline when they
do dig. ``Call 811, the One-Call program.'' And Congress has
significantly increased the number of pipeline inspectors in the field.
However, we must remain vigilant. That's why I have introduced House
Resolution 484, a resolution to recognize tomorrow, June 10, 2009, the
10-year anniversary of the Bellingham pipeline explosion, as National
Pipeline Safety Day. My resolution encourages individuals, State and
local governments, and pipeline safety stakeholders to use this day to
create greater public awareness of pipelines and pipeline safety. It
has the support of Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire, the
Whatcom County Council, the Pipeline Safety Trust, the Pipeline
Association for Public Awareness, the American Gas Association and the
American Public Gas Association.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do encourage my colleagues to support
House Resolution 484.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
I would like to express my support for House Resolution 484,
designating June 10 as National Pipeline Safety Day, and yield such
time as he may consume to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the
gentleman for his generosity with the time.
I rise in support of this resolution, designating National Pipeline
Safety Month. Mr. Speaker, pipelines obviously play an important role
in our society through the operation of our homes, our businesses, and
the delivery of energy to drive our cars, to cook our food, to keep us
warm in the winter and cool in the summer. It is an undeniable reality
that energy affects all aspects of our lives, and all Americans need it
and depend on energy.
That's why it's unfortunate that some in the majority and in the
administration, frankly, are proposing this cap-and-trade legislation
that many are calling cap-and-tax legislation that would dramatically
increase the cost of energy for all Americans, every single American.
Estimates say that this bill could increase a cost to a family of four
close to $3,000 a year, $2,937 a year, to be exact, and raise
electrical rates on families by 90 percent after adjusting for
inflation, boost gasoline prices by 74 percent on American families,
and natural gas prices by 54 percent. If that were not bad enough, it
would also put American businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage
with their competitors from other countries that don't pursue that kind
of legislation, be it China or India.
Now let's take a look at what some key players in the administration
have recently stated about this legislation, some facts. For example,
Peter Orszag, as CBO director and currently as the OMB director,
testified to the Ways and Means Committee on September 18, 2008. He
said, ``Decreasing emission would also impose costs on the economy.
Much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of
higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods.''
Mr. Orszag's written testimony stated that the average annual
household cost was $1,300. That's for a 15 percent cut in
CO2 emissions, which, by the way, happens to be 80 percent
less than the cut sought by this administration.
Another fact. On March 17, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu,
testifying before the Science Committee said, ``The cap-and-trade bill
will likely increase the cost of electricity.''
Another fact I would like to bring up today, Energy Secretary Steven
Chu said advocating adjusting trade duties as a ``weapon'' to protect
U.S. manufacturing, because otherwise, again, U.S. manufacturing would
be put at a huge disadvantage. He said establishing a carbon tariff
would help ``level the playing field'' if other countries haven't
imposed mandatory reductions in carbon emissions; again, referring to
the fact that it would put our industry at a huge, huge disadvantage.
Again Mr. Chu said, ``If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon,
then we will be at a disadvantage,'' and he went on to say, ``and we
would look at considering duties to offset that cost.'' But the
legislation doesn't have those in the bill.
Again, what we are looking at then is, the United States will impose
a self-inflicted wound to put our industry and our country at a huge
disadvantage, increasing costs of energy to all consumers in this great
country of ours at a time in particular when everybody is hurting.
Last month on May 21, the current CBO director testified before the
House Budget Committee and said, ``CBO has been very clear that a cap-
and-trade system or a carbon tax would raise the price of carbon
emissions, and the cost would ultimately be borne by households.''
Again, it's not rocket science,
[[Page 14413]]
Mr. Speaker. And again, ``It's also widely understood that if we raise
the price of carbon emissions and our trading partners do not, then
that creates an additional challenge for carbon-emitting industries.''
Those are his words. I added that part about the rocket science, to be
fair; but those are his words.
So it's fitting that we are now here talking about pipelines and
energy. I just hope that we don't forget the big picture as well and
that we don't impose this huge cost on our consumers and those who use
gasoline and turn on lights, like everybody does, that manufactures
using energy, like every industry does, that we don't put them at a
huge disadvantage.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the parents of the
three young men who died in the explosion would be very interested to
hear the thoughts of the gentleman from Florida on energy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution highlights the need
to properly maintain pipelines and encourages the development of
pipeline safety programs. I support the passage of this resolution and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Petri and
Mr. Mica as well as Mr. Young, Mr. Oberstar, and Ms. Brown for all
their help in putting this resolution together and getting it to the
floor today. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 484.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 484,
introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), which
expresses support for designating June 10th as ``National Pipeline
Safety Day''.
Pipelines have a critical place in our national infrastructure. The
national pipeline network of over 2.2 million miles efficiently
delivers gasoline, natural gas, oil, and other essential energy
products across the country each day. However, because of the volatile
nature of the products they deliver, if pipelines are not properly
cared for, or they are carelessly tampered with, there can be serious
consequences.
That is what occurred in 1986 in Mounds View, Minnesota, when a
Williams pipeline ruptured. Vaporized gasoline combined with air and
liquid gasoline flowed along neighborhood streets. About 20 minutes
after the accident occurred, the gasoline vapor was ignited when an
automobile entered the area. Fire spread rapidly along the path of the
liquid gasoline, killing a woman and her daughter and severely burning
another victim. According to accident investigators, there were known
deficiencies in the cathodic protection applied to the first 10 miles
of the pipeline and Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 484,
introduced by the corrosion to the weld seams. Employees also had
failed to shut-off the manually operated gate valve until one and half
hours into the spill.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), had the
valve been remotely operable or had remote-operated valves been
installed on the line at the time of the accident, the pipeline could
have been shut down by the dispatcher soon after the failure was
detected, thereby decreasing substantially the amount of product
released into the neighborhood. Ignition of the fuel may not have been
prevented; however, the extent and severity of the damage could have
been reduced.
The NTSB first identified the need for rapid shutdown of failed
pipelines to limit the release of product following a pipeline rupture
in a 1970 study, entitled ``Effects of Delay in Shutting Down Failed
Pipeline Systems and Methods of Providing Rapid Shutdown''. Since then,
a number of accidents that highlight the need to reduce the release of
hazardous gases or liquids have occurred. In 1995, the NTSB recommended
that the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) expedite requirements for rapid shutdown of
failed pipeline segments on high-pressure pipelines in high-consequence
areas.
However, RSPA failed to act on the NTSB's recommendations, opting
instead to further study the issue. That prompted Congress to pass the
Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-304),
which required the Secretary of Transportation to assess the
effectiveness of remotely operated valves and to prescribe standards,
within two years of enactment, for installation of the valves based on
that assessment. The regulations were not issued until 2001--too late
for the victims of the 1999 hazardous liquid pipeline explosion in
Bellingham, Washington.
The June 10, 1999, explosion caused the release of about 237,000
gallons of gasoline into a creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park
in Bellingham, Washington. The gasoline ignited, sending a fireball
about 1.5 miles down the creek, which took the lives of two 10-year-old
boys, Stephen Tsiorvas and Wade King, and an 18-year-old young man,
Liam Wood. Eight additional inhalation injuries occurred, a single-
family residence and the city of Bellingham's water treatment plant
were severely damaged, and the wildlife in Whatcom Creek was completely
destroyed.
Investigators found, among other things, that Olympic Pipe Line had
no remote-operated shut off valves on the line, which could have
prevented the release of hundreds of thousands of gasoline and the loss
of three young lives. Following the Bellingham accident, RSPA ordered
the pipeline company to install an automatic check valve just
downstream of the rupture location so that the volume of product
released would be limited in the event of a future pipeline rupture in
that area. Again, a case of too little, too late.
Pipeline accidents, such as the ones in Mounds View and Bellingham,
are not isolated incidents. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which now oversees the safety
of our nation's pipeline infrastructure, 2,888 significant pipeline
incidents occurred between 1999-2008, resulting in 173 fatalities, 632
injuries, and $2.7 billion in property damage.
In response to these incidents, Congress passed the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-355), which increased penalties for
violations of safety standards; developed qualification programs for
employees who perform sensitive tasks; strengthened pipeline testing
requirements; required government mapping of the pipeline system;
established a public education program for communities that live around
pipelines; and enhanced whistleblower protections.
In 2006, Congress furthered these pipeline safety efforts by passing
the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act (P.L.
109-468), which required development of an integrity management program
for distribution pipelines; implemented long-standing NTSB safety
recommendations on the installation of excess flow valves, development
of hours-of-service standards for pipeline employees, and adoption of
safety standards for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
systems; and increased pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel.
Despite these significant measures, much work remains to be done.
PHMSA has not implemented many of the mandates from the 2006 Act. Over
the next several months, as we look to reauthorization of the pipeline
safety program in fiscal year 2011, we will work with PHMSA to ensure
full implementation of the Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res.
484.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 484.
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 NATIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 502) recognizing National Homeownership Month and
the importance of homeownership in the United States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 502
Whereas the month of June is recognized as National
Homeownership Month;
Whereas the people of the United States are one of the
best-housed populations in the world;
Whereas owning a home is a fundamental part of the American
dream and is the largest personal investment many families
will ever make;
Whereas homeownership provides economic security for
homeowners by aiding them in building wealth over time and
strengthens communities through a greater stake among
homeowners in local schools, civic organizations, and
churches;
[[Page 14414]]
Whereas creating affordable homeownership opportunities
requires the commitment and cooperation of the private,
public, and nonprofit sectors, including the Federal
Government and State and local governments;
Whereas homeownership can be sustained through appropriate
homeownership education and informed borrowers; and
Whereas affordable homeownership will play a vital role in
resolving the crisis in the United States housing market:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) fully supports the goals and ideals of National
Homeownership Month;
(2) recognizes the importance of homeownership in building
strong communities and families; and
(3) reaffirms the importance of homeownership in the
Nation's economy and its central role in our national
economic recovery.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G.
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation which recognizes
June as National Homeownership Month. As Chair of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity, I am indeed committed to good public
policy that will assist citizens to realize the American dream of
homeownership. I would like to thank Representative Gary Miller for his
continued leadership on ensuring that this resolution comes to the
floor every year. This is the seventh time that he has introduced this
resolution, and I appreciate his commitment to America's homeowners.
Preserving homeownership is more important today than ever before, with
foreclosures reaching record levels and millions more Americans
struggling to stay in their homes. Homeownership has historically been
the single most important wealth-building tool available to families in
this country. However, homeownership, as we know it, is at risk. The
foreclosure crisis has all but erased the gains we have made in
increasing homeownership rates, especially for minorities; and the
gains those families thought they had achieved through increases in
home equity have also diminished as now 20 percent of homeowners owe
more on their homes than they are worth.
The combination of unemployment, unsustainable and predatory
mortgages, and uncooperative mortgage servicers has created a perfect
storm of record rates, of loan defaults and foreclosures. According to
the Mortgage Bankers Association, a record 12 percent of mortgages are
either in default or in foreclosure. According to the Center For
Responsible Lending, 6,500 foreclosures occur each day in the United
States. By the end of 2009, there will be 2.4 million families in
foreclosure. We must keep families in their homes, and this Congress
and the administration have developed programs to do just that. For
example, the Making Home Affordable program, announced by President
Barack Obama in March, builds on legislation I introduced at the
beginning of this Congress to end this unending avalanche of
foreclosures.
Despite the commitment from the administration and Congress to reduce
foreclosures, mortgage servicers have been reluctant to modify troubled
loans. In fact, NeighborWorks recently found in its survey of housing
counseling agencies that servicers are generally uncooperative. They
take up to 60 days to respond to requests and frequently lose important
documents. In order to be true to the spirit of National Homeownership
Month, I call on all mortgage servicers to fully participate in the
Making Home Affordable program and to work with families to maintain
their ownership.
Vulnerable homeowners are also threatened by scam artists who offer
to rescue or help struggling homeowners stay in their homes for an
exorbitant fee that must be paid up front. They often deliver either
nothing or a higher payment than the homeowner was paying before
contacting these companies. The Federal Trade Commission has begun to
crack down on these scammers, and I support these efforts.
Prospective homeowners are also caught up in this economic crisis.
Because they have no other home to sell, first-time homebuyers have the
ability to help stabilize housing prices and neighborhoods. Housing
experts are saying that now is the time to buy, but many first-time
homebuyers are finding themselves locked out of the housing market.
Many families who would otherwise be buying homes now lack the required
down payment. Fortunately, the recently enacted $8,000 tax credit for
first-time homebuyers is now being monetized so that these homeowners
can use it to pay closing costs or to assist with their down payment.
America's homeowners face many challenges this month and will face
many more this year. This resolution demonstrates this Congress'
commitment to assisting them and first-time homebuyers in achieving the
American dream of homeownership.
{time} 1900
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the month of June is recognized as National
Homeownership Month. On June 3, 2009, I introduced this bipartisan
resolution with 12 of my colleagues, including the ranking member, and
I would like to thank Maxine Waters. As I recall, you have been here
every time on the floor speaking with me. You are an ardent supporter
of housing. You understand the benefit of that to communities and how
it really helps people who need homes.
We are in a tough time, but we need to acknowledge the importance of
homeownership in building strong communities and families. Owning a
home is a fundamental part of the American Dream and is the largest
personal investment most families will ever make.
For millions of American families, homeownership provides an entry
into the middle class, and is a key to building wealth. Moreover, in
addition to providing financial benefits to individuals, homeownership
also helps strengthen communities. Homeowners have a greater stake in
the success of their local schools, civic organizations and churches.
We have recently experienced significant upheaval in the U.S. housing
market which has affected the entire economy. My home State of
California in particular has been heavily impacted by the mortgage
crisis, with thousands of families losing their homes. Despite all of
this occurring in the current housing market, we need to remember that
homeownership has historically been the single largest creator of
wealth for most Americans.
As someone who has been involved in the housing industry for more
than 35 years, I have seen my fair share of housing downturns. From
these experiences, I have learned that at a time of stress, it is
important to ensure that liquidity continues to flow to the housing
market in order to keep the markets functioning.
The loan limit increases for FHA and GSEs included in enacted law are
finally providing affordable, safe mortgages for homeowners who were
previously forced to resort to risky loans that impaired their ability
to keep their home.
Additionally, I have also cosponsored the Homebuyer Tax Credit Act,
which was introduced by my fellow Southern Californian, Ken Calvert, to
bring stability to the housing market and encourage responsible
homeownership. Congressman Ken Calvert's bill would expand the
homebuyer tax credit provisions included in the enacted stimulus
[[Page 14415]]
bills. During these economically challenging times, it is more
important than ever to provide tax relief to hardworking families.
In the first quarter of 2009, the homeownership rate was 67.3
percent. It has become more difficult for many people to retain
homeownership today. Many families are trying very hard just to be able
to make their house payment each and every month.
In the past we have seen downturns in the seventies, eighties and
nineties. This is probably the most significant one I have ever seen.
At this point in time we need to acknowledge that supporting
homeownership is a worthy goal of this Congress, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution by voting ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request of my colleague that
we join in a little colloquy prior to going to our closing.
Representative Miller, I know that you have been involved with real
estate and housing and development and you understand a lot about the
housing markets. And while we have identified that there certainly are
problems we have been going through, a crisis with foreclosures and a
kind of a meltdown, I am extremely hopeful that we are going to be able
to stabilize this housing market and that we can continue to encourage
our families to seek homeownership opportunities.
I think we see some indications of the banks getting stronger and
being able to pay back money that the United States citizens have
invested in the banks in order to stabilize this housing market. But I
would like to have your opinion: Based on your expertise and your
involvement for so many years, do you think that we are beginning to
have a turnaround?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Well, you have worked very closely
with me over the years on dealing with conforming loan limits in high-
cost areas for Freddie and Fannie, and in California we almost felt
like stepchildren for years. The limits were so low that people in
California could not be able to use them to buy a home, and they were
forced into riskier loans that many times you and I fought hard to
change.
We have raised the GSEs and the FHA loan limit in California and are
helping a tremendous amount of people refinance their homes, or people
who need to sell a home and people buying a home be able to get into
the marketplace at probably at least 100 basis points cheaper than they
would be able to get into a jumbo loan.
I don't know if it is over, Maxine. I really wish I could say it was.
I remember back in the early eighties when the prime went to 21.5
percent. You remember that. As a developer, I was paying a 24.5 percent
interest rate for construction projects I had, and if anybody could
even get a loan for 12 percent, they would buy a house at that point in
time. But you couldn't get it.
I hope we are doing what is right, providing liquidity in the
marketplace to encourage people to take advantage of the deals that are
out there today. But you see more and more lenders having to foreclose
on homes, and they are putting them on the marketplace. In fact, I have
a bill right now that Chairman Frank is going to be bringing up before
the committee that allows banks, instead of forcing those homes on the
marketplace, they can lease those homes for up to 5 years, and that way
you get a lot of these distress sales off the marketplace.
Hopefully we can find a reasonable bottom at that point in time and
the market will start to come back. But you have such a glut of
foreclosed properties on the market today that it keeps driving values
down further and further, and that makes it more difficult for people
to be able to stay in their home, because many times they owe more than
it is worth.
So hopefully we can get together, and we have done many of these
things in a bipartisan fashion, and create a structure that will create
a bottom and get us out of this. I am looking forward to that.
But I am really thankful to you for your help and your cooperation
and your support for the housing market. You have a passion for that,
as I do, and I know Spencer Bachus does and Chairman Frank does also,
and hopefully working together in a bipartisan fashion we can find a
bottom and move the American people in a positive fashion forward.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your comments, and I
value them because of your experience.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that
I support H. Res 502, recognizing June as National Homeownership Month
and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Since the founding of this great nation, homeownership has been
fundamentally tied to the American Dream. However, the right to own
land or a home has not always been an inclusive one--for many
generations homeownership was denied to communities of color and women.
While we have taken great strides to rectify past injustices, much
remains to be done, which reflects the importance of this resolution.
Owning a home represents much more than a roof and walls to protect
one's family from the elements, or a space to raise a family. A home is
the single most valuable asset one can own, and the wealth it can
generate over time is crucially important for rising out of poverty.
This reason alone, reflects the irrevocable damage that the foreclosure
crisis is inflicting on our communities.
The bursting of the housing bubble and the economic crisis have
resulted in the loss of countless American homes; countless dreams have
been disrupted, and countless Americans are now struggling to deal with
the ramifications of the actions of greedy, dishonest businesspeople
more focused on personal gain than on truly honoring the dream of
homeownership.
We now find ourselves at a critical point in American history. The
housing and financial markets are undergoing fundamental changes; and
while the Administration and this legislative body continue to work to
implement programs to sustain homeownership, we must not forget those
of us who are still working to realize the dream of owning their own
home.
I firmly believe that homeownership should be a dream realized by
every responsible American, and believe that we should continue to work
to provide opportunities to make those realizations possible.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I have no further speakers, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 502.
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.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1886, PAKISTAN
ENDURING ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2410, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 111-143) on the resolution (H. Res. 522) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1886) to authorize democratic,
economic, and social development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize
security assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes, and providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2410) to authorize appropriations
for the Department of State and the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010
and 2011, to modernize the Foreign Service, and for other purposes,
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF MILLARD FULLER
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 385) celebrating the life of Millard Fuller, a
life which provides all of the evidence one needs to
[[Page 14416]]
believe in the power of the human spirit to inspire hope and lift the
burdens of poverty and despair from the shoulders of one's fellow man.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 385
Whereas Mr. Millard Fuller, as the founder of Habitat for
Humanity and as a dedicated citizen, displayed extraordinary
commitment, selflessness, and benevolence throughout a
lifetime of philanthropy and goodwill;
Whereas Mr. Fuller, despite achieving financial success by
which he could live out the rest of his life in well-earned
comfort, instead chose to devote himself to a cause greater
than himself, abandoning his fortune for a life of service;
Whereas this commitment was most profoundly manifested in
the establishment of Habitat for Humanity in Americus,
Georgia, an organization whose core principle was, in Millard
Fuller's own words, ``To make it socially, morally,
politically and religiously unacceptable to have substandard
housing and homelessness'';
Whereas Habitat for Humanity has, since its founding in
1976, and with the help of countless volunteers, constructed
over 300,000 homes for 1,500,000 of the world's less
fortunate, providing hope that would otherwise be lost and
promise that would otherwise lay unrealized;
Whereas Habitat for Humanity's success has left an enduring
mark of progress on the world, an achievement facilitated by
Millard Fuller's leadership and commitment to a higher ideal,
to a more empathetic and noble world, and to a vision of what
can be achieved when a united people extend their hands in
selfless service;
Whereas Mr. Fuller's life has been previously and
deservedly honored by President William Jefferson Clinton,
who awarded him the Nation's highest civilian honor, the
Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996; and
Whereas Millard Fuller passed away on February 3, 2009,
leaving behind a loving wife, Linda Fuller, a proud family,
and a world filled with inexhaustible gratitude: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) celebrates the life of Millard Fuller, a life which
provides all the evidence one needs to believe in the power
of the human spirit to inspire hope and lift the burdens of
poverty and despair from the shoulders of one's fellow man;
(2) honors Millard Fuller for three decades of leadership
and service through Habitat for Humanity, and the millions he
and his organization have inspired to embrace a passion for
the good and the just; and
(3) urges the people of the United States to recognize and
pay tribute to Millard Fuller's life and legacy of service by
carrying on his vision for a kinder, gentler world, following
the example he so emphatically set.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G.
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous materials thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize and celebrate the life
of Mr. Millard Fuller, the founder and strength behind one of our
Nation's most well-known and beloved nonprofit institutions.
Mr. Fuller led Habitat for Humanity from its founding in 1976 until
2005. He was an amazing man who was able to turn a simple idea into a
global housing juggernaut serving over 100 countries. Through his
leadership, Habitat for Humanity has created affordable homes for more
than 300,000 families and 1 million people, families that otherwise
would have remained in substandard housing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is appropriate for this body to pass
this resolution for a gentleman who certainly is worthy of having this
recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in support of House Resolution 502, celebrating the life of
Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity. Millard Fuller, along
with his wife, Linda, founded Habitat for Humanity in 1976.
Habitat for Humanity operates as a nonprofit Christian housing
ministry. Working together with local affiliates, Habitat provides
safe, decent and affordable housing for people of all backgrounds.
Since its founding, Habitat for Humanity has built more than 300,000
homes worldwide in 3,000 communities and provided housing for more than
1.5 million people.
Habitat for Humanity provides needy families with an opportunity for
homeownership. The average cost of a Habitat home in the U.S. is
$60,000. Habitat for Humanity sells homes at no profit to Habitat
homeowners. In order to purchase a home, a Habitat homeowner must
invest hundreds of hours in sweat equity into building not only their
Habitat house, but houses for others as well. A Habitat homeowner is
also responsible for making a down payment and monthly mortgage
payments.
Habitat for Humanity is able to finance its operations through
mortgage payments made by Habitat homeowners, donations and volunteer
labor. Habitat also accepts government funds, so long as they have no
conditions that would violate Habitat principles.
In my State of California, Habitat for Humanity has worked tirelessly
to provide housing for needy Californians. Thousands of people have a
decent place to live because of the work of many volunteers and the
generosity of thousands of donors.
Mr. Speaker, Habitat for Humanity is an organization that deserves to
be honored. I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on this
resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my colleague and
friend, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Sanford Bishop.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it often takes loss to remind ourselves of our
unwavering appreciation and unfaltering gratitude for those few
extraordinary people who, despite their ability to enjoy tremendous
success and reward for themselves, instead commit their energies and
talents to the betterment of the world.
Millard Fuller of Americus, Georgia, was one of those extraordinary
few. He passed away February 2nd, leaving behind a wife and family,
but, more importantly, a legacy that is all the evidence one needs to
believe in the power of the human spirit to inspire hope and lift the
burdens of poverty and despair from the shoulders of one's fellow man.
Throughout his life, Millard Fuller's talent and passion were put on
display in no small number of ways. He grew to be a great entrepreneur,
founding a marketing company that made him a millionaire before he was
30 years old. He was a great lawyer and headed the Southern Poverty Law
Center in Montgomery, Alabama. He was a great Christian, one who walked
away from his hard-earned wealth to pursue a life of service and
philanthropy through the founding of the tremendously successful
Habitat for Humanity.
Millard led the organization for more than three decades, and through
the application of what he called the ``economics of Jesus,'' helped to
provide over 300,000 homes to the destitute and downtrodden across the
globe.
However, more than any of these things, Millard was a great man. His
selflessness serves as an inspiration to people throughout the Nation
and all across the world.
Born to a grocer in Lanett, Alabama, Millard refused to allow his
modest beginnings to define the course of his life. Although he
attained great fortune from his tireless efforts as a businessman, he
soon found that in order to live a life of fulfillment, he had to
dedicate himself to a simple life of devotion and service to a higher
purpose.
{time} 1915
He traveled to Africa in order to observe what he could do to improve
the lot of the impoverished. He became a staunch advocate for aid to
Africa's poor and traveled the United States for assistance in his
efforts for Africa.
[[Page 14417]]
After moving to Americus, Georgia, which is located in the Second
Congressional District of Georgia, which I'm proud to represent,
Millard and his supporters founded what would become the most visible
and effective manifestation of his desire to make a difference, an
organization dedicated to providing housing and support for the poor,
Habitat for Humanity.
For more than 30 years, Habitat for Humanity, with the help of
countless volunteers, ranging from the average citizen to former
President Jimmy Carter, built hundreds of thousands of homes for the
world's disadvantaged. Its mission has reflected a simple philosophy
best expressed in Millard's own words. He said, ``We want to make it
socially, morally, politically and religiously unacceptable to have
substandard housing and homelessness.''
In 1996, President Bill Clinton recognized Millard's dedication by
awarding him The Presidential Medal of Freedom.
In 2005, Millard also founded the Fuller Center for Housing, a
nonprofit housing ministry dedicated to eliminating poverty housing
worldwide by providing the structure, guidance and support that
communities need to build and repair homes for the impoverished among
them.
It is my great honor to sponsor H. Res. 385, which celebrates the
life of Millard Fuller and the impact that he had on so many. As this
resolution is voted on today, let us seek to emulate Millard Fuller's
passion for the good and the just and his selfless spirit of a better,
gentler world.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to honor the life and
the memory and the legacy of Millard Fuller.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in closing, you have
to admire an individual who applies Christian principles to his life.
He didn't just talk good. He didn't just tell a story, he created good
and he created a life for many people.
There's nothing like looking in the eyes of an individual or a family
who is moving in a new home, especially when the family was involved in
that home, building that home, and helping build homes for other
people. You have to admire him for what he did, and all the individuals
in this country and other countries who give of their time, their
talent and their resources for the betterment of humanity.
And at this point in time, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on a man
who deserves it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, let me just agree with my colleague, who
talked about the living out of beliefs.
I read a story in one the newspapers today which I thought was one of
the most theologically unsound things I've seen or read recently. It
compared the times President Obama and President Bush said the name
``Jesus,'' as if there is something that is magically going to happen
as a result of calling the name. And I think we are going into a
slippery slope when we begin to compare people by how they call the
name of their deity.
But in the case of Millard Fuller, he acted out his beliefs. And we
believe in, at least my religious tradition, that there can be no
faith, measurable faith, unless there are works. And we say faith
without works is dead. And so you see today on the political scene, a
lot of talk about religion, but after all is said and done, there's
almost always more said than done. And so we have reason to stand up
and celebrate Mr. Fuller, who put his faith into action.
I never had the opportunity to work on more than two Habitat homes,
and I really hate the fact that I've not been able to do more. But I
appreciate the fact that former President Jimmy Carter has become one
of the most ardent supporters of Habitat for Humanity and has actually
worked on tens and tens of homes, not only in this country, but around
the world.
And by the organization's 25th anniversary, tens of thousands of
people like President Jimmy Carter were volunteering with Habitat, and
more than a half million people were living in Habitat homes. I am
proud to count myself among the numbers of Habitat volunteers, and I'm
also proud that I have the opportunity to speak in favor of Millard
Fuller, a prolific writer, authoring 10 books, and a man who put his
faith in action.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 385.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HONORING THE U.S. BORDER PATROL ON ITS 85TH ANNIVERSARY
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 498) honoring and
congratulating the U.S. Border Patrol on its 85th anniversary.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 498
Whereas in the early 20th century, control of the border
was sporadic and piecemeal, and included mounted guards,
Texas Rangers, and military troops;
Whereas Supervising Inspector Frank W. Bershire wrote to
the Commissioner-General of Immigration in 1918, ``If the
services of men now being drafted cannot be spared for this
work, it may be that the various departments vitally
interested would give favorable consideration to the
formation of an independent organization, composed of men
with out the draft age. The assertion is ventured that such
an organization, properly equipped and trained, made up of
seasoned men, would guard the border more effectively against
all forms of lawlessness than a body of soldiers of several
times the same number . . .'';
Whereas the prohibition of alcohol and numerical limits
placed on immigration to the United States by the Immigration
Acts of 1921 and 1924 further exposed our inability to
control our borders;
Whereas in response to this urgent need the Labor
Appropriations Act of 1924 officially established the U.S.
Border Patrol with an initial force of 450 officers to help
defend our borders;
Whereas over the past 85 years the border patrol has
undergone enormous changes, but their primary mission has
remained the same, to detect and prevent the illegal entry of
persons into the United States;
Whereas since 1998, the Border Patrol has seized more than
15,567,100 pounds of marijuana and more than 189,769 pounds
of cocaine nationwide;
Whereas the border patrol is on the front line of the U.S.
war on drugs, having seized more than 14,241 pounds of
cocaine and more than 1,800,000 pounds of marijuana in fiscal
year 2007;
Whereas in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001,
the border patrol has taken on a new mission as part of the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, with the priority
mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from
entering the United States;
Whereas the U.S. Border Patrol today is our Nation's first
line of defense against many threats, patrolling 8,000 miles
of international borders with Mexico and Canada and the
coastal waters around Florida and Puerto Rico;
Whereas the mission of the agency says, ``We are the
guardians of our Nation's borders. We are America's
frontline. We safeguard the American homeland at and beyond
our borders. We protect the American public against
terrorists and the instrument of terror. We steadfastly
enforce the laws of the United States while fostering our
Nation's economic security through lawful international trade
and travel. We serve the American public with vigilance,
integrity and professionalism.'';
Whereas the Border Patrol has adopted a clear strategic
goal, to establish and maintain operational control of the
border of the United States;
Whereas this strategy consists of five main objectives,
establishing substantial probability of apprehending
terrorists and their weapons as they attempt to enter
illegally between the ports of entry, deterring illegal
entries through improved enforcement, detecting,
apprehending, and deterring smugglers of humans, drugs, and
other contraband, leveraging ``Smart Border'' technology to
multiply the effect of enforcement personnel, and reducing
crime in border communities and consequently improving
quality of life and economic vitality of targeted areas;
Whereas today over 18,800 agents risk their lives in
pursuit of these objectives;
[[Page 14418]]
Whereas the Border Patrol recognizes 104 official line of
duty deaths in service to their country;
Whereas the U.S. Border Patrol has spent past 85 years
keeping this country safe from threats like terrorists,
illicit drugs, weapons, and criminals;
Whereas the Border Patrol Inspectors of the past and the
Border Patrol Agents of today perform their duties on foot,
in automobiles, by horse, and in boats;
Whereas today the Border Patrol uses state of the art
technologies to aid in the performance of their duties;
infrared cameras, remote video surveillance, unattended
underground sensors, and ground radar support their National
Strategy;
Whereas they use canine teams to detect both humans and
narcotics at immigration checkpoints as well as in daily
operations;
Whereas their Special Response Teams and Tactical Unit are
specially trained for domestic and international emergencies
and they have Search, Trauma, and Rescue teams, which provide
humanitarian and rescue capabilities, performing countless
rescues every year; and
Whereas the Border Patrol is also supported in their
mission with air and marine assets and personnel from CBP Air
and MarineNow, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) expresses its support for the Border Patrol's goals and
objectives;
(2) expresses its gratitude to the U.S. Border Patrol for
its commitment to protecting the United States; and
(3) congratulates the Border Patrol and its exemplary
workforce on 85 years of service to the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the
resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of House Resolution 498, honoring and congratulating the United
States Border Patrol on its 85th anniversary, and I yield myself as
much time as I may consume.
As the chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee
for Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, I have been fortunate
enough to visit the border several times to see firsthand the good work
of the Border Patrol. I have seen it, not just on the southern border
with Mexico, but also that with Canada.
These dedicated men and women patrol America's borders, often in
harsh climates, in isolated conditions, under dangerous conditions, in
order to keep our Nation secure.
Representatives of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol,
and its agents have also testified many, many times before our
committee about the challenges they face, particularly the Border
Patrol's rapid growth and its evolving mission in recent years.
I don't know if a lot of you remember, but just a few years back, our
Border Patrol was only 450 people. Today it numbers almost 19,000, and
it's on track to grow to 20,000 agents by the end of next year.
When it was founded, the Border Patrol's sole mission was to prevent
persons and contraband from entering our country illegally. But, in
particular, in the wake of the attacks of September 11 of 2001, the
Border Patrol is also charged, it is our front line, with stopping
terrorists and their weapons from entering our country.
In the early days of the Border Patrol, agents patrolled our borders
without the benefit of modern technology. But today they have sensors,
cameras, in addition to their traditional ``sign-cutting'' or their
tracking skills, which they still use in some of the mountainous areas,
especially out there in the Arizona and California desert. And through
all these changes, the Border Patrol and its agents have maintained a
steadfast commitment to serving our Nation.
I commend the Border Patrol and all the agents who have served
honorably under the Patrol's proud 85-year history. It is certainly
fitting that the House of Representatives is marking this anniversary
today with this resolution.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Teague, the gentleman
from New Mexico, for offering this fine resolution, and I urge all of
my colleagues to give it their support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H. Resolution 498, celebrating the anniversary
of the Border Patrol and honoring their service.
The Border Patrol was established in the Immigration Act of 1924, and
celebrated its 85th anniversary just recently on May 28, 2009.
The Border Patrol is one of the most public faces of the Department
of Homeland Security. For those who aren't familiar with the
differences, the Border Patrol covers the areas between the ports of
entry as opposed to the ports of entry. The 18,000 men and women in
green work every day along the borders and coastlines of the United
States, often in some of the most rugged and challenging terrain.
I have this outsized map here that the Marfa sector of the Border
Patrol had given me from Texas. And this is just one small section of
the border, but I wanted to use it to illustrate a few points. Marfa,
Texas, is one of the more, let's just say, rural parts of America,
which is why it was featured in ``No Country for Old Men,'' ``There
Will Be Blood,'' because it was such a kind of an undeveloped area.
The area at the bottom on the point is the big bend of Texas that you
see. That's Big Bend National Park. Those mountains in that area, the
Chisnos, are about 7,000 feet. A lot of people think our border is just
flat and that it would be very easy to see all the problems coming
through, but, in fact, it's very mountainous.
The far northwest edge of this map, in the western side of the Marfa
sector, is Presidio. Presidio is a point of entry. That point of entry,
for example, it's called Presidio because it was a fort, and that's
where General Pershing, for example, chased Pancho Villa across.
There's no other legal point of entry for hundreds of miles as you go
across that border through Big Bend and up until the far side, which is
near Lake Amistad and Del Rio sector. These areas are very vulnerable
to penetration by any number of things.
And a lot of times the Border Patrol, as well as illustrating that
the National Park Service has a huge chunk there, huge chunk over in
other parks, that this border is not simple, and that when people say,
Can't you just put a couple of thousand agents there and control the
border, well, no, it is an incredible challenge.
During my time in Congress, I have had the opportunity to visit
almost every Border Patrol sector on the north and south borders.
There's 2,000 miles on the south, 4,000 miles on the north. The
challenges are diverse, and the criminal element seeking to exploit our
open borders are inventive and have significant resources. Drug
smugglers are using helicopters, ultralight aircraft, fast boats, and
something as simple as coyotes, forcing illegal aliens to carry 50-
pound loads of drugs on their back to bring in contraband. The
challenge is endless and the mission is critical.
In the 6-plus years that the Border Patrol has been in the Department
of Homeland Security, their agency has doubled in size. Congress has
provided authorization funding for hundreds of miles of fencing and
vehicle barriers, which combined, total over 600 miles. Efforts to
provide additional technological resources to the Border Patrol through
the SBInet program, that should, when complete, provide an additional
capability to detect and respond to illegal entry.
A sign that the efforts to gain operational control of the border are
working is the growing drug cartel violence in Mexico. Nearly 8,000
people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico. It's a
tragic situation, and it is
[[Page 14419]]
absolutely critical that we continue to support and strengthen the
Government of Mexico, headed by President Calderon.
At the same time, we must further strengthen our own border security
efforts, and cannot be dependent on another nation doing that.
The Border Patrol's years of honorable service have not been without
loss. To date, 104 agents have lost their lives in duty to their
country. Additionally, hundreds of assaults, from rockings to Molotov
cocktails to threats on their lives occur every year to our Border
Patrol agents.
{time} 1930
As we celebrate the 85th anniversary of the Border Patrol, it is
important to remember and honor the agents who have paid the ultimate
sacrifice in defense of our country. Luis Aguilar is the most recent
who was run over by a drug smuggler trying to flee. As the guards of
our borders, the Border Patrol is an important layer of security and
often the last line of defense in preventing dangerous people and goods
from entering the United States and infiltrating the U.S. communities.
The Border Patrol cannot let down their guard as criminal
organizations are continually looking for vulnerabilities in our
security to bring in contraband. The consequences of a drug load that
slips through the layered defense are significant. According to the
Department of Justice, in 2007 almost 32 percent of high school seniors
used marijuana in the past year and 5 percent had used cocaine. The
vast majority of these drugs are smuggled across our borders.
The reality of post-September 11, 2001, is that terrorist
organizations may also seek to exploit openings along our borders to
smuggle operatives or potential weapons. In the week since their
anniversary, May 28, the Border Patrol has apprehended six alien gang
members and four convicted sex offenders, seized three guns, six
trailers carrying contraband, including one with 40 illegal aliens;
seized 16,609 pounds of marijuana, five vehicles and an ultralight
aircraft. And my favorite is about 6 a.m. last Sunday, agents spotted
an individual on a surf board approximately 200 yards offshore paddling
north of the international border in Imperial Beach. The surfer was
holding a blue duffel bag. He released it as agents approached. Soon
after, the blue duffel floated ashore and was inspected by Border
Patrol agents and had five packages of marijuana with an estimated
street value at $75,000. They're creative, if nothing else, and our
Border Patrol has to be creative and persistent in response.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and to honor
the Border Patrol, express support for their important mission and
pledge support to enhance their capabilities to gain operational
control over our border.
[From www.cbp.gov, Mar. 23, 2009]
85 Years of Protected By
Thursday, May 28, 2009, will mark the 85th anniversary of
the United States Border Patrol. Founded in 1924, the U.S.
Border Patrol was established in El Paso, Texas, and Detroit,
Michigan. The Purpose: To combat the illegal entry of aliens,
contraband, and the flow of illicit liquor from Mexico and
Canada into the United States. The U.S. Border Patrol is
steeped in a long and rich history that is passed down to
each new recruit as they begin their careers at the academy.
The newly organized El Paso Border Patrol Station was
assigned 25 Patrol Inspectors, many of whom were recruited
from the ranks of the Texas Rangers. Today, The Border Patrol
boasts over 18,000 agents, in 20 sectors, and 164 stations
around the nation.
Under the authority of the Immigration Act, approved by
Congress on May 28, 1924, the Border Patrol was created as a
uniformed law enforcement branch of the Immigration Bureau.
This prompted the establishment of the El Paso Border Patrol
Sector on July 1, 1924. It was the height of Prohibition in
the United States, and organized crime was a growing concern,
as the mafia controlled a majority of the alcohol being
smuggled into the United States. As a result, liquor
smuggling from Mexico and Canada became a well organized,
thriving industry. The opportunity to earn substantial sums
of money became a temptation for many illegal aliens that
were willing to enter the United States carrying a few crates
of contraband.
It wasn't long before gun battles began to erupt between
Border Patrolmen, and smugglers attempting to avoid arrest.
In February 1927, El Paso Sector experienced one of the
bloodiest months for the agency. As old newspapers report,
during the entire month, there had not been a 24-hour period
of time without a gunfight between smugglers and Patrol
Inspectors. These gunfights added to the renown of the Border
Patrol, as patrolmen gained a reputation for winning most of
these shootouts.
Almost immediately after the establishment of the El Paso
Station, a need was seen to have officers at outlying
locations. Other stations soon opened within the sector. The
Border Patrol began to grow, as the situation along the
border was steadily deteriorating. As the prohibition era
reached the peak of its infamy; lawlessness and violence
became more common along the water borders of the Detroit
Sector. Several Detroit Sector Patrol Inspectors were killed
in the line of duty during this period, as smugglers
attempting to bring contraband across the border resorted to
violence to protect their cargo from the Border Patrol
Inspectors.
Eighty-five years later, the Border Patrol has evolved into
the finest law enforcement organization in the world. On a
daily basis, the Border Patrol is confronted with a large
number of threats that would never have been conceived of at
the time of the agency's inception. Criminal organizations
have evolved as well, adopting a wide variety of weapons and
technology to aid them in their efforts to enter the United
States while smuggling human cargo and other contraband.
Since 9-11, the agency has had to adapt yet again, to our
nations newest threat; terrorism. The U.S. Border Patrol has
proven over its long history that its men and women are up to
the task ahead, and stand ready at our nation's borders.
The U.S. Border Patrol will be hosting several events for
the 85th Anniversary, including a Headquarters celebration
honoring all of the men and women, past and present, who have
made the Border Patrol what it is today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes
to my good friend, Mr. Silvestre Reyes from the great State of Texas
who, by the way, has probably over 30 years of experience in the Border
Patrol Agency.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding me time, and I also want to thank you for your support of the
men and women of the United States Border Patrol and the important work
that you do through your chairmanship and the subcommittee that deals
with border issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 498,
a bill that honors and congratulates the United States Border Patrol on
its 85th anniversary. And I also want to thank my good friend and
neighbor, Harry Teague from New Mexico, the gentleman that has
sponsored this legislation, for his support of the United States Border
Patrol men and women. And the ranking member as well, thank you for
your support. I think that the men and women of the United States
Border Patrol do incredible work.
The United States Border Patrol has a unique and rich history that
began on May 28, 1924, when Congress passed the Labor Appropriations
Act which officially established the U.S. Border Patrol in El Paso,
Texas, and Detroit, Michigan. Established during the height of
Prohibition in the United States, the initial 450 patrol inspectors
were not only charged with preventing the entry of undocumented
immigrants into the United States but were also responsible for
combating the entry of illicit liquor from Mexico and from Canada.
Eighty-five years later, the Border Patrol has evolved to include
almost 19,000 agents in 20 sectors and 164 stations around our country.
The brave men and women of the Border Patrol are currently responsible
for securing 8,000 miles of our international borders, both with Mexico
and Canada and the coastal water around Florida and Puerto Rico. Since
9/11, the Border Patrol has been on the front lines in our national
strategy to detect and apprehend terrorists and their weapons as they
attempt to illegally enter the United States.
Before coming to Congress, I served for 26\1/2\ years in the U.S.
Border Patrol. For half of that time, I was a Border Patrol sector
chief, first in McAllen, Texas, and then in El Paso, Texas. As the only
Member of Congress with a background in border enforcement, I am keenly
aware of the invaluable work that these brave men and women
[[Page 14420]]
perform for our country each and every day. We have a lot to thank them
for.
In these times of heightened security, the U.S. Border Patrol and
those agents are not only vital in helping to protect our country from
terror threats and illegal entry of drugs but they also apprehend and
deter human smugglers and bring them to justice. Oftentimes these
agents are the first people to respond in humanitarian situations in
the desert by providing first aid, food, water, and shelter to people
that have gotten in trouble because of the heat and the distance that
they're forced to travel in remote areas. Border Patrol agents perform
countless rescues every year and provide critical training to law
enforcement, both at home and abroad.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman
30 more seconds.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Border Patrol is vital to our
Homeland Security strategy and has evolved into one of our country's
finest law enforcement organizations. I'm a proud cosponsor of Mr.
Teague's resolution in honor of their 85th anniversary. I urge all of
my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank the men and women of
the United States Border Patrol for working each and every day to keep
us safe.
Mr. SOUDER. I continue to reserve.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman who authored this particular resolution, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Teague).
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 498, a
resolution honoring and congratulating the U.S. Border Patrol on its
85th anniversary. This bill shows our support for the men and women who
have served and are currently serving in our Nation's Border Patrol,
and I encourage my colleagues to vote with me in support of this
resolution.
The Border Patrol has undergone incredible changes over the past 85
years. They have grown from an initial force of 450 to over 18,800
agents today. They have learned to deal with new threats such as
terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And they have adapted
ground-breaking technologies--such as infrared cameras and unattended
underground sensors--to better face the challenges confronting them.
But despite these changes, their primary mission has stayed the same:
to detect and prevent illegal entry of persons into the United States.
As we all know, doing this is no easy task. They must patrol over 8,000
miles of international borders with Mexico and Canada and the coastal
waters around Florida and Puerto Rico. They are our first line of
defense against many threats, including terrorists, illicit drugs,
weapons, and criminals; and they perform admirably at these tasks.
Since 1998, the Border Patrol has seized more than 15 million pounds
of marijuana and 189,000 pounds of cocaine. Most importantly, border
agents have very dangerous jobs. They risk their well-being every day
on our behalf. In 85 years, 104 Border Patrol officers have lost their
lives in the line of duty. In my district, the Border Patrol has an
especially active presence, the El Paso Border Patrol sector, which
covers all of New Mexico, covers 262 miles of border and employs over
2,600 agents. In fiscal year 2008 alone, they made over 30,000
apprehensions and seized over 87,000 pounds of marijuana.
Also in my district, in the town of Artesia, we have the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center at this facility which covers over 220
acres of space.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. TEAGUE. The Border Patrol agents, along with the other Federal
agents, get the training they need to better perform their duties and
adapt to the new challenges facing them.
In closing, the functions of the Border Patrol are more important
today than ever. We have given them an incredibly difficult task and
the brave men and women of the Border Patrol deserve the full support
of Congress in achieving their goals.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Sanchez, Chairman Reyes, Chairman
Thompson, Congressman McCaul, and Majority Leader Hoyer for their
leadership in helping bring this resolution to the floor.
Again, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this
resolution.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, I want to thank my friend and chairman of the subcommittee,
Ms. Sanchez, who's been an excellent leader of our subcommittee and we
work together closely on many things, not just noncontroversial bills
like today. I thank Mr. Teague for his leadership and my long-time
friend, Mr. Reyes, also the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, not
only for his work in Congress but his work with the Border Patrol.
And again and most personally, today I want to thank every agent,
every Border Patrol agent in America for helping protect us, as well as
Chief David Aguilar for his leadership and further service. It
sometimes gets a tad boring, sometimes it gets a little hot. On the
Canadian border, sometimes it gets a little cold. It isn't exactly the
most exciting job in America at all times, but what each of these
agents does is extremely important to the safety of our Nation.
It may not be quite politically correct right now to talk about
terrorism, but in fact it is a key part of our first line of defense in
the border, and the Border Patrol is a key part of that. And we haven't
had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, partly because of our
men and women in green.
It may not be quite politically correct right now to talk about
stopping illegal immigration; but quite frankly, the safety of our
Nation, the integrity of American citizenship requires legal, orderly
entry. This isn't to say how many there should be, what type of
immigration law we should have, but requires an orderly, legal process.
So do many American jobs require this.
And it may not be quite politically correct right now to talk about
stopping illegal drugs, but in doing so, the agents of the Border
Patrol have made our streets safer, they have helped prevent child and
spousal abuse, they have lowered emergency rooms admissions, they have
helped people make child support payments by helping them hold their
jobs because of illegal narcotics and other things causing them to lose
their jobs or by intercepting them or driving the prices up because of
what they intercept.
We're never going to stop all drug abuse. And every Border Patrol
agent knows he can't. But what he knows is he can intercept large
numbers that would have gone to the streets and the homes of America
and would have resulted in huge problems in crime and family safety in
America.
So maybe we don't want to call it the war on drugs anymore. Instead
we call it a disease, and for those who get addicted, it is a disease.
But in fact unlike doctors and nurses who fight cancer, or researchers
who fight cancer or people who fight lupus or diabetes, the Border
Patrol agents are getting shot at and they die.
So whether we want to call it a war or whatever we want to call it,
the individuals who use these illegal narcotics do not wake up one
morning and suddenly discover that a heroin needle got put in their arm
or that somehow they were snorting crack in their sleep or snorting
cocaine in their sleep. In fact, it is somewhat different. And I want
to make sure that our men and women of the Border Patrol understand
that there is bipartisan support to making sure that we keep our border
secure; that we continue to block illegal narcotics; that we continue
to block terrorists; and you are our first line of defense on our huge
borders, and we cannot thank you enough for risking your lives for the
rest of us.
I yield back.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to
close, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
[[Page 14421]]
I thank the gentleman from Indiana, my ranking member on the
subcommittee that oversees all of the border issues for America. He's
been a strong advocate for the Border Patrol as well as for all of the
agencies, really, that sit within our jurisdiction. And so I thank him
for taking the time tonight to be down here and helping to work on this
bill.
You know, the Border Patrol just doesn't work at the southern and the
northern border. As was mentioned, we'll see them in Puerto Rico and
some other areas, and also we send them to other countries to train
people as to the whole issue of border patrol and how to take a look at
what's coming in. In fact, in Iraq we've sent several to help to set up
some of the border patrol issues out there in that country.
{time} 1945
So we have a large group of men and women who come to work every
single day, love America, and work very hard on behalf of the American
people. And for this reason, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support
House Resolution 498, honoring and congratulating the Border Patrol on
its 85th anniversary, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H. Res. 498, which honors and congratulates the U.S. Border Patrol on
its 85th anniversary.
Much has changed since 1924, when Congress formally established the
U.S. Border Patrol and charged just 450 officers with securing our
Nation's borders.
Today, more than 18,000 Border Patrol agents patrol 8,000 miles of
international borders with Mexico, Canada and the coastal waters around
Florida and Puerto Rico.
Previously, the Border Patrol was responsible only for stopping
illegal aliens and contraband from crossing our borders--an enormous
challenge on its own.
But in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
Border Patrol's mission was expanded to include preventing terrorists
and their instruments from entering the United States.
One thing has not changed in the last 85 years, however.
The men and women of the Border Patrol continue to risk their lives
serving the American public with vigilance, integrity and
professionalism.
As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have been to our
borders and seen firsthand Border Patrol agents serving our Nation,
often under very difficult conditions.
That is why I am pleased to support this resolution, in honor of all
those helping to secure America's borders today and throughout the
Border Patrol's 85-year history.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman from New Mexico,
Mr. Teague, for authoring H. Res. 498.
His congressional district includes Artesia, New Mexico, home to the
Border Patrol Academy, where thousands of new Border Patrol agents have
been trained.
Mr. Teague's constituents are fortunate to have a strong advocate for
that fine facility and for the Border Patrol as an organization.
Again, I urge all of my colleagues to support this very worthy
resolution, and join in honoring and congratulating the U.S. Border
Patrol on its 85th anniversary.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in support
of H. Res. 498, a resolution honoring and celebrating the United States
Border Patrol on its 85th Anniversary.
The United States Border Patrol is a federal law enforcement agency
within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Border Patrol was founded on
May 28, 1924 as an agency of the United States Department of Labor to
prevent illegal entries along the Mexico-United States border.
The Border Patrol's mission remains as the deterrence, detection and
apprehension of illegal immigrants and individuals involved in the
illegal drug trade who generally do not enter the United States through
designated ports of entry.
Ever since its founding, the U.S. Border Patrol has been there
defending our borders and homeland. They were there to prevent Ahmed
Ressam, also known as the ``Millennium Bomber,'' from entering this
country and killing our citizens with explosives he intended to
detonate at the Los Angeles International Airport during the holiday
season prior to the 2000 millennium. They were there to apprehend
Richard Goldberg, a suspected child molester, after he was arrested in
Ottawa, Canada. Goldberg was on the FBI's ``Top 10 Fugitive List'' and
was featured on ``America's Most Wanted.'' Further, just this month,
they were there to seize close to $1.5 million in cocaine and marijuana
along the Southern border.
The Border Patrol is this nation's first line of defense against many
threats. They patrol over 8,000 miles of international borders with
Mexico and Canada as well as the coastal waters around Florida and
Puerto Rico.
The brave men and women of the Border Patrol work tirelessly to
secure and facilitate trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S.
regulations, including immigration and drug laws. They keep our country
safe from threats such as terrorists, illicit drugs, weapons, and
criminals. Today over 18,800 Border Patrol Agents risk their lives in
defense of our country. These brave men and women join thousands of
others who have served our country in the Border Patrol over the last
85 years.
America can rest assured that its borders and homeland will be
protected by the courageous men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. I
commend the U.S. Patrol on its proud and distinguished history of
protecting the United States and strongly urge my colleagues to support
this important resolution.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, as the lead Republican sponsor of this
resolution I would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico,
Congressman Teague, as well as Chairman Reyes for all of their work on
putting together this legislation.
The U.S. Border Patrol has been keeping this country safe from
threats like terrorists, illicit drugs, weapons, illegal immigrants and
criminals for 85 years. I would like to thank the border patrol and I
commend them for their service.
In the early 20th century, control of the border was sporadic and
piecemeal and included mounted guards, Texas Rangers, and military
troops. After the prohibition of alcohol and the immigration reforms of
1921 and 1924, the Labor Appropriations Act of 1924 officially
established the U.S. Border Patrol with an initial force of 450
officers to help defend our borders.
Today the Border Patrol uses state of the art technologies to aid in
the performance of their duties; infrared cameras, remote video
surveillance, unattended underground sensors, and ground radar.
CBP is responsible for guarding nearly 7,000 miles of land border the
United States shares with Canada and Mexico and 2,000 miles of coastal
waters surrounding the Florida peninsula and off the coast of Southern
California. The agency also protects 95,000 miles of maritime border in
partnership with the United States Coast Guard.
I would like to praise for their tireless efforts the 52,000 CBP
employees including the over 18,000 CBP Border Patrol agents, 1,000 CBP
Air and Marine agents, almost 22,000 CBP officers and agriculture
specialists and the nation's largest law enforcement canine program.
I would also like to pay particular tribute to the 104 CBP employees
who lost their lives in service to their country.
In sum, CBP performs the vital task of securing America's borders 24
hours a day, seven days a week while facilitating legitimate trade and
travel. I congratulate them on their 85th anniversary and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this Resolution.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H. Res. 498. Last week was the 85th anniversary of the United States
Border Patrol. In 1924, Congress approved the Immigration Act, which
established the U.S. Border Patrol.
Their long and illustrious history began with 25 Patrol Inspectors in
El Paso, Texas and Detroit Michigan with the mission of combating the
illegal entry of aliens, contraband, and the flow of illicit liquor
from Mexico and Canada into the U.S.
During the height of prohibition, lawlessness and violence became
more common along the water borders of the Detroit Sector. Several
Detroit Sector Patrol Inspectors were killed in the line of duty, as
smugglers attempting to bring contraband across the border resorted to
violence to protect their cargo from the Border Patrol Inspectors.
A lot has changed since 1924, but the core mission of the Border
Patrol is still detecting and preventing the illegal entry of aliens
and preventing the smuggling of contraband. Since the terrorist attacks
of 9-11, the focus of the Border Patrol has changed to include
detection, apprehension and deterrence of terrorists and terrorist
weapons.
America has given this vital task to a group of dedicated law-
enforcement agents, who are our eyes and ears, in the air, land and
sea. They work in a variety of climates, and seize a great deal of the
drugs intended for our streets and our children.
Coming from a border district, I have a real interest in ensuring
that the Border Patrol is
[[Page 14422]]
equipped with the right mix of personnel, technology, and equipment
that will enhance our ability to separate legitimate travel and trade,
from those that seek to do us harm or enter our nation illegally.
The Detroit Sector of the Border Patrol is responsible for 863 miles
of our liquid border with Canada, and in the last five years, Agents
have made nearly 5,000 arrests--an impressive accomplishment.
Chief Patrol Agent Randy Gallegos, and the men and women of Sector
Detroit are dedicated professionals, who defend the border and our
nation owes them and the entire U.S. Border Patrol a debt of gratitude
for their distinguished service to our nation.
They follow the proud tradition of securing our border that began
eighty-five years ago in small stations, with only a handful of agents.
Today, there are over 18,000 men and women who wear the green uniform
of a Border Patrol Agent.
Without these brave Americans our nation would be less secure, and
for that I want to offer my sincerest thanks. Our Border Patrol agents
epitomize the motto of the Border Patrol--Honor First.
Congratulations on your first eight-five years!
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 498.
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.
____________________
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2009--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 111-46)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on the Budget
and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
Today I am pleased to submit to the Congress the enclosed legislative
proposal, the ``Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009,'' or ``PAYGO,''
together with a sectional analysis.
The deficits that my Administration inherited reflect not only a
severe economic downturn but also years of failing to pay for new
policies--including large tax cuts that disproportionately benefited
the affluent. This failure of fiscal discipline contributed to
transforming surpluses projected at the beginning of this decade into
trillions of dollars in deficits. I am committed to returning our
Government to a path of fiscal discipline, and PAYGO represents a key
step back to the path of shared responsibility.
PAYGO would hold us to a simple but important principle: we should
pay for new tax or entitlement legislation. Creating a new non-
emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion would require offsetting
revenue increases or spending reductions.
In the 1990s, statutory PAYGO encouraged the tough choices that
helped to move the Government from large deficits to surpluses, and I
believe it can do the same today. Both houses of Congress have already
taken an important step toward righting our fiscal course by adopting
congressional rules incorporating the PAYGO principle. But we can
strengthen enforcement and redouble our commitment by enacting PAYGO
into law.
Both the Budget I have proposed and the Budget Resolution approved by
the Congress would cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term,
while laying a new foundation for sustained and widely shared economic
growth through key investments in health, education, and clean energy.
Enacting statutory PAYGO would complement these efforts and represent
an important step toward strengthening our budget process, cutting
deficits, and reducing national debt. Ultimately, however, we will have
to do even more to restore fiscal sustainability.
I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of this proposal.
Barack Obama.
The White House, June 9, 2009.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT COLONEL MARK E. STRATTON, II
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, noble sacrifice dominates the
character of a man who so willingly dedicates his life for others.
There are none who understand that any better today than the men and
women in our U.S. military. They personify the very essence of what it
means to be an American.
Today, under the morning sky at Arlington Cemetery, myself and other
Members of Congress--Rob Wittman from Virginia, Jo Bonner from Alabama,
and Senator Sessions from Alabama--joined several hundred other family
members and friends as a 21-gun salute and ``Taps'' was played for
United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Mark E. Stratton, II. The
somber silence of the grave sites was broken with this tribute.
Colonel Stratton trained as a navigator on an Air Force KC-135. In
his honor, one of these massive aircraft flew low and slow over
Arlington Cemetery, over the flag-draped coffin of one of Air Force's
finest. He gave his life helping the Afghan people to know dignity of a
life lived in freedom.
He was assigned to the Joint Staff at the Pentagon here in
Washington, D.C. and he served as the commander of the Panjshir
Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan. On May 26, 2009, Mark
died near Bagram Airfield of wounds that he sustained from an
improvised explosive device, what we call an IED.
Mark had strong Texas ties. He graduated from Texas A&M University in
December of 1991 with a degree in political science. And while at Texas
A&M, he was a member of Squadron 1 in the Corps of Cadets. He received
his commission through the Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1992. He
has numerous Air Force commendations, including the Purple Heart and
the Bronze Star.
He is remembered by friends as a man of unquestionable character and
loyalty. He was a patriotic individual who exemplified the spirit of
the American airman.
Lieutenant Colonel Gil Delgado, Mark's former roommate at Texas A&M,
described Mark as a man who passionately loved God, his family, his
friends and his country, and it showed in everything Mark did.
Through his heroic work in Afghanistan, Mark lived a life helping
other people. His time was spent building roads and clinics, schools
and canals for the Afghan people. He was an ambassador for the American
spirit. He described the job to family and friends as the best he had
ever had in his entire career. When he was killed, Mr. Speaker, the
villagers in Afghanistan had a memorial service in his honor.
Mark held a deep sense of tradition. Just a few weeks prior to his
death, Mark made a special effort to share his Texas Aggie spirit with
the Afghan friends that he had met. Mr. Speaker, each April 21, the day
Texas gained independence, Aggies from Texas A&M observed what is
called Aggie Muster. This occasion is where all Aggies gather in all
parts of the world to honor Aggies who have died the previous year.
Even though Mark was the only Aggie within 100 miles of his forward
operating base, he convinced the Panjshir Provincial Governor and his
security detail to join him atop a nearby mountain to observe the very
special occasion of Aggie Muster. One Aggie Air Force colonel and
Afghan villagers paid tribute to Americans who died the previous year;
that must have been a sight to see.
[[Page 14423]]
Texas Aggies have a long tradition of military service. In fact,
during World War II, Texas A&M produced over 14,000 officers, more than
came from West Point or Annapolis combined. Mark was a proud Texas
Aggie.
Mark is survived by his wife, Jennifer, and their three children,
along with his mother, stepfather, and his brother, Michael. Mark's
late father and namesake served as an Army captain in the Vietnam War.
His stepmother, Debby Young, lives in southwest Houston. Mark's
brother, Michael, and stepbrother, Steven, also live in the Houston
area.
A great testament to Mark's life is the lives he forever changed
through his work; every structure, every canal and road well traveled.
Every school Mark helped build will offer generations of Afghan
children the opportunity that comes from education. Every clinic he
helped build will be a place where sickness will be cured, where human
suffering is relieved, and where lives are being saved every day.
Mark has left a noble legacy as he has come to the end of this
Earthly journey. It is for others now to pick up the torch he used to
light a way for the Afghan people in the rugged mountains and deserts
of this remote nation.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said, ``The legacy of heroes is the memory
of a great name and the inheritance of a great example.'' Next year, on
April 21, at Aggie Muster, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Stratton's name will
be called. His name and life will be remembered by Aggies and other
grateful Americans and by his Air Force buddies. But no doubt the
people of Afghanistan will also remember the man from America, the Air
Force colonel who built their schools, their water wells, and their
villages. And maybe those villagers will return once more to that
mountaintop and pay tribute to this American hero, Lieutenant Colonel
Mark Stratton.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HEALTH CARE ACT--TITLE 42
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 2744, the
Equal Rights for Health Care Act--Title 42. The concept of equal rights
is a pillar of our Nation and the reason why so many immigrate here to
the United States.
Indeed, the U.S. was founded on the principle that all Americans
should have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. In order to enjoy this blessing of life and liberty,
however, one must be healthy, and that means they have the benefit of
equal treatment and research.
For example, men and women have different symptoms when it comes to
heart disease. Unlike men, most women do not experience chest pain.
Instead, 71 percent of the women report having flu-like symptoms, and
patients, doctors, and researchers need to make sure that emergency
attendants, tests, and prescription drugs are informed about the
differences that we might have.
H.R. 2744, the Equal Rights for Health Care Act--Title 42, will
prohibit discrimination in health care services and research programs
that receive Federal funding based upon sex, race, color, national
origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status.
Civil rights laws have historically been a powerful mechanism for
effecting necessary change in the United States. Each law represents a
national commitment to end discrimination and to establish a mandate to
bring the excluded into the mainstream. These equal rights laws ensure
that the Federal Government delivers on the Constitution's promise of
equal opportunities so that every individual has the right to develop
his or her talents. Health care should be no exception.
In 1971, only 18 percent of women, compared to 26 percent of men, had
completed 4 years or more of college. In 1972, the title IX amendment
was introduced by Representatives Edith Green of Oregon and Patsy Mink
of Hawaii. In 1980, I attended the University of California, Santa
Barbara, where I played on the women's basketball team. I witnessed
firsthand that there was a difference between playing on the women's
team and the men's team. For example, for women, we had to travel in
two or three vans to go to all of our away games, where the men were
allowed to fly on a plane. You might say why is that something that was
important? Well, we lost instruction time, we had time in general lost,
preparation was lost, and recuperation was lost. That's why title IX
was so important.
In 2007, we celebrated the 35th anniversary of title IX, which
assured the women's right to education equality. And the U.S.
Department of Education showed that 56 percent of all women, compared
to 44 percent of men, now have achieved 4 years or more of college. So
title IX has been working.
Federal law prohibits discrimination across a wide array of public
policy arenas, none more than when you consider the difference between
voting, public education, and now what we should do in health care.
H.R. 2744, the Equal Rights for Health Care Act--Title 42, seeks to
have the same effect on the health care community. Despite access to
health care, patients are not always in geographic proximity to medical
facilities that can provide the consistent care that is needed.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the age-
adjusted death rate for all cancers for African Americans in 2001 was
20 percent higher than Caucasian Americans. In 2002, the percentage of
Hispanics and Latinos who were 65 years or older and received adult
immunization shots was only 47 percent, as compared to 70 percent of
Caucasians.
In 2000, the infant mortality rate among Native Hawaiians was 60
percent higher than Caucasians.
{time} 2000
And the rate of leg amputations as a result of diabetes is four times
greater of African Americans who receive Medicare than their
counterparts, Caucasians.
A list of disparities can go on and on, and so we must put an end to
this inequality. Therefore, I have introduced H.R. 2744 so that
Congress can take another step towards equal rights, and I look forward
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle joining me.
I'm proud to have a long list of diverse organizations that are
supporting this legislation, groups such as the Family Equality
Council, the Families United States of America, and, lastly, the
National Minority Quality Forum.
I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation that ensures
that equal services once and for all will also extend to health care as
well, from diagnosis to treatment, and it's a part of the fast-growing
health care debate. It's important that a statement of beliefs is made
when we reform health care. Equality must be a founding principle, and
we must insist that as health care debates move forward, we take the
time to ensure that all Americans have the same rights. Let's move
forward on title XLII as we did in title IX.
____________________
PUBLICATION OF THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL
CONDUCT 111TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson). Under a previous order of
the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I submit for
publication the attached copy of the Rules of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives for
the 111th Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
originally adopted these rules pursuant to House Rule XI, clause
2(a)(1) on February 10, 2009, and made revisions to conform with House
rules pertaining to the Office of Congressional Ethics on June 9, 2009.
I am submitting these rules for publication in compliance with House
Rule XI, clause 2(a)(2).
[[Page 14424]]
Rules, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Adopted February 10,
2009, Amended June 9, 2009, 111th Congress
FOREWORD
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is unique in
the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to
carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an
impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing
committee of the House of Representatives the membership of
which is divided evenly by party. These rules are intended to
provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the
Committee's activities and to help ensure that the Committee
serves well the people of the United States, the House of
Representatives, and the Members, officers, and employees of
the House of Representatives.
PART I--GENERAL COMMITTEE RULES
Rule 1. General Provisions
(a) So far as applicable, these rules and the Rules of the
House of Representatives shall be the rules of the Committee
and any subcommittee. The Committee adopts these rules under
the authority of clause 2(a)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, 111th Congress.
(b) The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended, or
repealed by a vote of a majority of the Committee.
(c) When the interests of justice so require, the
Committee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt any
special procedures, not inconsistent with these rules, deemed
necessary to resolve a particular matter before it. Copies of
such special procedures shall be furnished to all parties in
the matter.
(d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member shall have access
to such information that they request as necessary to conduct
Committee business.
Rule 2. Definitions
(a) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct.
(b) ``Complaint'' means a written allegation of improper
conduct against a Member, officer, or employee of the House
of Representatives filed with the Committee with the intent
to initiate an inquiry.
(c) ``Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative
subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or
employee of the House of Representatives.
(d) ``Investigate,'' ``Investigating,'' and/or
``Investigation'' mean review of the conduct of a Member,
officer or employee of the House of Representatives that is
conducted or authorized by the Committee, an investigative
subcommittee, or the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee.
(e) ``Board'' means the Board of the Office of
Congressional Ethics.
(f) ``Referral'' means a report sent to the Committee from
the Board pursuant to House Rules and all applicable House
Resolutions regarding the conduct of a House Member, officer
or employee, including any accompanying findings or other
supporting documentation.
(g) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee
designated pursuant to Rule 19(a) to conduct an inquiry to
determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be
issued.
(h) ``Statement of Alleged Violation'' means a formal
charging document filed by an investigative subcommittee with
the Committee containing specific allegations against a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law,
rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to
the performance of official duties or the discharge of
official responsibilities.
(i) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee
designated pursuant to Rule 23(a) that holds an adjudicatory
hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of
Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing
evidence.
(j) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to
determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to
the House of Representatives.
(k) ``Respondent'' means a Member, officer, or employee of
the House of Representatives who is the subject of a
complaint filed with the Committee or who is the subject of
an inquiry or a Statement of Alleged Violation.
(l) ``Office of Advice and Education'' refers to the Office
established by section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of
1989. The Office handles inquiries; prepares written opinions
in response to specific requests; develops general guidance;
and organizes seminars, workshops, and briefings for the
benefit of the House of Representatives.
(m) ``Member'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate to,
or the Resident Commissioner to, the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers
(a) The Office of Advice and Education shall handle
inquiries; prepare written opinions providing specific
advice, including reviews of requests for privately-sponsored
travel pursuant to the Committee's travel regulations;
develop general guidance; and organize seminars, workshops,
and briefmgs for the benefit of the House of Representatives.
(b) Any Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives may request a written opinion with respect to
the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such
Member, officer, or employee.
(c) The Office of Advice and Education may provide
information and guidance regarding laws, rules, regulations,
and other standards of conduct applicable to Members,
officers, and employees in the performance of their duties or
the discharge of their responsibilities.
(d) In general, the Committee shall provide a written
opinion to an individual only in response to a written
request, and the written opinion shall address the conduct
only of the inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the
inquiring individual is responsible as employing authority.
(e) A written request for an opinion shall be addressed to
the Chair of the Committee and shall include a complete and
accurate statement of the relevant facts. A request shall be
signed by the requester or the requester's authorized
representative or employing authority. A representative shall
disclose to the Committee the identity of the principal on
whose behalf advice is being sought.
(f) Requests for privately-sponsored travel shall be
treated like any other request for a written opinion for
purposes of paragraphs (g) through (l).
(1) The Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations shall
govern the request submission and Committee approval process
for privately-sponsored travel consistent with House Rules.
(2) A request for privately-sponsored travel of a Member,
officer, or employee shall include a completed and signed
Traveler Form that attaches the Private Sponsor Certification
Form and includes all information required by the Committee's
travel regulations. A private sponsor offering officially-
connected travel to a Member, officer, or employee must
complete and sign a Private Sponsor Certification Form, and
provide a copy of that form to the invitee(s).
(3) Any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies,
or who knowingly and willfully fails to file a Traveler Form
or Private Sponsor Certification Form may be subject to civil
penalties and criminal sanctions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(g) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for
the Committee a response to each written request for an
opinion from a Member, officer, or employee. Each response
shall discuss all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or
other standards.
(h) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of
Advice and Education may seek additional information from the
requester.
(i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to
take action on behalf of the Committee on any proposed
written opinion that they determine does not require
consideration by the Committee. If the Chair or Ranking
Minority Member requests a written opinion, or seeks a
waiver, extension, or approval pursuant to Rules 3(m), 4(c),
4(e), or 4(h), the next ranking member of the requester's
party is authorized to act in lieu of the requester.
(j) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for
advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any
response thereto. Upon request of any Member, officer, or
employee who has submitted a written request for an opinion
or submitted a request for privately-sponsored travel, the
Committee may release to the requesting individual a copy of
their own written request for advice or submitted travel
forms, any subsequent written communications between such
individual and Committee staff regarding the request, and any
Committee advisory opinion or travel letter issued to that
individual in response. The Committee shall not release any
internal Committee staff work product, communications or
notes in response to such a request, except as authorized by
the Committee.
(k) The Committee may take no adverse action in regard to
any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a written
opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts
addressed in the opinion.
(1) Information provided to the Committee by a Member,
officer, or employee seeking advice regarding prospective
conduct may not be used as the basis for initiating an
investigation under clause 3(a)(2) or clause 3(b) of Rule XI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member,
officer, or employee acts in good faith in accordance with
the written advice of the Committee.
(m) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House
Rule XXV (the House gift rule), or for any other waiver or
approval, shall be treated in all respects like any other
request for a written opinion.
(n) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House
Rule XXV (the House gift rule) shall specify the nature of
the waiver being sought and the specific circumstances
justifying the waiver.
(o) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable
to travel paid for by a private source shall include with the
request evidence that the employing authority is aware of the
request. In any other instance where proposed employee
conduct may reflect on the performance of official duties,
the Committee may require that the requester submit evidence
that the employing authority knows of the conduct.
[[Page 14425]]
Rule 4. Financial Disclosure
(a) In matters relating to Title I of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978, the Committee shall coordinate with
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative
Resource Center, to assure that appropriate individuals are
notified of their obligation to file Financial Disclosure
Statements and that such individuals are provided in a timely
fashion with filing instructions and forms developed by the
Committee.
(b) The Committee shall coordinate with the Legislative
Resource Center to assure that information that the Ethics in
Government Act requires to be placed on the public record is
made public.
(c) Any Financial Disclosure Reports filed by Members of
the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that are
forwarded to the Committee by the Clerk shall not be subject
to paragraphs (d) through (q) of this Rule regarding
Financial Disclosure Statements filed pursuant to Title I of
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The Office of
Congressional Ethics retains jurisdiction over review of the
timeliness and completeness of filings by Members of the
Board as the Board's supervising ethics office.
(d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to
grant on behalf of the Committee requests for reasonable
extensions of time for the filing of Financial Disclosure
Statements. Any such request must be received by the
Committee no later than the date on which the Statement in
question is due. A request received after such date may be
granted by the Committee only in extraordinary circumstances.
Such extensions for one individual in a calendar year shall
not exceed a total of 90 days. No extension shall be granted
authorizing a nonincumbent candidate to file a statement
later than 30 days prior to a primary or general election in
which the candidate is participating.
(e) An individual who takes legally sufficient action to
withdraw as a candidate before the date on which that
individual's Financial Disclosure Statement is due under the
Ethics in Government Act shall not be required to file a
Statement. An individual shall not be excused from filing a
Financial Disclosure Statement when withdrawal as a candidate
occurs after the date on which such Statement was due.
(f) Any individual who files a report required to be filed
under title I of the Ethics in Government Act more than 30
days after the later of--
(1) the date such report is required to be filed, or
(2) if a filing extension is granted to such individual,
the last day of the filing extension period, is required by
such Act to pay a late filing fee of $200. The Chair and
Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests
that the fee be waived based on extraordinary circumstances.
(g) Any late report that is submitted without a required
filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not
properly filed.
(h) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to
approve requests for waivers of the aggregation and reporting
of gifts as provided by section 102(a)(2)(C) of the Ethics in
Government Act. If such a request is approved, both the
incoming request and the Committee response shall be
forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for placement on
the public record.
(i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to
approve blind trusts as qualifying under section 102(f)(3) of
the Ethics in Government Act. The correspondence relating to
formal approval of a blind trust, the trust document, the
list of assets transferred to the trust, and any other
documents required by law to be made public, shall be
forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for such
purpose.
(j) The Committee shall designate staff counsel who shall
review Financial Disclosure Statements and, based upon
information contained therein, indicate in a form and manner
prescribed by the Committee whether the Statement appears
substantially accurate and complete and the filer appears to
be in compliance with applicable laws and rules.
(k) Each Financial Disclosure Statement shall be reviewed
within 60 days after the date of filing.
(l) If the reviewing counsel believes that additional
information is required because (1) the Statement appears not
substantially accurate or complete, or (2) the filer may not
be in compliance with applicable laws or rules, then the
reporting individual shall be notified in writing of the
additional information believed to be required, or of the law
or rule with which the reporting individual does not appear
to be in compliance. Such notice shall also state the time
within which a response is to be submitted. Any such notice
shall remain confidential.
(m) Within the time specified, including any extension
granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual
who concurs with the Committee's notification that the
Statement is not complete, or that other action is required,
shall submit the necessary information or take appropriate
action. Any amendment may be in the form of a revised
Financial Disclosure Statement or an explanatory letter
addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
(n) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in
the same manner as other Statements. The individual
designated by the Committee to review the original Statement
shall review any amendment thereto.
(o) Within the time specified, including any extension
granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual
who does not agree with the Committee that the Statement is
deficient or that other action is required, shall be provided
an opportunity to respond orally or in writing. If the
explanation is accepted, a copy of the response, if written,
or a note summarizing an oral response, shall be retained in
Committee files with the original report.
(p) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any
Statement requires clarification or amendment.
(q) If the Committee determines, by vote of a majority of
its members, that there is reason to believe that an
individual has willfully failed to file a Statement or has
willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information
required to be reported, then the Committee shall refer the
name of the individual, together with the evidence supporting
its finding, to the Attorney General pursuant to section
104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act. Such referral shall
not preclude the Committee from initiating such other action
as may be authorized by other provisions of law or the Rules
of the House of Representatives.
Rule 5. Meetings
(a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the
second Tuesday of each month, except when the House of
Representatives is not meeting on that day. When the
Committee Chair determines that there is sufficient reason,
meetings may be called on additional days. A regularly
scheduled meeting need not be held when the Chair determines
there is no business to be considered.
(b) The Chair shall establish the agenda for meetings of
the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may place
additional items on the agenda.
(c) All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittee shall
occur in executive session unless the Committee or
subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members, opens the meeting to the public.
(d) Any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any
sanction hearing held by the Committee shall be open to the
public unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an
affirmative vote of a majority of its members, closes the
hearing to the public.
(e) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its
Chair.
(f) Insofar as practicable, notice for any Committee or
subcommittee meeting shall be provided at least seven days in
advance of the meeting. The Chair of the Committee or
subcommittee may waive such time period for good cause.
Rule 6. Committee Staff
(a) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a
professional, nonpartisan staff.
(b) Each member of the staff shall be professional and
demonstrably qualified for the position for which the
individual is hired.
(c) The staff as a whole and each individual member of the
staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan
manner.
(d) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan
political activity directly affecting any congressional or
presidential election.
(e) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept
public speaking engagements or write for publication on any
subject that is in any way related to the employment or
duties with the Committee of such individual without specific
prior approval from the Chair and Ranking Minority Member.
(f) All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. Such vote
shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of the
Committee during each Congress and as necessary during the
Congress.
(g) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House
Administration, the Committee may retain counsel not employed
by the House of Representatives whenever the Committee
determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the Committee, that the retention of outside
counsel is necessary and appropriate.
(h) If the Committee determines that it is necessary to
retain staff members for the purpose of a particular
investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be
retained only for the duration of that particular
investigation or proceeding.
(i) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a
contract between the Committee and such counsel only by a
majority vote of the members of the Committee.
(j) In addition to any other staff provided for by law,
rule, or other authority, with respect to the Committee, the
Chair and Ranking Minority Member each may appoint one
individual as a shared staff member from the respective
personal staff of the Chair or Ranking Minority Member to
perform service for the Committee. Such shared staff may
assist the Chair or Ranking Minority Member on any
subcommittee on which the Chair or Ranking Minority Member
serves. Only paragraphs (c) and (e) of this Rule and Rule
7(b) shall apply to shared staff.
Rule 7. Confidentiality
(a) Before any Member or employee of the Committee,
including members of an investigative subcommittee selected
under clause
[[Page 14426]]
5(a)(4) of Rule X of the House of Representatives and shared
staff designated pursuant to Committee Rule 6(j), may have
access to information that is confidential under the rules of
the Committee, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be
executed in writing:
``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose,
to any person or entity outside the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, any information received in the course of
my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the
Committee or in accordance with its rules.''
Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to the Clerk
of the House as part of the records of the House. Breaches of
confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee and
appropriate action shall be taken.
(b) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make
public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority
of the members of the Committee, any information, document,
or other material that is confidential, derived from
executive session, or classified and that is obtained during
the course of employment with the Committee.
(c) Committee members and staff shall not disclose any
evidence relating to an investigation to any person or
organization outside the Committee unless authorized by the
Committee.
(d) Members and staff of the Committee shall not disclose
to any person or organization outside the Committee, unless
authorized by the Committee, any information regarding the
Committee's or a subcommittee's investigative, adjudicatory
or other proceedings, including but not limited to: (i) the
fact or nature of any complaints; (ii) executive session
proceedings; (iii) information pertaining to or copies of any
Committee or subcommittee report, study or other document
which purports to express the views, findings, conclusions or
recommendations of the Committee or subcommittee in
connection with any of its activities or proceedings; or (iv)
any other information or allegation respecting the conduct of
a Member, officer or employee of the House. This rule shall
not prohibit the Chair or Ranking Minority Member from
disclosing to the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics
the existence of a Committee investigation, the name of the
Member, officer or employee of the House who is the subject
of that investigation, and a brief statement of the scope of
that investigation in a written request for referral pursuant
to Rule 17A(k). Such disclosures will only be made subject to
written confirmation from the Board that the information
provided by the Chair or Ranking Minority Member will be kept
confidential by the Board.
(e) Except as otherwise specifically authorized by the
Committee, no Committee member or staff member shall disclose
to any person outside the Committee, the name of any witness
subpoenaed to testify or to produce evidence.
(f) Except as provided in Rule 17A, the Committee shall not
disclose to any person or organization outside the Committee
any information concerning the conduct of a respondent until
it has transmitted a Statement of Alleged Violation to such
respondent and the respondent has been given full opportunity
to respond pursuant to Rule 22. The Statement of Alleged
Violation and any written response thereto shall be made
public at the first meeting or hearing on the matter that is
open to the public after such opportunity has been provided.
Any other materials in the possession of the Committee
regarding such statement may be made public as authorized by
the Committee to the extent consistent with the Rules of the
House of Representatives. If no public hearing is held on the
matter, the Statement of Alleged Violation and any written
response thereto shall be included in the Committee's final
report on the matter to the House of Representatives.
(g) Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the Committee,
only the Chair or Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,
after consultation with each other, may make public
statements regarding matters before the Committee or any
subcommittee.
(h) The Committee may establish procedures necessary to
prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any testimony or other
information received by the Committee or its staff.
Rule 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the
Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may
consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their
own initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee,
shall have access to evidence and information before a
subcommittee with whom they so consult, and shall not thereby
be precluded from serving as full, voting members of any
adjudicatory subcommittee. Except for the Chair and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee pursuant to this paragraph,
evidence in the possession of an investigative subcommittee
shall not be disclosed to other Committee members except by a
vote of the subcommittee.
(b) The Committee may establish other noninvestigative and
nonadjudicatory subcommittees and may assign to them such
functions as it may deem appropriate. The membership of each
subcommittee shall provide equal representation for the
majority and minority parties.
(c) The Chair may refer any bill, resolution, or other
matter before the Committee to an appropriate subcommittee
for consideration. Any such bill, resolution, or other matter
may be discharged from the subcommittee to which it was
referred by a majority vote of the Committee.
(d) Any member of the Committee may sit with any
noninvestigative or nonadjudicatory subcommittee, but only
regular members of such subcommittee may vote on any matter
before that subcommittee.
Rule 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification
(a) The quorum for an investigative subcommittee to take
testimony and to receive evidence shall be two members,
unless otherwise authorized by the House of Representatives.
(b) The quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee to take
testimony, receive evidence, or conduct business shall
consist of a majority plus one of the members of the
adjudicatory subcommittee.
(c) Except as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of this rule, a
quorum for the purpose of conducting business consists of a
majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee.
(d) A member of the Committee shall be ineligible to
participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in
which such Member is the respondent.
(e) A member of the Committee may seek disqualification
from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
upon the submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit
of disqualification stating that the member cannot render an
impartial and unbiased decision. If the Committee approves
and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the Chair
shall so notify the Speaker and ask the Speaker to designate
a Member of the House of Representatives from the same
political party as the disqualified member of the Committee
to act as a member of the Committee in any Committee
proceeding relating to such investigation.
Rule 10. Vote Requirements
(a) The following actions shall be taken only upon an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate:
(1) Issuing a subpoena.
(2) Adopting a full Committee motion to create an
investigative subcommittee.
(3) Adopting or amending of a Statement of Alleged
Violation.
(4) Finding that a count in a Statement of Alleged
Violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
(5) Sending a letter of reproval.
(6) Adopting a recommendation to the House of
Representatives that a sanction be imposed.
(7) Adopting a report relating to the conduct of a Member,
officer, or employee.
(8) Issuing an advisory opinion of general applicability
establishing new policy.
(b) Except as stated in clause (a), action may be taken by
the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by a simple
majority, a quorum being present.
(c) No motion made to take any of the actions enumerated in
clause (a) of this Rule may be entertained by the Chair
unless a quorum of the Committee is present when such motion
is made.
Rule 11. Committee Records
(a) All communications and all pleadings pursuant to these
rules shall be filed with the Committee at the Committee's
office or such other place as designated by the Committee.
(b) All records of the Committee which have been delivered
to the Archivist of the United States shall be made available
to the public in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives.
Rule 12. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings
(a) Television or radio coverage of a Committee or
subcommittee hearing or meeting shall be without commercial
sponsorship.
(b) Not more than four television cameras, operating from
fixed positions, shall be permitted in a hearing or meeting
room. The Committee may allocate the positions of permitted
television cameras among the television media in consultation
with the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television
Correspondents' Galleries.
(c) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to
obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving
evidence or testimony and any member of the Committee, or the
visibility of that witness and that member to each other.
(d) Television cameras shall not be placed in positions
that unnecessarily obstruct the coverage of the hearing or
meeting by the other media.
PART II--INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY
Rule 13. House Resolution
Whenever the House of Representatives, by resolution,
authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry
or investigation, the provisions of the resolution, in
conjunction with these Rules, shall govern. To
[[Page 14427]]
the extent the provisions of the resolution differ from these
Rules, the resolution shall control.
Rule 14. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy
(a) Pursuant to clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee may exercise its
investigative authority when:
(1) information offered as a complaint by a Member of the
House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the
Committee;
(2) information offered as a complaint by an individual not
a Member of the House is transmitted to the Committee,
provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that
such Member believes the information is submitted in good
faith and warrants the review and consideration of the
Committee;
(3) the Committee, on its own initiative, undertakes an
investigation;
(4) a Member, officer, or employee is convicted in a
Federal, State, or local court of a felony;
(5) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes
or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or
investigation; or
(6) a referral from the Board is transmitted to the
Committee.
(b) The Committee also has investigatory authority over:
(1) certain unauthorized disclosures of intelligence-
related information, pursuant to House Rule X, clauses
11(g)(4) and (g)(5); or
(2) reports received from the Office of the Inspector
General pursuant to House Rule II, clause 6(c)(5).
Rule 15. Complaints
(a) A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be in
writing, dated, and properly verified (a document will be
considered properly verified where a notary executes it with
the language, ``Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me
on (date) by (the name of the person)'' setting forth in
simple, concise, and direct statements--
(1) the name and legal address of the party filing the
complaint (hereinafter referred to as the ``complainant'');
(2) the name and position or title of the respondent;
(3) the nature of the alleged violation of the Code of
Official Conduct or of other law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of duties
or discharge of responsibilities; and
(4) the facts alleged to give rise to the violation. The
complaint shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions,
or conclusory statements.
(b) Any documents in the possession of the complainant that
relate to the allegations may be submitted with the
complaint.
(c) Information offered as a complaint by a Member of the
House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the
Committee.
(d) Information offered as a complaint by an individual not
a Member of the House may be transmitted to the Committee,
provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that
such Member believes the information is submitted in good
faith and warrants the review and consideration of the
Committee.
(e) A complaint must be accompanied by a certification,
which may be unsworn, that the complainant has provided an
exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the
respondent.
(f) The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has
reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law
enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee
determines that it is appropriate for the conduct alleged in
the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or
regulatory authorities.
(g) A complaint may not be amended without leave of the
Committee. Otherwise, any new allegations of improper conduct
must be submitted in a new complaint that independently meets
the procedural requirements of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and the Committee's Rules.
(h) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the
complainant, any complaint submitted within the 60 days prior
to an election in which the subject of the complaint is a
candidate.
(i) The Committee shall not consider a complaint, nor shall
any investigation be undertaken by the Committee, of any
alleged violation which occurred before the third previous
Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged
violation is directly related to an alleged violation which
occurred in a more recent Congress.
Rule 16. Duties of Committee Chair and Ranking Minority Member
(a) Whenever information offered as a complaint is
submitted to the Committee, the Chair and Ranking Minority
Member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days,
whichever occurs first, to determine whether the information
meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what
constitutes a complaint.
(b) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly
determine that information submitted to the Committee meets
the requirements of the Committee's rules for what
constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or
5 legislative days, whichever is later, after the date that
the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that
information filed meets the requirements of the Committee's
rules for what constitutes a complaint, unless the Committee
by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members votes
otherwise, to--
(1) recommend to the Committee that it dispose of the
complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does
not require action by the House, which may include dismissal
of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter
to the Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom
the complaint is made;
(2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
(3) request that the Committee extend the applicable 45-
calendar day period when they determine more time is
necessary in order to make a recommendation under paragraph
(1) or (2) of Rule 16(b).
(c) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly
gather additional information concerning alleged conduct
which is the basis of a complaint or of information offered
as a complaint until they have established an investigative
subcommittee or the Chair or Ranking Minority Member has
placed on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an
investigative subcommittee.
(d) If the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly
determine that information submitted to the Committee meets
the requirements of the Committee rules for what constitutes
a complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within 45
calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, and
no additional 45-day extension is made, then they shall
establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the
complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for
its consideration. If at any time during the time period
either the Chair or Ranking Minority Member places on the
agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative
subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be
established only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the Committee.
(e) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly
determine that information submitted to the Committee does
not meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint
set forth in the Committee rules, they may (1) return the
information to the complainant with a statement that it fails
to meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set
forth in the Committee's rules; or (2) recommend to the
Committee that it authorize the establishment of an
investigative subcommittee.
Rule 17. Processing of Complaints
(a) If a complaint is in compliance with House and
Committee Rules, a copy of the complaint and the Committee
Rules shall be forwarded to the respondent within 5 days with
notice that the complaint conforms to the applicable rules.
(b) The respondent may, within 30 days of the Committee's
notification, provide to the Committee any information
relevant to a complaint filed with the Committee. The
respondent may submit a written statement in response to the
complaint. Such a statement shall be signed by the
respondent. If the statement is prepared by counsel for the
respondent, the respondent shall sign a representation that
the respondent has reviewed the response and agrees with the
factual assertions contained therein.
(c) The Committee staff may request information from the
respondent or obtain additional information relevant to the
case from other sources prior to the establishment of an
investigative subcommittee only when so directed by the Chair
and Ranking Minority Member.
(d) The respondent shall be notified in writing regarding
the Committee's decision either to dismiss the complaint or
to create an investigative subcommittee.
Rule 17A. Referrals from the Board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics
(a) The Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over the
interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the Code
of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 1(q) of House Rule X.
Receipt of referrals from the Board under this rule does not
limit the Committee's discretion to address referrals in any
way through the appropriate procedures authorized by
Committee Rules. The Committee shall review the report and
findings transmitted by the Board without prejudice or
presumptions as to the merit of the allegations.
(b)(1) Whenever the Committee receives either (A) a
referral containing a written report and any findings and
supporting documentation from the Board; or (B) a referral
from the Board pursuant to a request under Rule 17A(k), the
Chair shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days after
the date the referral is received, whichever is later, to
make public the report and findings of the Board unless the
Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly decide, or the
Committee votes, to withhold such information for not more
than one additional 45-day period.
(2) At least one calendar day before the Committee makes
public any report and findings of the Board the Chair shall
notify in writing the Board and the Member, officer, or
employee who is the subject of the referral of the impending
public release of
[[Page 14428]]
these documents. At the same time, Chair shall transmit a
copy of any public statement on the Committee's disposition
of the matter and any accompanying Committee report to the
individual who is the subject of the referral.
(3) All public statements and reports and findings of the
Board that are required to be made public under this Rule
shall be posted on the Committee's website.
(c) If the OCE report and findings are withheld for an
additional 45-day period pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), Chair
shall--
(1) make a public statement that the Committee has decided
or voted to extend the matter referred from the Board on the
day of such decision or vote; and
(2) make public the written report and findings pursuant to
paragraph (b) upon the termination of such additional period.
(d) If the Board transmits a report with a recommendation
to dismiss or noting a matter as unresolved due to a tie
vote, and the Committee votes to extend the matter for an
additional period as provided in paragraph (b), the Committee
is not required to make a public statement that the Committee
has voted to extend the matter pursuant to paragraph (b)(1).
(e) If the Committee votes to dismiss a matter referred
from the Board, the Committee is not required to make public
the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to
paragraph (c) unless the Committee's vote is inconsistent
with the recommendation of the Board. A vote by the Committee
to dismiss a matter is not considered inconsistent with a
report from the Board that the matter is unresolved by the
Board due to a tie vote.
(f) Except as provided by paragraph (g):
(1) If the Committee establishes an investigative
subcommittee respecting any matter referred by the Board,
then the report and findings of the Board shall not be made
public until the conclusion of the investigative subcommittee
process pursuant to Rule 19. The Committee shall issue a
public statement noting the establishment of an investigative
subcommittee, which shall include the name of the Member,
officer, or employee who is the subject of the inquiry, and
shall set forth the alleged violation.
(2) If any such investigative subcommittee does not
conclude its review within one year after the Board's
referral, then the Committee shall make public the report of
the Board no later than one year after the referral. If the
investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review
before the end of the Congress in which the report of the
Board is made public, the Committee shall make public any
findings of the Board on the last day of that Congress.
(g) If the vote of the Committee is a tie or the Committee
fails to act by the close of any applicable period(s) under
this rule, the report and the findings of the Board shall be
made public by the Committee, along with a public statement
by the Chair explaining the status of the matter.
(h)(1) If the Committee agrees to a request from an
appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority to defer
taking action on a matter referred by the Board under
paragraph (b)--
(A) The Committee is not required to make public the
written report and findings of the Board pursuant to
paragraph (c), except that if the recommendation of the Board
is that the matter requires further review, the Committee
shall make public the written report of the Board but not the
findings; and
(B) The Committee shall make a public statement that it is
deferring taking action on the matter at the request of such
law enforcement or regulatory authority within one day
(excluding weekends and public holidays) of the day that the
Committee agrees to the request.
(2) If the Committee has not acted on the matter within one
year of the date the public statement described in paragraph
(h)(1)(B) is released, the Committee shall make a public
statement that it continues to defer taking action on the
matter. The Committee shall make a new statement upon the
expiration of each succeeding one-year period during which
the Committee has not acted on the matter.
(i) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the
Board, any referral from the Board within 60 days before a
Federal, State, or local election in which the subject of the
referral is a candidate.
(j) The Committee may postpone any reporting requirement
under this rule that falls within that 60-day period until
after the date of the election in which the subject of the
referral is a candidate. For purposes of calculating any
applicable period under this Rule, any days within the 60-day
period before such an election shall not be counted.
(k)(1) At any time after the Committee receives written
notification from the Board of the Office of Congressional
Ethics that the Board is undertaking a review of alleged
conduct of any Member, officer, or employee of the House at a
time when the Committee is investigating, or has completed an
investigation of the same matter, the Committee may so notify
the Board in writing and request that the Board cease its
review and refer the matter to the Committee for its
consideration immediately. The Committee shall also notify
the Board in writing if the Committee has not reached a final
resolution of the matter or has not referred the matter to
the appropriate Federal or State authorities by the end of
any applicable time period specified in Rule 17A (including
any permissible extension).
(2) The Committee may not request a second referral of the
matter from the Board if the Committee has notified the Board
that it is unable to resolve the matter previously requested
pursuant to this section. The Board may subsequently send a
referral regarding a matter previously requested and returned
by the Committee after the conclusion of the Board's review
process.
Rule 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry or Investigation
(a) Notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the
Committee may consider any information in its possession
indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have
committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any
law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct
applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or
employee in the performance of the duties or the discharge of
the responsibilities of such individual. The Chair and
Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional
information concerning such an alleged violation by a Member,
officer, or employee unless and until an investigative
subcommittee has been established. The Chair and Ranking
Minority Member may also jointly take appropriate action
consistent with Committee Rules to resolve the matter.
(b) If the Committee votes to establish an investigative
subcommittee, the Committee shall proceed in accordance with
Rule 19.
(c) Any written request by a Member, officer, or employee
of the House of Representatives that the Committee conduct an
investigation into such person's own conduct shall be
considered in accordance with subsection (a) of this Rule.
(d) An inquiry shall not be undertaken regarding any
alleged violation that occurred before the third previous
Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines that
the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged
violation that occurred in a more recent Congress.
(e)(1) An inquiry shall be undertaken by an investigative
subcommittee with regard to any felony conviction of a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
in a Federal, State, or local court who has been sentenced.
Notwithstanding this provision, the Committee has the
discretion to initiate an inquiry upon an affirmative vote of
a majority of the members of the Committee at any time prior
to conviction or sentencing.
(2) Not later than 30 days after a Member, officer or
employee of the House is indicted or otherwise formally
charged with criminal conduct in any Federal, State or local
court, the Committee shall either initiate an inquiry upon a
majority vote of the members of the Committee or submit a
report to the House describing its reasons for not initiating
an inquiry and describing the actions, if any, that the
Committee has taken in response to the allegations.
Rule 19. Investigative Subcommittee
(a)(1) Upon the establishment of an investigative
subcommittee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee shall designate four members (with equal
representation from the majority and minority parties) to
serve as an investigative subcommittee to undertake an
inquiry. Members of the Committee and Members of the House
selected pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of Rule X of the House
of Representatives are eligible for appointment to an
investigative subcommittee, as determined by the Chair and
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. At the time of
appointment, the Chair shall designate one member of the
subcommittee to serve as the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member shall designate one member of the subcommittee to
serve as the ranking minority member of the investigative
subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee may serve as members of an investigative
subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex-officio
members.
(2) The respondent shall be notified of the membership of
the investigative subcommittee and shall have 10 days after
such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of
any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing
and must be on the grounds that the subcommittee member
cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The
subcommittee member against whom the objection is made shall
be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to
seek disqualification from participating in the inquiry
pursuant to Rule 9(e).
(b) In an inquiry undertaken by an investigative
subcommittee--
(1) All proceedings, including the taking of testimony,
shall be conducted in executive session and all testimony
taken by deposition or things produced pursuant to subpoena
or otherwise shall be deemed to have been taken or produced
in executive session.
(2) The Chair of the investigative subcommittee shall ask
the respondent and all witnesses whether they intend to be
represented by counsel. If so, the respondent or witnesses or
their legal representatives shall provide written designation
of counsel. A respondent or witness who is represented by
[[Page 14429]]
counsel shall not be questioned in the absence of counsel
unless an explicit waiver is obtained.
(3) The subcommittee shall provide the respondent an
opportunity to present, orally or in writing, a statement,
which must be under oath or affirmation, regarding the
allegations and any other relevant questions arising out of
the inquiry.
(4) The staff may interview witnesses, examine documents
and other evidence, and request that submitted statements be
under oath or affirmation and that documents be certified as
to their authenticity and accuracy.
(5) The subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members,
may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and
other items as it deems necessary to the conduct of the
inquiry. Unless the Committee otherwise provides, the
subpoena power shall rest in the Chair and Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee and a subpoena shall be issued upon
the request of the investigative subcommittee.
(6) The subcommittee shall require that testimony be given
under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or
affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm)
that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in
the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?''
The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chair or
subcommittee member designated by the Chair to administer
oaths.
(c) During the inquiry, the procedure respecting the
admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows:
(1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the
evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member
at any investigative subcommittee proceeding shall rule upon
any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence,
motion, procedure or any other matter, and may direct any
witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A
witness, witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may
appeal any rulings to the members present at that proceeding.
A majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on
such appeal shall govern the question of admissibility, and
no appeal shall lie to the Committee.
(3) Whenever a person is determined by a majority vote to
be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be
referred to the Committee to determine whether to refer the
matter to the House of Representatives for consideration.
(4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee
approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or
the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute.
(d) Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the
subcommittee members, and an affirmative vote of a majority
of the full Committee, an investigative subcommittee may
expand the scope of its inquiry.
(e) Upon completion of the inquiry, the staff shall draft
for the investigative subcommittee a report that shall
contain a comprehensive summary of the information received
regarding the alleged violations.
(f) Upon completion of the inquiry, an investigative
subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt a
Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is
substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of
Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official
duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a
Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
has occurred. If more than one violation is alleged, such
Statement shall be divided into separate counts. Each count
shall relate to a separate violation, shall contain a plain
and concise statement of the alleged facts of such violation,
and shall include a reference to the provision of the Code of
Official Conduct or law, rule, regulation or other applicable
standard of conduct governing the performance of duties or
discharge of responsibilities alleged to have been violated.
A copy of such Statement shall be transmitted to the
respondent and the respondent's counsel.
(g) If the investigative subcommittee does not adopt a
Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall transmit to the
Committee a report containing a summary of the information
received in the inquiry, its conclusions and reasons
therefore, and any appropriate recommendation.
Rule 20. Amendments to Statements of Alleged Violation
(a) An investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative
vote of a majority of its members, amend its Statement of
Alleged Violation anytime before the Statement of Alleged
Violation is transmitted to the Committee; and
(b) If an investigative subcommittee amends its Statement
of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall be notified in
writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that
notification to file an answer to the amended Statement of
Alleged Violation.
Rule 21. Committee Reporting Requirements
(a) Whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a
Statement of Alleged Violation and transmits a report to that
effect to the Committee, the Committee may by an affirmative
vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the
House of Representatives;
(b) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a
Statement of Alleged Violation but recommends that no further
action be taken, it shall transmit a report to the Committee
regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation; and
(c) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a
Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent admits to the
violations set forth in such Statement, the respondent waives
the right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the respondent's
waiver is approved by the Committee--
(1) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal
to the Committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to
the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the
subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
(2) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding
the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of
receipt of that draft;
(3) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the
Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation
together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant
to subparagraph (2), and the Committee shall make the report,
together with the respondent's views, available to the public
before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
(4) the Committee shall by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members issue a report and transmit such
report to the House of Representatives, together with the
respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to
subparagraph (2) and any additional views respondent may
submit for attachment to the final report; and
(d) Members of the Committee shall have not less than 72
hours to review any report transmitted to the Committee by an
investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a
sanction hearing and the Committee vote on whether to adopt
the report.
Rule 22. Respondent's Answer
(a)(1) Within 30 days from the date of transmittal of a
Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall file
with the investigative subcommittee an answer, in writing and
under oath, signed by respondent and respondent's counsel.
Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed shall be
considered by the Committee as a denial of each count.
(2) The answer shall contain an admission to or denial of
each count set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation
and may include negative, affirmative, or alternative
defenses and any supporting evidence or other relevant
information.
(b) The respondent may file a Motion for a Bill of
Particulars within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the
Statement of Alleged Violation. If a Motion for a Bill of
Particulars is filed, the respondent shall not be required to
file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has
replied to such motion.
(c)(1) The respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss within
10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of
Alleged Violation or, if a Motion for a Bill of Particulars
has been filed, within 10 days of the date of the
subcommittee's reply to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars.
If a Motion to Dismiss is filed, the respondent shall not be
required to file an answer until 20 days after the
subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss, unless the
respondent previously filed a Motion for a Bill of
Particulars, in which case the respondent shall not be
required to file an answer until 10 days after the
subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss. The
investigative subcommittee shall rule upon any motion to
dismiss filed during the period between the establishment of
the subcommittee and the subcommittee's transmittal of a
report or Statement of Alleged Violation to the Committee or
to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member at the conclusion of
an inquiry, and no appeal of the subcommittee's ruling shall
lie to the Committee.
(2) A Motion to Dismiss may be made on the grounds that the
Statement of Alleged Violation fails to state facts that
constitute a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or
other applicable law, rule, regulation, or standard of
conduct, or on the grounds that the Committee lacks
jurisdiction to consider the allegations contained in the
Statement.
(d) Any motion filed with the subcommittee pursuant to this
rule shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities.
(e)(1) The Chair of the investigative subcommittee, for
good cause shown, may permit the respondent to file an answer
or motion after the day prescribed above.
(2) If the ability of the respondent to present an adequate
defense is not adversely affected and special circumstances
so require, the Chair of the investigative subcommittee may
direct the respondent to file
[[Page 14430]]
an answer or motion prior to the day prescribed above.
(f) If the day on which any answer, motion, reply, or other
pleading must be filed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or
holiday, such filing shall be made on the first business day
thereafter.
(g) As soon as practicable after an answer has been filed
or the time for such filing has expired, the Statement of
Alleged Violation and any answer, motion, reply, or other
pleading connected therewith shall be transmitted by the
Chair of the investigative subcommittee to the Chair and
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.
Rule 23. Adjudicatory Hearings
(a) If a Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to
the Chair and Ranking Minority Member pursuant to Rule 22,
and no waiver pursuant to Rule 26(b) has occurred, the Chair
shall designate the members of the Committee who did not
serve on the investigative subcommittee to serve on an
adjudicatory subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee shall be the Chair and Ranking
Minority Member of the adjudicatory subcommittee unless they
served on the investigative subcommittee. The respondent
shall be notified of the designation of the adjudicatory
subcommittee and shall have 10 days after such notice is
transmitted to object to the participation of any
subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and
shall be on the grounds that the member cannot render an
impartial and unbiased decision. The member against whom the
objection is made shall be the sole judge of any
disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from
serving on the subcommittee pursuant to Rule 9(e).
(b) A majority of the adjudicatory subcommittee membership
plus one must be present at all times for the conduct of any
business pursuant to this rule.
(c) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall hold a hearing to
determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged
Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence
and shall make findings of fact, except where such violations
have been admitted by respondent.
(d) At an adjudicatory hearing, the subcommittee may
require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and
other items as it deems necessary. Depositions,
interrogatories, and sworn statements taken under any
investigative subcommittee direction may be accepted into the
hearing record.
(e) The procedures set forth in clause 2(g) and (k) of Rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply
to adjudicatory hearings. All such hearings shall be open to
the public unless the adjudicatory subcommittee, pursuant to
such clause, determines that the hearings or any part thereof
should be closed.
(f)(1) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall, in writing,
notify the respondent that the respondent and respondent's
counsel have the right to inspect, review, copy, or
photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, or other
tangible objects that the adjudicatory subcommittee counsel
intends to use as evidence against the respondent in an
adjudicatory hearing. The respondent shall be given access to
such evidence, and shall be provided the names of witnesses
the subcommittee counsel intends to call, and a summary of
their expected testimony, no less than 15 calendar days prior
to any such hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances,
no evidence may be introduced or witness called in an
adjudicatory hearing unless the respondent has been afforded
a prior opportunity to review such evidence or has been
provided the name of the witness.
(2) After a witness has testified on direct examination at
an adjudicatory hearing, the Committee, at the request of the
respondent, shall make available to the respondent any
statement of the witness in the possession of the Committee
which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness
has testified.
(3) Any other testimony, statement, or documentary evidence
in the possession of the Committee which is material to the
respondent's defense shall, upon request, be made available
to the respondent.
(g) No less than 5 days prior to the hearing, the
respondent or counsel shall provide the adjudicatory
subcommittee with the names of witnesses expected to be
called, summaries of their expected testimony, and copies of
any documents or other evidence proposed to be introduced.
(h) The respondent or counsel may apply to the subcommittee
for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses
or the production of evidence. The application shall be
granted upon a showing by the respondent that the proposed
testimony or evidence is relevant and not otherwise available
to respondent. The application may be denied if not made at a
reasonable time or if the testimony or evidence would be
merely cumulative.
(i) During the hearing, the procedures regarding the
admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows:
(1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the
evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member
at an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing shall rule upon any
question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion,
procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to
answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness,
witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal
any ruling to the members present at that proceeding. A
majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on
such an appeal shall govern the question of admissibility and
no appeal shall lie to the Committee.
(3) Whenever a witness is deemed by a Chair or other
presiding member to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the
matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether
to refer the matter to the House of Representatives for
consideration.
(4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee
approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or
the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute.
(j) Unless otherwise provided, the order of an adjudicatory
hearing shall be as follows:
(1) The Chair of the subcommittee shall open the hearing by
stating the adjudicatory subcommittee's authority to conduct
the hearing and the purpose of the hearing.
(2) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and
the respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving
opening statements.
(3) Testimony from witnesses and other relevant evidence
shall be received in the following order whenever possible:
(i) witnesses (deposition transcripts and affidavits
obtained during the inquiry may be used in lieu of live
witnesses if the witness is unavailable) and other evidence
offered by the Committee counsel,
(ii) witnesses and other evidence offered by the
respondent,
(iii) rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the Chair.
(4) Witnesses at a hearing shall be examined first by
counsel calling such witness. The opposing counsel may then
cross-examine the witness. Redirect examination and recross
examination by counsel may be permitted at the Chair's
discretion. Subcommittee members may then question witnesses.
Unless otherwise directed by the Chair, questions by
Subcommittee members shall be conducted under the five-minute
rule.
(5) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and
respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving
closing arguments. Committee counsel may reserve time for
rebuttal argument, as permitted by the Chair.
(k) A subpoena to a witness to appear at a hearing shall be
served sufficiently in advance of that witness' scheduled
appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time,
as determined by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee,
to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel.
(l) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be
furnished a printed copy of the Committee rules, the relevant
provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives
applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a copy of the
Statement of Alleged Violation.
(m) Testimony of all witnesses shall be taken under oath or
affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be:
``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you
will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under
consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation
shall be administered by the Chair or Committee member
designated by the Chair to administer oaths.
(n) At an adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests
on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the
Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing
evidence. However, Committee counsel need not present any
evidence regarding any count that is admitted by the
respondent or any fact stipulated.
(o) As soon as practicable after all testimony and evidence
have been presented, the subcommittee shall consider each
count contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation and
shall determine by a majority vote of its members whether
each count has been proved. If a majority of the subcommittee
does not vote that a count has been proved, a motion to
reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted
that the count was not proved. A count that is not proved
shall be considered as dismissed by the subcommittee.
(p) The findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall be
reported to the Committee.
Rule 24. Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other
Recommendations
(a) If no count in a Statement of Alleged Violation is
proved, the Committee shall prepare a report to the House of
Representatives, based upon the report of the adjudicatory
subcommittee.
(b) If an adjudicatory subcommittee completes an
adjudicatory hearing pursuant to Rule 23 and reports that any
count of the Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved,
a hearing before the Committee shall be held to receive oral
and/or written submissions by counsel for the Committee and
[[Page 14431]]
counsel for the respondent as to the sanction the Committee
should recommend to the House of Representatives with respect
to such violations. Testimony by witnesses shall not be heard
except by written request and vote of a majority of the
Committee.
(c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to
clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion
to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House
take disciplinary action. If a majority of the Committee does
not vote in favor of the recommendation that the House of
Representatives take action, a motion to reconsider that vote
may be made only by a member who voted against the
recommendation. The Committee may also, by majority vote,
adopt a motion to issue a Letter of Reproval or take other
appropriate Committee action.
(d) If the Committee determines a Letter of Reproval
constitutes sufficient action, the Committee shall include
any such letter as a part of its report to the House of
Representatives.
(e) With respect to any proved counts against a Member of
the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to
the House one or more of the following sanctions:
(1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives.
(2) Censure.
(3) Reprimand.
(4) Fine.
(5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or
immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of
Representatives may impose such denial or limitation.
(6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be
appropriate.
(f) With respect to any proved counts against an officer or
employee of the House of Representatives, the Committee may
recommend to the House one or more of the following
sanctions:
(1) Dismissal from employment.
(2) Reprimand.
(3) Fine.
(4) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be
appropriate.
(g) With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may
recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations,
censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and
expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee
is appropriate for the most serious violations. A
recommendation of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it
is likely that the violation was committed to secure a
personal financial benefit; and a recommendation of a denial
or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity of a
Member is appropriate when the violation bears upon the
exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or
immunity. This clause sets forth general guidelines and does
not limit the authority of the Committee to recommend other
sanctions.
(h) The Committee report shall contain an appropriate
statement of the evidence supporting the Committee's findings
and a statement of the Committee's reasons for the
recommended sanction.
Rule 25. Disclosure of Exculpatory Information to Respondent
If the Committee, or any investigative or adjudicatory
subcommittee at any time receives any exculpatory information
respecting a Complaint or Statement of Alleged Violation
concerning a Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives, it shall make such information known and
available to the Member, officer, or employee as soon as
practicable, but in no event later than the transmittal of
evidence supporting a proposed Statement of Alleged Violation
pursuant to Rule 26(c). If an investigative subcommittee does
not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall identify
any exculpatory information in its possession at the
conclusion of its inquiry and shall include such information,
if any, in the subcommittee's final report to the Committee
regarding its inquiry. For purposes of this rule, exculpatory
evidence shall be any evidence or information that is
substantially favorable to the respondent with respect to the
allegations or charges before an investigative or
adjudicatory subcommittee.
Rule 26. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses
(a) A respondent shall be informed of the right to be
represented by counsel, to be provided at the respondent's
own expense.
(b) A respondent may seek to waive any procedural rights or
steps in the disciplinary process. A request for waiver must
be in writing, signed by the respondent, and must detail what
procedural steps the respondent seeks to waive. Any such
request shall be subject to the acceptance of the Committee
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
(c) Not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote
by an investigative subcommittee on a Statement of Alleged
Violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with
a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation it intends to
adopt together with all evidence it intends to use to prove
those charges which it intends to adopt, including
documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness
interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by
an affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to
withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but
if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform
the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the
count to which such evidence relates.
(d) Neither the respondent nor respondent's counsel shall,
directly or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any
member thereof during the period of time set forth in
paragraph (c) except for the sole purpose of settlement
discussions where counsels for the respondent and the
subcommittee are present.
(e) If, at any time after the issuance of a Statement of
Alleged Violation, the Committee or any subcommittee thereof
determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a
respondent under paragraph (c) to prove the charges contained
in the Statement of Alleged Violation (or any amendment
thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available
to the respondent, and it may be used in any further
proceeding under the Committee's rules.
(f) Evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (c) or (e)
shall be made available to the respondent and respondent's
counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document,
information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that
paragraph shall be made public until--
(1) such time as a Statement of Alleged Violation is made
public by the Committee if the respondent has waived the
adjudicatory hearing; or
(2) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the
respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing; but the
failure of respondent and respondent's counsel to so agree in
writing, and therefore not receive the evidence, shall not
preclude the issuance of a Statement of Alleged Violation at
the end of the period referenced to in (c).
(g) A respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
(1) the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that
information the Committee has received constitutes a
complaint;
(2) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an
investigative subcommittee;
(3) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena
or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; and
(4) the Committee votes to expand the scope of the inquiry
of an investigative subcommittee.
(h) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a
Statement of Alleged Violation and a respondent enters into
an agreement with that subcommittee to settle a complaint on
which the Statement is based, that agreement, unless the
respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed
by the respondent and the respondent's counsel, the Chair and
Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, and outside
counsel, if any.
(i) Statements or information derived solely from a
respondent or respondent's counsel during any settlement
discussions between the Committee or a subcommittee thereof
and the respondent shall not be included in any report of the
subcommittee or the Committee or otherwise publicly disclosed
without the consent of the respondent.
(j) Whenever a motion to establish an investigative
subcommittee does not prevail, the Committee shall promptly
send a letter to the respondent informing the respondent of
such vote.
(k) Witnesses shall be afforded a reasonable period of
time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee, to
prepare for an appearance before an investigative
subcommittee or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain
counsel.
(l) Prior to their testimony, witnesses shall be furnished
a printed copy of the Committee's Rules of Procedure and the
provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives
applicable to the rights of witnesses.
(m) Witnesses may be accompanied by their own counsel for
the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional
rights. The Chair may punish breaches of order and decorum,
and of professional responsibility on the part of counsel, by
censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee
may cite the offender to the House of Representatives for
contempt.
(n) Each witness subpoenaed to provide testimony or other
evidence shall be provided the same per diem rate as
established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on
House Administration for Members, officers and employees of
the House, and, as the Chair considers appropriate, actual
expenses of travel to or from the place of examination. No
compensation shall be authorized for attorney's fees or for a
witness' lost earnings. Such per diem may not be paid if a
witness had been summoned at the place of examination.
(o) With the approval of the Committee, a witness, upon
request, may be provided with a transcript of the witness'
own deposition or other testimony taken in executive session,
or, with the approval of the Chair and Ranking Minority
Member, may be permitted to examine such transcript in the
office of the Committee. Any such request shall be in writing
and shall include a statement that the witness, and counsel,
agree to maintain the confidentiality of all executive
session proceedings covered by such transcript.
[[Page 14432]]
Rule 27. Frivolous Filings
If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is
deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the Committee, the Committee may take such action
as it, by an affirmative vote of a majority deems appropriate
in the circumstances.
Rule 28. Referrals to Federal or State Authorities
Referrals made under clause 3(a)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives may be made by an affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the members of the Committee.
____________________
THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP: HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank you and Speaker of
the House Pelosi for allowing the 30-Something Working Group, which has
been empowered by the Speaker's office, to come down to the House floor
every so often and share with our colleagues here in the House really
some of the burning questions of our constituents out there, especially
those that affect younger individuals and younger families, and to talk
about how this House, under new leadership with a new face in the White
House, is rising to answer those questions and meet those challenges.
We'll put this poster up at the end of the hour as well, but we are
always eager to hear feedback from people who want to know more about
the 30-Something Working Group. Madam Speaker, thanks to members of
your class, we have a number of new members of the 30-Something Working
Group and they've been coming down and joining us occasionally in these
hours. We're glad to have Mr. Altmire with us and hopefully some guests
to join us this evening as we try to focus our discussion this evening
on an issue of just incredible importance to our constituents. That is
the issue of health care for all Americans.
We sit at a moment of great economic peril for this country and the
people that we represent. There is not an hour or minute, frankly, that
goes by when we are back in our districts where we're not talking to a
family or to a shop owner, to a factory worker, to a small business man
about the difficulty that they face in this economy. It's getting
harder and harder to keep businesses open. It's getting harder and
harder to hold onto your job. And for the now 9\1/2\ percent of
Americans that are out of work, it's getting hard to find a way back
into the workforce.
For those of us who believe that now is the time to pass not
incremental health care reform but major structural health care reform,
we support that not just because we think that it's a moral imperative,
as the richest Nation in the world, that we shouldn't be the outlier in
the global health care system by which we still stand as the only
country in the industrialized world that has such a high percentage of
our citizens without access to our health care system; not just that,
as the country which claims to be the leader of the free world, we
still sit in a country where children go to bed at night sick because
their parents can't afford a doctor; but because we believe that it's
part and parcel of how we start to get this economy back on firm
footing again.
For families out there that have seen their wages remain flat over
the last 5 years and have seen the percentage of their income dedicated
to health care costs grow exponentially, they didn't figure out that
this economy was in trouble last fall when the banks collapsed. They
knew it long ago. For our auto companies that have been struggling for
a very long time to compete competitively on a global stage when $1,500
of every car that they sell is attributable to health care costs,
$1,500 more than their competitors in Japan or Germany, they knew that
the health care system was dragging this economy down long before last
fall. And for small- and medium-sized businesses across this country
who have seen their premiums dedicated to keep their employees insured
grow by 10 or 12 or 14 percent a year, far outpacing the similar
increase in revenues coming into their coffers, they knew that health
care was weighing this economy down long before the newspapers
discovered that this economy was in crisis and in trouble last fall.
If we really want to emerge from this recession stronger than ever,
if we really want to be competitive in the global stage, if we really
want to recognize the strength of this economy lying in the hundreds of
thousands of 2- and 5- and 10- and 20-person businesses out there in
each and every one of our districts, then we have got to fix our health
care this year. And we can't just do it with a Band-Aid here or there,
pardon the pun. We've got to do it with real reform that at the same
time lowers the cost of care and expands access to more people. I
happen to think that it should be a right as a matter of being a
citizen of the United States that you should get health care, but I
recognize that the only way that you do that is by lowering the cost of
care across the board.
We spend twice as much as all of the other industrialized nations on
health care, essentially, maybe a little bit less than twice as much,
for a system that still leaves 50 million people uninsured. We can get
access for everybody out there as long as we start spending less or, at
the very least, that we start controlling the rate of growth.
So I think we are going to talk about all these things tonight as the
30-Somethings come to the floor. We are going to talk about health
care, health care reform as a moral imperative, as a matter of
conscience for this Nation. We're going to talk about it as an economic
imperative, and we're going to talk about it both from the context and
the perspective of getting care to people that don't have it today and
trying to lower the cost of care so that all of us, whether or not we
have it or don't have it, don't continue to pay for a system that far
too often provides very expensive care without having accompanying
results.
So I'm glad to be here on the floor today with a good friend who has
joined here for a number of Special Order hours, Mr. Altmire. Ms.
Baldwin has joined us as well.
I'm glad to yield the floor to Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I cannot think of a bigger issue to be dealing with right now. We
have so many issues that this Congress is dealing with. Certainly
energy, education, this enormous mountain of debt which we have
accumulated over the years, all of these issues are critically
important, and all of them are issues that this Congress is going to
deal with. The issue of health care is an issue that impacts our
national debt. We cannot dig our way out of this hole. We cannot
achieve structural surplus like we had in the 1990s. We can't ever even
approach that until we deal with the skyrocketing cost of health care.
This is an issue that affects every American in this country very
directly. It affects every family and it affects every small business
in the country in ways that other issues that we deal with don't on a
daily basis.
So what we are talking about here tonight and what this Congress is
doing over the course of this summer as we put together this health
care reform bill is the three legs of the stool, as the gentleman
pointed out, making sure that we find a way for every American in this
country to gain access to our system and get affordable health care,
making sure that we bring down the costs for everyone. Because we talk
about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance
right now. They get treated. They show up at the emergency room, and
they get their health care. It's certainly not the most cost-effective
way. It's probably not the most efficient way, and it's probably not
the best way for them to get health care, but they'll end up in the
system somewhere. And as the gentleman knows, those of us who have
insurance pay for them. They get covered. They get their treatment. But
the cost shift that takes place is the reason why an aspirin costs $10
when you go to the hospital.
[[Page 14433]]
It's very easy to demagogue this issue if you're in it for political
reasons, to say, well, here's what they want to do: They want to take
your money and give it to those people who don't have health insurance
because 87 percent of Americans in this country have health care. We
spend a lot of time talking about those who don't, but 87 percent of
Americans have health care. Now, they are in many cases one illness or
injury away from losing everything, certainly one job loss away, and
tens of millions of Americans that have coverage live in fear of losing
it for those very reasons. Tens of millions more are underinsured. They
have some coverage; they don't have what they need. And in many cases,
the insurance companies have people, millions, approximately 2 million
people, that are employed in this country specifically to find a way,
if you are insured, to make sure that they can deny your claim, to
redline you, to find a preexisting condition exclusion, to find a
reason why they shouldn't have to pay your claim. Now, that's another
of the issues. Lastly is quality. So you have cost, you have access,
and you have quality.
We have in many ways the best health care system anywhere in the
world, and the challenge that we have in putting this bill together is
we want to preserve what works. We want to say to the 87 percent of
Americans who have health care, if you like your plan, if you enjoy the
health care plan that you have and you want to keep it, we're not going
to touch it and you can keep it. But if you want another alternative,
we're going to find you another alternative. And if you have too much
out-of-pocket costs, you're not satisfied with the situation that you
have, we're going to give you another alternative. But we want to
preserve what works in the current system. We want those who have
health care to be able to keep it. And we want to make sure that our
medical innovation, our technology, our research, which far exceeds
anything available anywhere else in the world, is preserved. We want to
fix what doesn't work and we want to preserve what does work.
So we are going to increase quality. And we're going to talk about,
tonight, ways we are going to do that, the approaches we are going to
take. We are going to increase access, bringing everybody into the
system, which helps us all. And we're going to do access, we're going
to do cost, and we're going to do quality improvements in this bill,
all the while preserving what works in the current system.
And the gentleman used an example of how we're already paying for
health care, something I mentioned earlier. Those who are afraid to
bring new people into the system because they fear that this is going
to increase their own costs, well, what I talk about when I have town
meetings about health care is, again, they're already paying for people
who don't have health insurance in a variety of ways. When that
individual shows up at the emergency room, the cost shift takes place
because the person without insurance gets their treatment and somebody
else pays for it. Those of us who have health insurance pay for it.
That's why an aspirin costs $10.
I had knee surgery many years ago, and to make sure that they
operated on the right knee, they put a black magic marker that said
``L'' on my left knee. When we got the bill, I saw that that black
magic marker to put that ``L'' on cost $20. That's because of the cost
shift that takes place. Now, that's one example. Every American who's
had to deal with the health care system has a similar example. If
everybody is covered and everybody is in the same risk pool, we're not
going to have that type of cost shift that takes place. But that's only
one example of how we are paying for it.
The gentleman talks about $1,500 of the price of every car made in
this country is due to health care costs because American manufacturers
have to pay for health care for their employees and other countries
don't have that burden in the manufacturing sector.
{time} 2015
So we're starting at a $1,500 disadvantage for that one product.
Think about the supply chain. Think about the way goods and services
end up in a consumer's hands. Think about the distribution from the
person who manufactures it--from the company that manufactures it--to
the people who distribute it, to the people who stock the shelves, to
the people who operate the stores, to the people who run the cash
registers. At every segment of that supply chain, there is a health
care component to that. That company, that business is paying, in many
cases, health care for their employees. That is what we're paying for.
So, when you hear about people who don't have insurance and when you
hear about the skyrocketing costs of health care, think about that part
of it as well, not just what your copayment or your premium or your
deductible is. Think about how every sector and every segment of our
lives is impacted by that.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALTMIRE. I will.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I want to just put an example to one of
the points you made here, which is this cost shift that happens. You
talk about the folks who don't have insurance or who are underinsured.
They get it, right? We have universal health care in this country.
You've just got to wait until you're so sick that you end up in the
emergency room until you get it.
In fact, President Bush, while he stalled on health care for 8 years,
famously remarked, you know, don't worry about the uninsured--I'm
paraphrasing--because they'll get health care when they need it. They
just have to show up to emergency rooms.
Well, I've told this story maybe even on this House floor before. I
told it 100 times back in Connecticut. When we were debating health
care reform in the State legislature, I'll never forget a woman who
came and testified before us. She told this story:
She said, you know, I was working. I was employed, but my employer
didn't provide health care, and I didn't make enough to go and get it
on my own. I think she might have had some kids, and she had gotten
them insured, but she hadn't had insurance herself. She started
noticing over the course of a couple of weeks that she had a real pain
in her foot. The pain would sort of get worse, and then it would get
better. She knew that she should go see a doctor, but she knew that a
couple of things were going to happen: one, she was going to be billed
a pretty exorbitant amount for the visit; two, she was going to have to
go into the pharmacy and have to probably pay for some antibiotic to
treat it. She was savvy enough to understand that, when she did that,
she was going to pay the highest cost in the whole system. If you were
uninsured, you were going to pay top dollar for that visit, and you
were going to pay top dollar for that drug. You don't get the benefit
of the bulk purchasing that the Federal government gets through
Medicaid or through Medicare or that the insurance companies get
through similar programs.
So, one night, she finally decides the pain is just so unbelievable
that she can't stand it anymore, and so she goes to the emergency room.
She gets to the emergency room too late to save her foot. She has a
foot infection that has gotten so bad that she has to have it
amputated. For her, that is a life-changing event. Her life is never
going to be the same. She is never going to be the same person or the
same mother. She is going to have to deal with the disability for the
rest of her life just because she didn't have the money or the coverage
to get some simple antibiotics that would have treated that foot
infection. That just doesn't make sense in the richest country in the
world.
Think about it from just a cost perspective. I don't know how much
that surgery cost, but it was in the thousands of dollars, I am sure.
She didn't have the money to pay for it. Maybe she got billed for it,
but probably, more than likely, it just sort of got sucked into the
unreimbursable cost by that hospital and got picked up, essentially, by
the taxpayers in subsidies for that hospital or by those people who had
the insurance, through higher insurance
[[Page 14434]]
rates, in order to help the hospital to compensate for the people like
that woman who didn't have care.
So we paid for that surgery. You and I paid for a surgery that didn't
have to happen. There is a woman walking around now with her life
fundamentally altered simply because she didn't have access to
insurance. Sometimes people need to hear these examples, Mr. Altmire,
of what it really means when somebody only has health care when they
get so badly sick or ill that they show up in emergency rooms.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
That is just one example, and we're going to deal with a lot of
policy options over the next several months. To talk about just one
related to what the gentleman is talking about, prevention and wellness
is something that everyone can agree has to be an important component.
We have to incentivize doctors and hospitals and our health care system
more generally to keep people healthy and to keep people out of the
system and not wait until the last minute when a situation develops
like the one the gentleman talked about.
In western Pennsylvania, where I'm from, I'll just talk about one
disease which is near epidemic proportion. That's diabetes. In some
cases, it's preventable. In some cases, it's not. For every individual
whom you can put on a program of wellness and can prevent diabetes from
taking place or, at minimum, delay its onset, you're changing that
person's life for the better. You're making a material difference in
the life of that person and of his family. You're also, in a more
global sense, saving money for the health care system. If you take that
one person times the entire country and the entire group of people for
whom you can delay the onset for not just diabetes but for any
affliction which one may later get in life, you can prevent injuries if
you keep people healthy. For the weekend warriors and so forth with
joint injuries, with arthritis and its onset, these are very costly
diseases to treat, and they can be debilitating in many cases, but they
can be prevented or they can, at least, be made better in many cases.
So this is the type of thing that we want to incentivize in our
health care system for which, right now, there is no incentive. Under
our current reimbursement in health care, we reimburse based on the
number of times one shows up to a doctor's office. Their incentive is
also for you to be sick. They make more money the more often you go to
see them. We want the reimbursement system to be based on keeping you
healthy and on keeping you out of the system, reimbursing based on the
quality of care provided, not on the volume of services provided. So
this is one example of the policy option that we are considering.
I would be delighted to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin at
this time.
Ms. BALDWIN. Well, I thank the gentleman.
I also want to appreciate my friend and colleague, Congressman
Murphy, for bringing us together on this really critical issue.
You know, health care for all is the issue that brought me to
politics in the first place, and it's certainly the issue that keeps me
here. I join my colleagues tonight on the floor to affirm our fight
that we must complete comprehensive health care, meaningful and
affordable comprehensive health care reform, this year. We can no
longer afford to wait for health care reform.
There was a recent report from the very respected Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation that projects, if Federal reform efforts are not completed,
that within 10 years the cost of health care for businesses could
double, that the number of uninsured Americans could reach 65.7 million
and that middle income families would really be the hardest hit. They
would bear the brunt of our inaction.
I represent a district in south central Wisconsin. Last month, I had
the opportunity to gather and to meet with a number of stakeholders in
my community. I got a chance to hear from diverse perspectives--from
public and private urban and rural health providers, from patient
advocates, from insurers, from businesses, and from labor. I always
find it extremely helpful to hear divergent viewpoints and to get new
suggestions as we prepare to write this bold, new legislation.
No matter what their particular perspectives in this debate are,
their main message was very clear, that the system is broken and that
we have to fix it. Some would argue that we really don't even have a
system intact anymore.
I want to share just three quick stories from constituents, from
Wisconsinites, that really symbolize what is broken in our health care
system, that being the unaffordability of individual markets, the
insurance discrimination based on preexisting conditions, and the
struggles of small businesses. I really think it's important that we,
as Americans and as Members of Congress, hear these stories. Our
constituents, using their own words and telling their powerful and
compelling stories, make the best case for health care for all and for
the actions that we must take. So I'm just going to share with you
excerpts of three letters that I've received.
One is from Jean from Rio, Wisconsin. Jean writes, ``My husband,
Steve, has worked hard his whole life, but as of last year, he has not
been able to find work because of the downturn in the economy. Neither
of the jobs that I have held have offered me health insurance. We have
relied on insurance that we purchased in the individual market, which
costs nearly $10,000 a year and has a $5,000 deductible, meaning that
we pay out of pocket for basic doctor visits, screenings and
prescriptions.
``Twenty years ago,'' Jean writes, ``Steve became very ill, and in
the intervening years has developed multiple brain tumors that require
extensive treatment and care. We eventually realized that he has
recurring tumors due to a neurological disease and should be screened
on an annual basis. Unfortunately, insurance does not cover these
$13,000 procedures, and we cannot afford to pay that on an annual
basis. We can only hope and pray that more tumors are not developing.
It is just so infuriating that, in this wonderful country, we cannot
get wonderful medical care.''
Lorraine from Port Washington, Wisconsin, writes, ``When my husband
filled out an insurance application in July of 2002, he was asked if he
had ever been diagnosed or treated for cancer in the past 5 years. He
replied, `No.' He had never been diagnosed with cancer nor operated on
nor treated for cancer. What he did have was basal cells--small
carcinomas--which are never malignant and have to be removed from most
blue-eyed blonds in the course of getting older.
``When my husband was diagnosed with bone marrow failure disease, the
insurance company denied any coverage for his medical care, citing a
preexisting condition. We were left with over $125,000 in medical
bills. My husband has now passed away, and I am just thankful that I am
not in complete financial ruin.''
Sally, from Madison, Wisconsin, writes me to say, ``I've had my own
law office for 29 years. I employ two full-time employees and one part-
time employee. I provide health care benefits for our small firm, but I
have faced an annual increase in premiums of 12 percent, forcing me to
pass on higher cost-sharing to these three employees. One employee has
diabetes and also extends coverage to her husband, who is a dairy
farmer without health insurance coverage. Because of their high medical
costs, it would have been very difficult for me to find new health
insurance without facing even higher rates. Health insurance is
becoming steadily less inclusive and more difficult to keep--and it's
no wonder that, in today's economy, families count health care costs as
one of their top pocketbook issues.''
Madam Speaker and colleagues, these stories illustrate why
affordable, quality health care for all is so important and is so
necessary. Universal coverage is both a moral and an economic
imperative if we are to succeed in the 21st century. For the first
time, I firmly believe that health care for all is within our grasp. We
must act now.
[[Page 14435]]
Again, I want to thank my colleagues, my friend Congressman Murphy
and my friend Congressman Altmire, for taking this fight up and for
bringing us together to address this important issue.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Ms. Baldwin. I'm
always amazed at how articulate your constituents are. It really is
amazing to hear the stories firsthand because, as Mr. Altmire mentioned
and as one of your constituents mentioned, there is an entire industry
out there that is dedicated to trying to stop people from getting care.
That's what you get when you build in the type of profit motivation
that we have and the pressure on shareholder return. We treat health
care and the economy around it just like we treat, basically, every
other industry out there. I think there are a lot of us here who
believe that there is something fundamentally different about health
care than the auto industry or the cereal industry or the widget
industry and that, when the consequences of somebody's not being able
to get that product is life or death, maybe we should have some
different rules that govern it. Maybe there is no problem with having
some incentive built in for innovation, for success and for all the
rest. Maybe there should be a limit to that, and there should be some
constraints on the system.
{time} 2030
So I thank you for joining us, and please stick around for a little
while.
Mr. Altmire, you are talking about the three pedestals here of
access, cost and quality. I think it's just important for us to talk
for a second about how we sort of have an assumption in this country
that the more money you spend, the better care you're going to get,
right? And what we have found, as we sort of surveyed one particular
segment of the country to the next, is that isn't necessarily the case,
that spending more money and just having more health care doesn't
necessarily deliver better health care. There are great surveys from
Dartmouth University and other places that show that, actually, if you
can better coordinate care, if you can get physicians talking to each
other, if you can get primary care doctors doing more work up front,
you can spend more money on preventive health care, as you talked
about, that you can get better health care out there. So one of the
things when we talk about controlling cost is trying to actually get
people to have a decrease rather than an increase in utilization. I
think it will be a big central part of our discussion here about how we
do that.
There are very interesting ideas about how you try to encourage
providers to work together, about how you invest more in primary care.
But a subject that we have talked about on this House floor, which is
going to be fundamental to this discussion, is giving those physicians
and hospitals the tools to do that. The only way that you can try to
get doctors talking to each other about complicated patients, the only
way that you can try to really empower the consumers themselves to take
more ownership over their own health care is to make sure that they
have the ability, as physicians or providers, to track those patients
through the system or, as a consumer of health care yourself, to track
your care as you move through the system. Technology is really the key
to that, and we have already taken a great step forward on that issue
through the stimulus bill. There is $19 billion in the stimulus bill
dedicated to building out the world's best, most connected, most highly
technologically advanced health care information system so that as an
individual walks into the emergency room, that that treating physician
can immediately figure out what his medical history is, what tests he's
already had, what's been ruled in, been ruled out relative to the
illness that they present with. We can save billions of dollars just by
having better information in the system. I am so glad that our
President had the foresight to see those savings down the line by
investing money in the stimulus bill to get that technology out as
quickly as possible so that it can be a platform for those savings.
There are going to be a thousand different ways that we talk about to
save money in this system, and we know that that's how we get access.
But I don't think any of it is going to be possible, Mr. Altmire,
without that investment in technology, something that you talk a lot
about.
Mr. ALTMIRE. We have talked about that, and I do think that the money
that was in the stimulus plan and then money in the succeeding budgets,
which we're also going to make a priority, is going to make a big
difference. Health care is the only major industry in the country
remaining that has not gone to an interconnected, interoperable
computerized system. And I would ask my colleagues to think about the
fact that--the gentleman's from Connecticut, and I'm from
Pennsylvania--if we go to San Diego, and we put our bank card in the
machine, we can pull up all of our financial records in a safe and
secure way and never think about privacy or any type of intrusion. You
just take for granted that that's going to work. But if you show up on
that same trip at the emergency room in San Diego, well, they don't
have any of your records. They don't have your history. They don't have
your family medical history. They don't have your allergies. They don't
have any of your imaging, your x rays and so forth. And they're going
to ask you half a dozen times when you're there, what are you allergic
to, and can you fill out these forms and, most importantly, how are you
going to pay, what's your insurance? But if we were to go to a system,
like every other industry in America has, where you have an electronic
health record that goes with you everywhere you go and has your family
history records, your personal medical history, your allergies, and
yes, all your insurance information, then when you show up at the
emergency room, they're not going to have to ask you half a dozen
times. They're going to be able to get right down to the business of
treating you for whatever the reason is you find yourself in that
situation. We have to make sure that as we move forward as a country,
we reward those who have already taken matters into their own hands.
There are a lot of major health systems in this country from coast to
coast that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of their own
money to make this a reality, to connect their own systems. The problem
that we have in implementing this is, if you're a wealthy community and
you have a system that's making a lot of money, a hospital system, you
can afford to do that. But if you're a rural physician, a health care
provider in central Pennsylvania or anywhere in this country 80 miles
from the nearest hospital, you can't afford hundreds of thousands of
dollars to upgrade your computerization to interconnect your records
with the nearest hospital. It's just something you can't even consider,
and that's where this money is going to go. We're going to move towards
having an interconnected system in this country to resolve some of the
issues that the gentleman has talked about. We're not going to allow it
to get to the point--with the Department of Defense, for example, which
has a wonderful health care information technology system, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs, which also has a wonderful health care
information technology system; but there's one problem. They literally
cannot communicate with each other. What they do is, if you're one of
the brave servicemen or -women who are serving our country as part of
the Department of Defense, you're a part of their program, and they
have all of your medical records; but when you leave the military and
become a veteran and enter the VA system, under the current system, the
Department of Defense sends a PDF file by e-mail to the VA, and
somebody has to open up that file. They can't manipulate it in any way.
They have to type by hand your entire career's medical history--if
you've been there for 30 years, think about what we're talking about--
into the new system for the VA.
Now Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Gates have announced that moving
forward, they're going to merge the systems for the new people
[[Page 14436]]
who enter the military. So moving forward with the newer generation of
our military men and women and our veterans, we're not going to have
this problem. But for the millions who have served up to this point,
it's not interoperable. They cannot communicate with one another.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, scale it down. There are
thousands of hospitals, some of which are in the State of Connecticut,
that have competing systems, even within their own hospitals, that
don't talk to each other. There are hospitals that have one electronic
records system for their emergency room and then one electronic medical
records system for their in-patient unit. So the same thing that
happens as you move from active service out to be part of the veterans
health care system works within a matter of days in a hospital setting.
When you come in and present to the ED, you then aren't on the same
record system when you move over to the inpatient unit. Now that is
because we do not have a sort of nationally agreed-upon platform for
how systems communicate with each other. And a lot of hospitals say to
themselves, well, I have got one really good system for emergency
rooms, and then I want to buy this other really good system for in-
patient care. We have got to have some national standards that
basically say to any hospital or physician's office that's buying into
a records system that you can be guaranteed that you are going to get a
system that presents you with all the data and tools that you need and
will be able to communicate with everybody else. In fact, there's no
way that we're going to spend that stimulus money without some national
standards to guarantee that that happens. But as a sort of preview as
to how politicized and how politically charged this debate can become,
when we were debating that portion of the stimulus bill, which really
is a commonsense investment in information technology, something that
there should be no reason why Republicans and Democrats should
disagree. I don't want to put words in Mr. Burgess mouth. He is a
Republican Member from Texas. He comes down to the floor very often to
talk about the crisis in our health care system, and he talks in a very
articulate way about the need to upgrade our information system. So
there's a lot of potential agreement on this issue between Republicans
and Democrats. But it didn't stop the sort of right wing in this
country from going out and spreading lies that this investment in
information technology was the Federal Government's attempt to have a
Big Brother takeover of health care, and this was the Federal
Government reaching in and controlling all of your health care
information and knowing everything about every illness that you've had
or prescription drug that you're on. It's the furthest thing from the
truth. We're just simply trying to standardize private health care
investments that have been made by hospitals and doctors across this
country. But I think it speaks to how difficult this debate is going to
become. There is a group of folks out there who are either just
ideologically opposed to having the government have any role in health
care, or folks who are part of the status quo who are making their
fortunes off of health care today that don't want the rules of the game
changed. Even when it comes to what should be fairly noncontroversial
issues, like investments in information technology, I mean, my God, you
know, it's boring to say, right, but it's so important. It's just not
that controversial. We're still going to find a lot of people on the
outside that are going to fight us on this issue, as they will on many
others, Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. There are many issues that are just like that, as the
gentleman knows; and this gets to the complexity of the bill that we
are going to be bringing to this floor and to the other body over the
course of the next several weeks. If you look at what we expect, at
minimum, the outcome to be on the insurance side, I think everyone
would agree that a very likely outcome is going to be the insurance
industry will not be able to redline you. They're not going to be able
to use pre-existing conditions to exclude you from care. They're not
going to be able to do the lifetime limits for people with chronic
diseases. Basically, they're going to have to take all comers, and
they're not going to be able to set your rates based on your individual
health status. I think we would all agree that is a likely outcome to
this debate.
Now the insurance industry makes a compelling case, and I think an
actuary would tell you that the only way that works is if we find a way
to make sure everybody is included in our health care system. You can't
just have the sick people or the people who are about to become sick
part of the risk pool. You have to have everybody. That's why it's so
important that we expand access to the entire Nation, include these 47
million Americans who don't have health coverage, the tens of millions
of more that are underinsured because the only way the risk pool works
is if you have the young and the healthy, people who aren't going to
use the services right now today to offset the risk for those who are.
But as the gentleman indicates, there is still going to be opposition
to this concept when we move forward and when we talk about ways to
move people into the system that currently don't have access.
One of the ideas that we talk about, which the gentleman from
Connecticut is very involved in, is the idea of having a choice for
people to join a plan that would compete with the private insurance
industry. We hear a lot of talk about how the private sector always
does it better than government. They're more efficient. They're more
cost effective. The government is too bloated. So I would say to those
who make that case, well, then, what are you worried about? What are
you worried about the competition from the government if the private
sector always does it better than government? The difference in this
case, if we do it right--and certainly there are ways you can structure
it that wouldn't be the correct way--but if we establish a level
playing field for the competition, you are going to have a situation
where there's not going to be a profit motive, and there's not going to
be any reason for someone to choose that plan who's involved in
shareholding and so forth. You're not going to have that. You're not
going to have people who are employed to try to deny claims. That might
be a difference in the way these plans compete. But if we do it right,
it would be a level playing field.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. The gentleman knows that I think this is,
for me, critical to reform going forward. I really do think that if you
empower consumers to have real choice, that that is one of the ways in
which we're going to control cost. Right now when you decide you want
health care insurance, if you are a business or an individual, it's a
real cloudy picture out there. You don't know exactly what you're
buying. You don't know the combination of deductibles and premiums that
are going to force costs on you. You can't ever be sure exactly what
the benefit plan is, whether pre-existing conditions are covered here
and not here. So one of the things that we're talking about that is
fundamental to this reform is really trying to standardize the market,
creating some national standards for health insurance; that you've got
to have this basic benefit package that covers preventive services and
real catastrophic care; that you can't discriminate against people that
have pre-existing conditions; that you can't have lifetime limits; to
basically give people some certainty that when they go out and purchase
insurance, that they're going to get insurance, that they're going to
get something they can actually use.
{time} 2045
So, a lot of us say, well, you know, why not give people the option,
if they don't like the private insurers who are inevitably going to
take a piece of their premium and pay the CEO a big salary or pay back
shareholders or turn it into profit, why not give them the option to
purchase a nonprofit, government-issued plan?
[[Page 14437]]
Now, Mr. Altmire, you are right, that that only works if that
government option, that government health care option, has to finance
itself; that it doesn't get a subsidy from the Federal Government to
help it compete with the private plans. But if that public insurance
option has to pay for itself, just like every private insurance company
has to, they collect premiums, pay for care and it all has to be self-
financing, then you are exactly right, what is the problem?
If the government is so inefficient, then they will end up having an
insurance plan that costs more than the private insurers, and nobody is
going to buy that. But if our theory is correct, that by not having the
profit motivation that the private insurers have, that they can run a
more cost-effective product, then why shouldn't consumers have that
choice?
The people in this Chamber who are going to say there can be no
public insurance option available to individuals are taking choice away
from consumers. I would rather have my 700,000 constituents be able to
have as many choices as possible. I want them to decide whether they
think that private insurance or public insurance is better for them.
Everybody will answer that question differently. But I think that
those of us that are going to be favoring a publicly sponsored health
care plan as one of the options for individuals and businesses out
there are going to be on the side of consumer choice, and I think if we
give consumers that choice, it is going to create a really competitive
structure that will end up with some people having public insurance,
some people having private insurance, but a real competition by which
we lower health care costs, Mr. Altmire.
Listen, I get it. The devil is in the details of making sure that you
don't give a little competitive advantage to that public option, but I
think that it is really a linchpin of health care reform going forward,
if we can get it right.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Think about the competitive advantage that businesses
have in this country. Some are able to offer health insurance, some are
not. Less than half of small businesses in this country are able to
afford to offer health care to their employees.
What we want to create is a system where everyone in America will be
covered and every business that chooses to do so will be able to afford
to offer that benefit to their employees and to their potential
employees to be able to recruit and retain the highest quality worker.
That might be a benefit that small businesses would like to offer. We
want to give them the opportunity to afford that benefit if they so
choose.
But, again, we want to preserve what is working in our current
system. We want those who have coverage and like it to not be touched
in this. And that has to be a part of this. But for those that want to
have another option, those who want to make a change, maybe the family
status has changed over time, the plan that you are in doesn't work for
you any more, we want to give them as many options as possible, and we
want to give them the ability, as the gentleman indicates, to do some
comparative shopping, to compare apples to apples, to look at what the
costs are for the family situation across the different plans. Right
now you are unable to do that.
If you are a Federal employee and you have the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program, it is a little bit easier. That is a plan
where you are able to look at some of the paperwork and get on the
computer and do comparison shopping. We want every American to have the
same ability that Federal employees have today.
I would say to the gentleman, when we talk about this idea of the
employers being required in some way to either offer health insurance
to their employees or to pay into the system so that those employees
will have the ability to make that choice, we don't want to do that in
a way, and I want to be very clear about this, we don't want to do that
in a way that is going to incentivize employers to say, well, you know
what? I will just stop offering health care coverage and all of my
employees can go into the plan. That is not what this is about.
We don't want to add one more financial burden to half of the small
businesses in the country, the ones I am talking about that are already
unable to afford health care. We don't want to add to their financial
burden. We recognize that this is a very complicated issue and it is
going to be very difficult to achieve these goals.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, we spend so much time with
our business community, our chambers of commerce, when we are back home
and when they come visit us down here, that we know what the reality is
out there.
These folks that right now can't afford to give health care to their
employees desperately want to do that. They want to do it first because
it is just the right thing. They are members of their community like
anybody else is, and they want to be able to provide health care to
their employees, whether they have two employees or 40 employees. That
is just the kind of people that are out there running small businesses
by the skin of their teeth across this country.
But they also need to do it from an economic standpoint. They know
that to the extent that they can't offer health care or can't offer the
kind of generous plan that they would like to, they are at a
disadvantage against their competitors who can offer that type of
health care. They are at a disadvantage against the big employers who
can steal their employees away.
So this is really an issue that our small businessmen are waiting to
be a part of the solution, and if we can offer them, whether it is
through a public option or through lower rates on private plans, a more
affordable health insurance option, they are going to take it. They are
going to grab it.
You are right, we don't want to set up any incentives where they are
going to push people off to the public plan. But we know the majority
of folks are going to want to be part of the solution out there, just
for reasons of conscience, but also for reasons of their own salvation
as a particular business.
Mr. ALTMIRE. And the gentleman hits the nail right on the head,
talking about bringing down the costs. That is where we started this
discussion. We are going to pass a health care reform bill this year. I
am confident in saying that. The public support is there, the support
in this Congress is there. We need to certainly finalize the details,
and that is going to take some work. But this issue is too important,
it is too important to this country, it is too important to families,
it is too important to businesses, and it is too important to every
individual in this country for this not to become law this year. I am
confident that will happen.
We have to bring down the costs of health care. That is why this is
so important. We have to bring down the costs for our families, we have
to bring down costs for our businesses, and we certainly have to bring
down the costs for our government.
As I started our remarks tonight by saying what this is about is the
structural deficit over the long term that we have in our budget, and
addressing the issues like energy and like education that have led to
the skyrocketing deficit and debt that we have over the long term, and
the only way you can begin to bring that under control is by bringing
down the cost of health care for everyone in this country at every
level, both in the private and the public sector. That is what this
bill is going to do, that is what this discussion is about.
So, to close it out, I would yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank Mr. Altmire and Ms. Baldwin for
joining us tonight.
Let's make no mistake about this. This is going to be a fight. This
is going to be a fight, because to do this right, you are going to have
to take on some folks who have gotten real fat over this health care
system. You are going to have to take on some ideologues that just
don't believe that the government has any role in trying to get health
care to people.
There is a polling memo going around Washington written by Newt
[[Page 14438]]
Gingrich's pollster essentially outlining in 28 pages how you stop
health care reform from happening. That is the agenda of a lot of
people in this town, a lot of folks on the other side of the aisle,
that they do not want health care reform to happen.
Now, some of it is for good, honest policy reasons. I believe it is
an incredibly mistaken belief that the private sector can just fix this
on their own. They haven't done it for the last 50 years. How can we
expect they are going to do it overnight?
Some of it though is very cynical politics. Some of it is due to
people that look back to 1994 and the failure of the Clinton health
care plan in the 2 years prior, and believe that if folks can stand in
the way of President Obama or this Democratic House passing health care
reform, that they will gain some electoral advantage out of that.
Now, I hope that is the minority of people that are standing in the
way of this bill. But make no mistake, there are people out there who
simply see political advantage against Democrats in general or against
the President of the United States in stopping health care reform from
happening.
Now, they may have succeeded back in 1993. I wasn't here, Mr. Altmire
wasn't here, so we can't speak to all the reasons that happened. But
that is not going to happen this time. Not because you have got smarter
people in the House of Representatives or you got necessarily a better
strategy moving forward, but because the American people are not going
to stand for the status quo.
They know this economy is tough and they feel more conscious than
ever of the fact that they are just one paycheck away from losing their
health care and becoming one of the tens of thousands of individuals
out there who have been forced into bankruptcy because of health care
costs.
The status quo is not good enough for people out there, and despite
28 pages of polling telling the folks on the other side of the aisle
how to stop this from happening, I believe that the will of the
majority of Americans is going to bring us together to get a good bill
passed.
We are here as 30-somethings in the Democratic Caucus talking about
that tonight, but I believe that there is going to be a groundswell of
public support that is going to force us, both parties, to come to the
table and do something, not small, not minor, not temporary, but
something big and permanent to fix all of the underlying problems in
this health care system, to make sure that more people have it and less
businesses are burdened by it.
So, again I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for once again giving
us the opportunity as the 30-something Working Group to come down here
tonight, and remind folks that they can e-mail us at
[email protected]. If you have any questions for us, any
feedback on what you have heard this evening, www.speaker.gov/
30something is where you find us on the Web.
____________________
NOT LEARNING FROM HISTORY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, there was a cynical comment that was made by
people who take a look at history. They say that one of the things we
learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. I don't know
that that is universally true, but certainly for our subject for this
evening, that will certainly be the theme, that we are not learning
very much from history.
We are going to be taking a look at the fruit of fiscal
mismanagement, and particularly what is going on in our country in
terms of a very, very important number, and that is unemployment. The
unemployment numbers have continued to rise, in spite all kinds of
assurances that by spending tons and tons of money, that we can turn
those numbers around.
The historic connector here that is I think quite interesting is a
fellow by the name of Henry Morgenthau. Probably you have not heard of
Henry Morgenthau, but he was an important figure in his own day. And
here in this Chamber, in this House, Henry Morgenthau met with the Ways
and Means Committee in 1939.
Henry Morgenthau was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury and he had 8
years working on a theory that is known as Keynesian economics. He was
one of the main architects of Keynesian economics, whose idea was that
what the government needs to do is to stimulate the economy. You have
heard that phrase over and over, stimulate the economy, and the purpose
of stimulating the economy is, of course, to create more jobs.
That is a little bit like grabbing the straps on your boots and
lifting up and trying to fly around the room. It doesn't work. And
after 8 years of failed experience, these were the words, the very
quote of Henry Morgenthau here in this building before the Ways and
Means Committee.
He said, ``We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we
have ever spent before, and it does not work.'' His words are echoing
down through history. ``It does not work, I say. After 8 years of the
administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started,
and an enormous debt to boot.''
These are the words coming to us, floating down through history by
Henry Morgenthau, the main architect of Keynesian economics. Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, the master of the policy of stimulating the economy
with big spending.
Maybe we haven't been doing a good enough job on stimulating the
economy with big spending, so let's just take a look and see what we
have come up here in just the last year or so.
I am joined by a number of my good friends and colleagues who are
going to help us in unpacking some of what is in this spending that we
have and also going to help talk about this incredible statement that
was made by the President last week that, somehow or another, that his
administration had created 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs. It is kind of
amazing, because all of the actual numbers from the government show
that that is not true at all.
{time} 2100
So we have quite an interesting evening together. And I'm joined by a
good friend of mine from Iowa, Congressman King, who is here to join us
in our conversation tonight. I hope that everybody else will feel
comfortable to just tune right in and join us. We're going to have a
little bit of fun and take a look at some of the economics. It's a
serious picture, but it's an example to us that we must learn from
history. It's also an example of the fact that America is on the wrong
track.
As we take a look at what's going on with job losses, I think many
Americans, Congressman King, understand the fact that all is not right
and that unemployment number jumping up as high as 9-something percent
is not acceptable.
I would yield time to my good friend from Iowa, Congressman King.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for
pulling this hour together. And I listened to the first flash of
illumination of common sense here coming from deep within history of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration, his Treasurer, Henry
Morgenthau, saying that Keynesian economics does not work.
And so I wanted to add to this, John Maynard Keynes' philosophy that
he spoke about during that period of time of the implementation of the
New Deal that was presented by FDR, and historians have taught for
years that FDR's New Deal saved us from the Great Depression, although
there isn't any evidence of that, especially, FDR's Secretary of the
Treasury making the statement that Keynesian economics does not work.
Now, Henry Morgenthau was a contemporary of John Maynard Keynes, and
Keynes became prominent in the twenties and throughout the thirties and
kind of wrapped up his career in the forties. But Keynes described how
Keynesian economics worked. He did
[[Page 14439]]
this himself, and his description was this. He said, I can solve all
the unemployment in the United States. All we need to do is go find an
abandoned coal mine and go out in that abandoned coal mine and drill a
whole group of holes out there, and then take American cash, tamp it
down into those holes, and then fill the abandoned coal mine up with
garbage and turn the entrepreneurs loose to dig up the money. That
would solve all the unemployment in the United States of America.
Now, that doesn't sound very rational when I say this on the floor of
the House of Representatives, but that came out the mouth of John
Maynard Keynes, who inspired this Keynesian economics and Morgenthau's
response.
I yield back.
Mr. AKIN. I just have to kind of wonder what he was drinking when he
came up with a theory like that. That's an interesting tidbit of
history.
Mr. KING of Iowa. And we didn't have EPA approval either.
Mr. AKIN. He didn't have EPA to put the garbage in the mine. I'm sure
he would have gotten in trouble with that.
It's just a treat to have, also, my good friend Congressman Lamborn
who's joining us tonight as well. And we're just getting started now,
talking a little bit about this idea that somehow all of this spending
that we've been seeing in this last year that we've been here together,
this incredible level of spending, is supposed to help with this
unemployment problem. And yet, just as Morgenthau would have predicted,
we're seeing unemployment going up and the spending just totally out of
control.
I yield time to my good friend, Congressman Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. Well, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for letting me
have this time. It's good to join you for a few minutes with this time
that you've put together to speak and present to the American people
and to have a dialogue between each other what the spending is really
costing us. And so far it's not producing jobs. I think we hit 9.4
percent, if I have that correct, of what the latest unemployment
figures are.
Mr. AKIN. Just affirming that, reclaiming my time and affirming that
number, yes, it is now 9.4 percent. You recall that there was a promise
when we got to this great big--they call it a stimulus bill. We call it
the porkulus bill. When we got to this porkulus bill, they said, If you
don't pass this bill, if you don't do that, why we may have
unemployment at 8 percent. And here we are at 9.7 percent, and we did
pass the bill. And so the excuse is, well, this thing is really helping
us a lot. Well, I sure hope it doesn't help us in that direction too
much longer because that was what was supposed to be. But I think
you're right. Your number is 9.7.
I yield.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. With that amount, 9.4 percent, which I think
is the high point for 25 years, unfortunately it's the high point in
unemployment in our country for two and a half decades.
And I just wanted to mention, it's so inconsistent or even
hypocritical for the press to say that this is not anything other than
an unmitigated disaster. They're falling all over themselves trying to
put a spin on this thing saying, Oh, it's really not as bad as it
seems. The rate of growth of unemployed people has slowed down, or it's
less than we thought it was going to be.
Can you imagine if we were 12 months ago, 24 months ago, when George
Bush was President, what the press would have said? They would have
said, It's horrible, and the policies are doing this and driving
unemployment up.
Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time a minute. What would the press have
said if, under the Bush administration, they claimed that they created
100,000 to 150,000 jobs and they didn't have any documentation for
that? Say, Where in the world did you get that number, because the
numbers that have just come out show that we've lost jobs. It's gone
the other direction.
If you had a track record like that--this is just the year, this
year. This is starting in February, March, April, this is another
March, 14, 28, April, April, May and May, this is just a few months
here. And this is what's going on with unemployment. And you're out
here and you claim, Hey, we just created a whole lot of jobs. People
would kind of wonder, I would think the press corps would say, Wait a
minute. Where'd you come up with this 100,000 to 150,000 jobs that he
claimed last week that they created? I supposed he'd say, Well, if we
hadn't passed this great big porkulus bill, why, by golly, it would be
worse. Of course he hasn't learned from Henry Morgenthau.
I yield back.
Mr. LAMBORN. The gentleman from Missouri is correct. It's so
inconsistent. If this was the previous President, the press would just
be laying right into him. Right now they're giving the President a
pass. And it's inconsistent, and I think the American people can see
through that.
And Congressman, you also mentioned, what are these phantom jobs out
there that were saved? Anyone can claim, well, there's one or two or
300,000 jobs that were saved. I can't document it, but just take my
word for it, and the press isn't looking at that either. I just wish
the press would do their job of being an honest, objective observer and
reporter of what the facts are. And until the press does that, the
American people are really not being served well.
Mr. AKIN. Well, reclaiming my time, I think you're right. And I'd
like to just take a moment and get into--these numbers are easy for us
to rattle off, just off the tip of our tongue, but let's take a look.
First of all, you've got $700 billion in this Wall Street bailout.
Now, some of this came under President Bush, and I think the people in
this room voted against this thing because it didn't make a lot of
sense. Half of it, though, is the beginning of this year, and we keep
dumping all this money out, and it's not quite clear what we got for
it. And then we get to this thing here, this economic stimulus which is
supposed to be fixing this unemployment problem. And what's going on in
this bill?
I've got a few, just choice examples I'll share, but I know others of
you here have some examples. We're joined by a number of fantastic
Congresspeople, and here's one. This is one here, this is you can't
afford a bicycle after purchasing a $1 million home. Okay. This is
money for Washington, D.C., part of the stimulus money that's supposed
to be helping us with jobs.
Washington, D.C., Department of Transportation will spend $3 million
in stimulus money to expand its Smart Bike program. The money will
increase the program by five times, from 10 bike racks to 50 bike
racks, and from 100 bikes to 500 bikes. Neighborhoods expected to get
the new bike racks include Adams Morgan, Columbia Heights, Capitol
Hill, Anacostia and Georgetown, where the average single-family home
runs at $1.2 million. Boy, now there is an interesting use of money.
May be a wonderful thing to do, but I'm not sure what we should be
taxing everybody to try to create jobs.
And we've got a lot of other fun examples. I'm joined by my good
friend Congresswoman Bachmann, and Congresswoman Bachmann is articulate
and a good friend to people who care about jobs and care about fiscal
sanity.
I yield time.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for calling this
together so that we could call attention to the job losses that are
happening all across the United States. It's in your district. It's in
my district. It's every one of our districts here that are represented
this evening.
And I was absolutely shocked, as I've been watching this play out, of
the Federal Government jumping in and taking over private businesses,
beginning with Chrysler and then now with General Motors. We're seeing
something that we haven't seen. I don't know if we ever have seen
anything like this in the history of our country, and I am still livid
over the conversation I had today.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time just a minute, what you just said is so
important for people to understand, and that's because we don't have
quite the sense of history. We've just heard from
[[Page 14440]]
one of our other guests just a minute ago that this is a 25-year high
in unemployment.
But what you've just talked about is, when the President goes in and
fires the president of General Motors and appoints the people a board
and decides to rewrite the bankruptcy laws, this is unprecedented. And
I think, my good friend, you have a specific example from your district
about what this could mean to Main Street America. I wish you'd saw
share that with us tonight.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I do. I had met with dealers in my district before
from Chrysler, and they looked me in the eye and they said they were
just flabbergasted. They couldn't believe that they got a pink slip
that they were going to be out of business by the end of the month. All
the cars that they had on their lot they'd have to sell. They were
going have to wrap up and go out of business by the end of the month.
And they told me that they were one of the most successful Chrysler
dealerships, not just in Minnesota, but in the Nation. They performed
160 percent better than the top performers in the country. They met all
the criteria for staying open for Chrysler, and still they were pink-
slipped. No one could understand.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I'm just trying put myself in the shoes
of the family who owned that dealership that you're talking about.
Mrs. BACHMANN. This particular family, Congressman, had put $5
million into this dealership just prior to receiving this notice. They
were slated to adding another Jeep dealership to the Chrysler business
that they already had. Significant amount of money, and they produced
tax revenue to the amount of $3 million every year on that 5-acre
parcel that they utilized.
Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time, so you have a dealer who's been in
business in your town for what, 90 years or something I think you were
saying?
Mrs. BACHMANN. This particular dealer had been in the business since
the early 1920s. The one that I spoke with today had been in business
for 90 years. They were a General Motors dealership.
Mr. AKIN. Ninety years, and their dealership was assessed at, what
was the value of it?
Mrs. BACHMANN. There's a recent appraisal done on this dealership,
very successful dealership. They have all the debts paid. They own
everything outright and clear, and the appraiser said this dealership
is worth $15 million.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, so $15 million, and then you wake up
one morning and you get this thing in the mail and it says your $15
million just basically vaporized, didn't it?
Mrs. BACHMANN. Was worthless. Now the only thing that their
dealership is worth today is the underlying property that the building
sits on. They put all sorts of money into building their building,
which is now free and clear. They worked hard to make sure they could
pay for it, and now it's a dealership building. And as most Americans
know who are listening to us speak this evening, if you have a
dealership building, you can't use it for much else other than a
dealership. And trust me, there's no one out there right now who's too
interested in buying an old used dealership building because there's
not new car dealers going up out there.
Mr. AKIN. So once again we have another projection of this example of
Washington thinking they know how to do everything, deciding who's
going to be the president of General Motors. All of this money that
belongs to our constituents, we're going to dump this money into
various companies, and then we're going to try and manage. We can't
manage D.C. What makes us think we can manage car companies?
What an example of--and I think there are some other examples of
what's going on with some of this spending.
And I see that we're also joined by Congresswoman Lummis from
Wyoming, I believe. So we've got the West pretty much covered. We've
got Iowa covered. We're going to have Georgia in just a minute.
Please join us.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for pulling us
together this evening for this discussion.
In Wyoming, our economy is very much based in the energy industry
because we have coal, oil, gas, uranium, wind, solar, biomass, and that
is the mainstay of our economy by far.
{time} 2115
So as we watch the 350 to 375 very small businesses that are drilling
for oil and gas and see the legislation that is coming before this
Congress at the behest of the Democratic Party, it will devastate our
businesses.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, so you're talking about the tax that
they're proposing to pay for some of the spending that is that cap-and-
tax situation which is going to devastate small business, and small
business, of course, is where these jobs are created; is that correct?
Mrs. LUMMIS. Absolutely. I think the Americans have the perception
that Big Oil is who is recovering these natural resources; but even
those firms hire very small, literally mom-and-pop operations, five and
six employees to go out and drill the drilling, to do some
environmental compliance, to do the surveying, and to complete those
wells, and do the fracturing of the deep seams that are required to
cause the gas to flow into a natural gas well. These are very small
operators. As I said, in Wyoming alone, over 350 businesses.
Yet what we see on the horizon taxwise through the national energy
tax that's being called cap-and-trade would be utterly devastating to
those businesses.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, what you're doing is making a
tremendously important connection. And I think a lot of people do get
that impression that all of the jobs in America are General Motors or
General Electric or Mobile Oil or whatever it happens to be. But in
reality, as one of the most ranking members in small business, what you
find is you define small business as about 500 employees or less. Small
businesses create almost 80 percent of the new jobs in America.
So what you're saying is exactly spot on to what all of our data
shows, and if you're looking at 80 percent of the new jobs and you're
looking here at an increasing level of unemployment, what you should be
paying attention to is what are you doing for small business. And what
you're talking about is we're doing something that we haven't learned
from history. You're going to slap a great big tax on them to cover up
all of this spending. And what's going to happen is you're going to dry
up the potential of those new jobs that could come from small business.
I appreciate you making that connection.
And I'm going to just jump over to my good friend from Georgia, a
medical doctor, but also somebody who has quite a fair amount of
passion about freedom and about some of these economic issues as well,
my good friend Dr. Broun from--is it the Atlanta area?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. No, sir. I live near Watkinsville, Georgia,
south of Athens, and I represent northeast Georgia. And I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
The chart that you have down there on the floor. If you put the date
of this week on the next bar, going back to what Mrs. Bachmann was just
talking about, these dealerships are shutting the doors. Dealerships
may have 20 employees, they may have 30 or 40 employees. I've met with
a number of them. There is a dealer in my district in Clayton, Georgia,
in Rabun County, right up on the North Carolina line, called me this
week and he got one of those pink slips. He is a customer of the
automaker, and that's what all of these dealers are, they're actually
customers. And what is happening is this administration is forcing the
Big Three automakers to fire their customers, and that makes absolutely
no economic sense.
But this dealer doesn't do any floor planning. In other words, he
doesn't have to borrow money from the automaker to put the cars on his
lot. He owns them all. He's paid for them all. He owns his dealership.
He doesn't owe anything to the carmaker. But they
[[Page 14441]]
have fired him. And in doing so, this administration has fired all
their employees.
So the next bar for all of these dealerships I think is 780-some-odd
just this week that are going to be fired--the dealership's going to be
fired, thus all of their employees are going to be fired. And that's
going to put that bar even higher. And it's just not right.
This is an unprecedented takeover from the private sector by this
administration--by the car czar that has been set up by this
President--and it is totally unconstitutional, it's totally against
freedom, it's totally unprecedented. And it's exactly the same thing
that Hugo Chavez is doing down in Venezuela.
So if we could imagine that next bar on that graph, it's going to be
even higher than it is.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, what I'm hearing you say is--you're a
medical doctor. You're not claiming to be some economic expert. You're
saying common sense says that this 9.7 percent unemployment that we got
right now is not the end of this problem and that the idea of the
tremendous level of spending that we're seeing is not going to help.
You're agreeing with Henry Morgenthau from 1939 that all of this
spending is not going to make this any better. And what's more, a lot
of that spending is going to result in more unemployment rather than
less.
Is that the bottom line of what you're getting at?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield, absolutely. That's
what's going to happen. You cannot borrow and spend yourself to
economic prosperity. And that's what's going on here. We're borrowing
too much, we're spending too much, taxing too much, and it's going to
cost jobs.
I'm sure we'll come back to discussing what the gentlelady from
Wyoming was talking about because there is somebody else that's going
to talk a lot of jobs across this country. But we're going down a road
that is going to hurt our economy. It's going to cost jobs, as we see
an increasing number of jobs on your chart there that are being lost.
And unemployment claims, we're going to have more and more of those.
And it's really taking away from the future of our children and your
grandchildren.
Mr. AKIN. That's the bottom line. I think that's what's gotten us
staying here this evening talking about this subject. This is critical.
This is a very significant problem.
I would like to jump back to my friend from Iowa, Congressman King, a
gentleman who has run his own private business for many years before he
came to Congress, knows a little bit about small business, knows a
little bit about taxation and red tape. And he also understands what
some of these massive government spending programs in the last year,
what these are liable to do in terms of effects on our economy.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I started
business in 1975, a capital-intensive business with a negative net
worth so I had to actually make everything work or it would have
collapsed around myself. And I remember prior to that looking for a
job. I applied for a good number of jobs. Worked for other people. They
worked for me. I had to build a business up a piece at a time, a
component at a time.
One of the points that I think would illuminate this when I look at
the numbers that are there on the chart: $700 billion on the Wall
Street bailout, $787 billion in the stimulus plan. That was going to--
and I remind everybody here and including Madam Speaker--if she were
paying attention--I would be reminding her that President Obama said
that his stimulus plan was going to save or create 3.5 million jobs--
and that was just back a couple of months ago right there on the time
line where a $787 billion. 3.5 million jobs saved or created. And I
thought at the time, How do you measure a saved job? It was there when
you started, it was there when you're done the. It's one that your
economic plan didn't destroy, but it isn't necessarily one your
economic plan saved.
So now we have the White House saying they've saved or created a
dinky little 100,000-150,000 little jobs when their endeavor is 3.5
million jobs. And by the way, that number is not out of thin air. That
is off of the White House's Web site, WhiteHouse.gov/economy. So those
numbers are real.
Another image that flashes to my mind when I hear the gentleman from
Georgia talk about Hugo Chavez, I had a flashback about the visitation
that took place between our Commander in Chief, leader of the free
world, President Obama and Hugo Chavez down in Central America. And I
recall that we needed to have a strong message from the President of
the United States that would embrace Colombia and ask for a vote on the
floor of this House as was agreed to under those terms. We didn't get
that meeting, but we got a glad-handed, big smiley happy face meeting
between Hugo Chavez and President Obama.
And I remember the image that flashed in my mind. One of them is Hugo
Chavez could declare our President to be El Diablo at the podium of the
United Nations and say, The smell of sulfur still lingers from
yesterday. And those anti-American people laughed and cashed our
checks. And just a few months later we have President Obama glad-
handing with Hugo Chavez. And when I saw that image, I realized that
the great nationalizer of the industries in Venezuela who had just
nationalized a rice plant that belongs to a good Minnesota company
named Cargill was standing there smiling next to President Obama who
was the greatest nationalizer of all, who has since nationalized two of
the three largest carmakers in the world--General Motors and Chrysler--
and we've watched the nationalization of our financial institutions,
our insurance industry. The list goes on and on.
The free market system from top-down is being swallowed up and
nationalized instead of privatized.
And I would also make this point that our President today was elected
at least in part because he challenged President Bush and criticized
President Bush for going into Iraq without an exit strategy. This
President has declared that he doesn't want to own or manage Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, the financial institutions, the insurance agencies,
or the automakers of America. But he has engaged in all of that without
an exit strategy.
I call upon President Obama to come up with an exit strategy to
divest the Federal government and the taxpayers from this private
sector industry that have been so nationalized that he makes Chavez
look like a piker.
And I yield back.
Mr. AKIN. That's really quite a summary of where we are. What we're
getting at is this disease that struck the Washington area just one
year or two ago. It's bailout fever, you know. And we got into this
idea that we're going to bail everybody out--at least if you're big and
important. If you're a small business, you're going to go bankrupt. If
you're a car dealership, you go bankrupt and you lose $15 million in
one day. But we're going to bail out all of these, and in the process,
what's going on in unemployment? Is this nationalizing of businesses
such a good idea? I think there are a lot of people having some very
extreme second thoughts.
This was not going to happen if we voted for that great big porkulus
bill. I'm on the Armed Service Committee. When you say $787 billion,
that's more than my paycheck. I tried to figure out how much money is
that. And the biggest thing we deal with in any committee is aircraft
carriers. These are big things. If you ever get on an aircraft carrier,
you could play a game of football on the deck of one. They're really
big, and they cost a ton of money. We have 11 in our total fleet. They
cost about $3 billion a piece.
So if you take a look at what happened to us in the first 5 weeks
after we've been told that President Bush is spending way too much
money, we put this bill in place--this was the trimmed-down version--on
this floor we voted for $870-something billion. That would be over 250
aircraft carriers anchored end-to-end. I couldn't even imagine. You
could make a highway across them. That's how much money that's in this
package alone.
[[Page 14442]]
That's not the Wall Street bailout, and that's not this
appropriations bill that's full of goods. That's not this international
monetary bailout that they're talking about doing where we're going to
take defense money and give it to foreign countries, put it in a fund
so that Chavez and the Iranians and other people can take defense money
out of the United States away from our taxpayers so that they can fund
their governments, and we're talking about doing that. We're wondering
why in the world do we have this unemployment. I think we're making
some big mistakes economically.
I would like to jump back over to my very good friend Congresswoman
Bachmann who, by the way, is a great articulator of free enterprise
principles and does a wonderful credit to Minnesota.
We're delighted that you're here, and please chip in and join in.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
And I'm very concerned again about these motor takeovers from the
Federal Government. One thing that I am very concerned about, a story
came out today where there's been approximately 1,500 letters that have
gone out to GM dealerships.
One story that came out today, there is a dealership that I know of
that applied to their Democrat Senator to appeal for help so that they
could stay open. That Senator was able to arrange a meeting between the
dealer and the officials at GM. We all know GM is now Government Motors
because it's owned by the American people. It's been nationalized.
There is no private corporations the way we used to think of GM. Now,
the main stockholder is the American Government. So this Democrat
Senator who was applied to for help was able to secure a meeting with
General Motors and a car dealership, and they were able to get their
dealership back.
{time} 2130
Well, that's great, that's wonderful.
There is also another article I saw today where a constituent had
contacted one of the representatives, a Democrat representative here in
this Chamber, Representative Barney Frank. Barney Frank was able to go
and talk to the right people and get this dealership back open. Is that
what we have come to in this country, that rather than a private
business with a private contract with another private corporation,
they're no longer able to work out their agreements because, as
columnist Michael Barone has called, he said, Now we've moved into the
realm of gangster government. We have gangster government when the
Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now
have to go begging with their hand out to their local--hopefully well
politically connected--Congressman or their Senator so they can buy a
peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we
are going to have in the future?
When I was on the phone today for over an hour with one of my local
dealers, the very first thing out of her mouth was this, she said, This
is the most un-American thing I have ever seen in my life. I can't
believe that I lived to see the day that my country would come to this
point where, having my dealership for 90 years, I get a letter FedExed
to me that tells me I have until Friday to sign this document to not
only give up my company that was made worthless--worth $15 million,
made worthless overnight--now GM is demanding that she hand over her
customer list, her service customer list to GM. Why? GM most likely
will use those customer lists, they will give it to her former
competitors. What is she getting for this? What is her remuneration?
She had the rug pulled out from her and from her husband. They
virtually lost everything overnight to what? To what Michael Barone
calls a gangster government.
We need to call this for what this is, my colleagues. We need to call
this for what this is. Call it out. The American people need to get
outraged and figure out that it could be them next. No business is safe
when you see the administration appoint czars--car czars, wage czars--
there's over 20 czars that have been appointed. And what do those czars
do? They bypass the Congress. We are the people's elected
representatives; we have been bypassed.
We now have an imperial presidency where the President has appointed
various czars reporting directly to him. And now he is reaching into
the confines of private businesses and overnight rendering them
virtually worthless--unless, unless they have a special tug, a
political tie to a local Democrat Congressman. Is that what we've come
to? And I yield back.
Mr. AKIN. Well, I just appreciate the lady's passion and strong
support for the concept of freedom.
You know, what we're really talking about here is, what is the job of
the government? And we have come to a point where we have actually
elected people who have forgotten this basic concept, and that is, the
government that can give you anything you want can also take away
everything from you, including your freedom.
And that is the great danger of this insidious creeping bureaucracy
where the Government inserts itself into all kinds of different
businesses. The Founders would have been outraged at what you've just
described. And even people from not so many generations before us would
say, that is impossible, that could never happen in America.
Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, the Founders went so far
as they began a revolution over a stamp tax, over a stamp tax. This is
the actual outright taking of someone's personal property. And the
Founders were unwilling to pass the Constitution without the Bill of
Rights. And as the gentleman knows, the Bill of Rights was to protect
individuals, people, not to protect government, but to protect people
from the encroachment of big government upon their leaders. And the
Fifth Amendment guarantees the right of your personal property. Big
government cannot come in, they are prohibited from coming in and
taking your personal property without just compensation. Here is a
perfect example of violation of these citizens' Fifth Amendment rights.
Mr. AKIN. You are absolutely right. And we have seen other examples
of it; the decision in Connecticut where some local municipality
decided to trample the Fifth Amendment, just walk right in and take
somebody's private home in order to make a strip mall so they could tax
the strip mall. And the Supreme Court jumped to the defense of the
local government saying, that's just fine. And they just ignored the
Fifth Amendment.
And so we see this continuously growing government. And if you take a
look at where we are spending money, it is just absolutely amazing. And
here is an example. This is a town that is supposedly almost bankrupt--
I think it's Pawtucket, Rhode Island, if I remember right. The city on
the verge of bankruptcy spends $550,000 in stimulus money for a
skateboard park. Now, what in the world is the Federal Government doing
with bicycle racks in D.C. in million-dollar neighborhoods, skateboard
parks somewhere else. We're putting it all in here and claiming somehow
it's going to make unemployment better, and yet the numbers are going
nuts. The President, it seems--what's going on with the White House
Press Corps? He claims they've just created 150,000 jobs, and yet you
see the data going, we're already at 9.7 percent.
And it's my understanding, when you jump to the next big tax we're
talking about, they want to be like Spain. And Spain has the enviable
17.5 percent unemployment. Is that where we're going? How long is this
going to go before the American public says enough already; it's time
to change this big spending?
If you want to see this thing graphically, this is a little bit
chilling. This is historic budget imbalance. These are the different
years of the Presidents. These years over here are President Bush. And
those of us here that are Republicans, we didn't like the fact that
President Bush was spending too much money. This is deficit spending.
This is a budget imbalance. But take a look. When we were kids, didn't
you have to go--what was it, first grade, what thing
[[Page 14443]]
doesn't fit the pattern? Take a look at this year. Take a look at this
budget imbalance that we're talking about. You think that's not going
to affect jobs? You don't think that means the government is going to
get its nose into all kinds of people's business? That's what we're
concerned about.
I would like to go to my good friend, Congresswoman Lummis from
Wyoming. You know, the thing I like about Wyoming and the Western
States? You have a sense of freedom and a little bit of a sense of
property ownership and you have a sense of small business. And I
appreciate that perspective. Please join our conversation.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman.
In Wyoming, we have had surpluses in our budget for the last 7 years,
and it is because of the explosive growth in the production of energy.
It has made our unemployment among the lowest in the Nation. In fact,
there were times during the last 7 years that we have had,
statistically, zero unemployment. Incredible. While I was running for
this position, I stopped at a fast-food place to get an iced tea late
at night, and they offered me a job and my daughter a job at this fast-
food place because they are so much in need of employees.
Wyoming is unique in that regard, and it is because we are producing
domestic energy. And there are new discoveries of domestic natural gas
all over the United States. The Balkan in North Dakota is fantastic. It
is producing wealth for people who have been farming at that very
narrow margin of profitability, 0 to 4 percent, for years.
Mr. AKIN. Well, wait just a minute. You're talking about we're
creating jobs and wealth and all this, and the government is not doing
it? Oh, my goodness. That's a novel idea; the government is not coming
in and telling you how to run everything.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Not only are we producing the cleanest burning
hydrocarbon that there is, natural gas, but we are doing it in a way
that makes us less dependent on foreign energy. And what we are seeing
in this Congress are policies that will actually make us more dependent
on foreign energy at a time----
Mr. AKIN. Let me just stop you there because what you said is very,
very important. You are finding sources of natural gas--one of the
cleanest burning fuels that we know, in terms of hydrocarbon-type fuels
anyway--and you are finding that, which is making it so that you have
plenty of jobs in Wyoming, you are not doing it with a lot of
government help, and yet the government is going to try to create
policies to make us more dependent on foreign energy. What would that
be? I would suppose that one way to do that would be to tax your
natural gas, because if that's taxed, then the foreigners have a better
chance of getting business here. Is that where you're going?
Mrs. LUMMIS. And to the gentleman from Missouri, we are also
proposing in this Congress to tax drilling costs, to raise the taxes on
the brackets, to do away with the death tax, to put the recovery of
natural gas under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Virtually every time I
turn around, almost every day here, we are doing something that will
impair our ability to produce our own natural resources.
And it's not just in Wyoming, there have been these fabulous new
finds of natural gas that run up both sides of the Appalachian
Mountains all the way from Pennsylvania clear to the Southern States.
All of those States could have new natural gas production, the cleanest
burning hydrocarbon, that reduces our need for foreign energy, that
reduces the out-migration of jobs, it keeps them here, it grows them
here. It grows revenue for those States.
I can tell you, as our State treasurer in Wyoming for 8 years, we
had, just off interest income off State investments, the largest source
of income for our State's general fund from one source, interest income
off State investments. And all of those State investments, every one of
them, came from severance taxes on oil, gas, coal, uranium.
Mr. AKIN. Isn't that something? Well, you are an energetic
Congresswoman from an energetic State. And it's encouraging to hear
that we do have those supplies of energy here.
It is ironic, I think, that when you take a look back at the history
of the Department of Energy, it was created so that America could be
energy independent. And they have added many, many jobs to the
Department of Energy, and yet we have become more and more dependent on
foreign energy. And if we had more people like you in this Congress, I
think that would change, and we would see that we would be getting back
to good old American energy of a lot of different types. And we would
let the marketplace, and not the government, make the choices as to
which type you are going to use in each State.
My good friend from Georgia, Congressman Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Congressman Akin, I appreciate you yielding.
I wanted to come back to something that you said that I think the
American people need to understand very clearly. The President has
talked about looking to Spain as being the model of this energy tax--I
call it tax-and-cap because it's about taxes, it's about revenue for
the Federal Government, it's about getting more revenue to socialize
medicine and other things to nationalize, all of the business and
industry that is already being nationalized, and even more. But in
Spain, I would like to confirm something. It is my understanding, if
you would, please, sir, it's my understanding in Spain, when they put
on their tax-and-cap or cap-and-trade policy a number of years ago,
they touted it as creating green jobs.
Mr. AKIN. I think they call them subprime jobs now, but go ahead,
Congressman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, the point is, they talked about creating
green jobs. Just recently, one of their--I think it's members of
Parliament--was over here talking to the Conservative Opportunity
Society. And he told us--I don't recall if you were there, Mr. Akin, or
not--but he said for every single green job that was produced in Spain
they lost 2.2 jobs. The green jobs that were created were temporary
jobs; the jobs that were lost were permanent jobs, industrial jobs. And
that's what I kind of recall. Is that correct?
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, that was exactly what he said. And
actually, that made common sense to me because when you go back to this
Keynesian economic scheme, what they would argue would be, Hey, we just
took all this tax money and we hired these people; so when we hired
somebody, we created a job; so, therefore, we had a net. We just hired
someone to increase the job by one.
And what the economist found was, when you take that tax money out of
things, what happens is, when you took the tax money away to hire the
one person, you lost 2.2 jobs over in the private side. So that ratio
seems to kind of follow the economic principle that when the Federal
Government--yes, you can have the Federal Government take a whole lot
of money and hire a lot of people to dig holes in the ground, or
whatever, but when you do it by taking that money away from the private
sector, you are killing those small businesses, which is a source of
where you're generating a lot of these jobs. So I think that is where
he was going.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield back just a half
second. I want to go back to the outrage that my dear friend, Michele
Bachmann from Minnesota, was showing us. The American people should be
outraged. And the American people can call a stop to this. We can't.
We, as Republicans, have offered alternative after alternative. Wall
Street bailout; we offered an alternative, and President Bush, Henry
Paulson, the leadership in the House and Senate wouldn't accept it. The
nonstimulus--as you call it porkulus bill; I call it the nonstimulus
stimulus bill--we offered alternatives. The leadership in this House
were obstructionists and wouldn't allow us to have an open hearing and
discuss it.
{time} 2145
The omnibus appropriations, we had alternatives. We have had
alternatives for all this. They call us the Party of No, n-o, but
really we are the Party of Know, k-n-o-w, because we know how to help
stimulate the economy. We
[[Page 14444]]
know how to create jobs, and you do that through small business and
give the money back in ways to create an environment where small
business can create jobs. As the gentleman from Missouri so aptly told
us just a few minutes ago, small businesses is where those jobs are
created. It's about 85 percent of them. But we have offered alternative
after alternative. And this what I call ``tax-and-cap'' legislation has
been estimated it's going to cost America, that somewhere between 1.7
to 8 million jobs are going to be lost. In my district in northeast
Georgia, we have got in multiple counties right at 14 percent
unemployment.
Mr. AKIN. You're talking about millions of job loss as a result of
this new tax that's being concocted here.
I would like to recognize another doctor who has joined us. We have
got some doctors out tonight, and my good friend Dr. Burgess, I want to
recognize him. What we have been talking about is this incredible trend
in unemployment and also the trend of excessive spending.
I would be happy to have your perspective, Doctor.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was watching in my
office and heard this discussion, and I did want to come over and say
just a few words.
Of course, you're correct. We had a report in our Joint Economic
Committee last Friday about the current unemployment rate in excess of
9 percent. Of course, we spent $878 billion in February of this year.
The President told us that was what we had to spend in order to prevent
the unemployment rate from going in excess of 8 percent. Clearly we
have seen that number already exceeded. And then we heard at the
beginning of this week that because of those numbers, the President was
going to accelerate the pace of spending, accelerate the pace of
distributing the stimulus money. We weren't spending fast enough was
our problem.
Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, I know the comments need to be directed
to the Speaker's chair, but I would remind the Speaker that none of us
in this room, in fact, no Republican, voted for in favor of that
stimulus bill last February.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time for a moment, in a way that's a little
bit unusual, isn't it? There are usually a few Democrats who will vote
differently than their party or a few Republicans who will vote
differently. In this case, though, on this great big porkulus bill,
every single Republican voted ``no.''
Mr. BURGESS. You're absolutely right. Every single one of us did a
gut check and said this is not what I came to Washington, DC, to do.
It's not what I came to accomplish.
One of the things I wanted to share with the gentleman and share with
the House tonight, my hometown newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, runs
a column every Sunday by a columnist named Scott Burns, a respected
economist. Scott Burns this Sunday was quoting an economist in Austin,
Texas, Lacy Hunt. Lacy Hunt, going back to the Great Depression, said,
and I am quoting here: ``Irving Fisher saw it first. The man who may
have been the greatest American economist wrote about the debt-
deflation theory of the Great Depression in 1933. He saw that excess
debt controls nearly all the economic variables.'' He went on to say:
``Think about it for a minute. It's a very powerful statement. Excess
debt controls nearly all of the economic variables.''
What does that mean? That means we cannot control the unemployment
rate. That means almost everything is out of our grasp because of the
massive amount of debt that we have accumulated. And on Monday of this
week, the President said he wanted to accelerate the pace of spending
because we weren't getting that money out the door fast enough. Again
let me reiterate, excess debt controls every other economic variable.
It was true in 1933. I suspect the same is true today.
He goes on to say, Scott Burns, ``It means that the government
stimulus won't do much. Basically you can't borrow your way out of
excess debt.'' I think every Member on the floor here tonight has
recognized that at one time or another.
And then the final point that he made: ``The only thing that will
allow recovery is the passage of time.''
Fortunately, Congress is not in control of that, and time will pass
at a set rate regardless of what we think that it will or won't do.
Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, I want to get what you're saying
because I think this is important. You're saying there is a
relationship between this tremendous level of debt that we are building
and the unemployment numbers. In other words, when you have a whole lot
more debt, particularly debt with spending, and, of course, spending is
causing the debt, you're going to have bad trouble with unemployment.
Is that what this economist is saying, gentleman?
Mr. BURGESS. Precisely correct. And I thank the gentleman for
yielding back.
We are in a period of prolonged economic underperformance is the
other statement they go on to make. It will essentially be a lost
decade. We will recover, but the operative factor will be time and not
actions. That is something that most people do not want to hear.
Again, excess debt controls almost every other economic facet. You
cannot spend your way out of this problem. The unemployment rate went
up. The correct response is to not shove more money out the door. The
correct response is do what you can to get control of that spending and
begin to erode the debt, begin to put the debt on a glide path to
reduction. That's where the recovery will come, and that will take
time. There is no other way around that.
But, again, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this is a
wonderful discussion that you've had tonight. I thank you for bringing
this to the attention of the American people.
Mr. AKIN. I appreciate the doctor from Texas bringing some wisdom
here and some economic common sense. And certainly I think most people
know intuitively these things are connected. If you spend a whole lot,
eventually you're going to go into debt and then the debt is going to
influence things. And in this case, I am an engineer by training, not a
medical doctor, but it's almost like drawing a vacuum economically in
the economy. So those small businesses that we are just hearing about
like out in Wyoming, those small businesses don't have the money they
need to invest to drill a well or whatever it is; so the main engine of
job creation just dries up. So what you are doing is almost like either
starving or dehydrating your economy because the government is just
becoming so oppressive and expansive in everything that it is trying to
do. And as we heard eloquently expressed from the gentlewoman from
Minnesota, the story about what happens when the Federal Government
starts to get into the business of running car things. I am picturing
there is going to be somebody possibly listening into our discussion
that's going to be a cartoonist, and they are going to think about the
automobile that is going to be designed by the U.S. Congress, and they
are going to have an interesting caricature of what the engine and the
wheels look like and how big it is and all kinds of things. There is
probably already a YouTube being created or something along those
lines. But it's not a pretty picture of having the Federal Government
running our business in our private sector. And the genius of our
country is to make that distinction, and we are blurring it badly and
it's going to cause a lot of trouble.
I am going to yield to my good friend Congressman King from Iowa.
Please join us.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
There are a couple of points that linger in my mind. One of them is
to add to the points that the gentlemen from Georgia and Missouri were
making about Spain, and I concur. For every green job created, it cost
2.2 jobs in the private sector because it starved capital, but also
each of those green jobs created cost $770,000 to generate that job. So
it was a massive cost in capital.
I want to throw another point into this in a brief way, a teaser in a
way.
[[Page 14445]]
The cap-and-trade component of this legislation that's impending to be
driven through this House floor yet this month of June, we have
experience with that here in the House of Representatives. When Speaker
Pelosi was elected and received the gavel, she declared that this
Capitol complex would be carbon neutral. So she ordered that the
generating plant that provides the electricity that illuminates this
room when she allows the lights to be on would be changed from coal
generation over to natural gas under the auspices of this idea that
natural gas isn't a hydrocarbon, which we know can't be upheld by an
engineer or a doctor or a layperson. But in any case, she ordered the
switch over to natural gas, doubled the cost of the electricity, and
still found out we were not carbon neutral but we're still emitting a
surplus of CO2 into the atmosphere, so went on the Board of
Trade and purchased $89,000 worth of carbon credits, the very central
commodity that is at the middle of the cap-and-trade discussion that's
going to be presented on the floor of this House, $89,000 for carbon
credits to offset the CO2 emissions that are going off into
the atmosphere so we can light this Capitol complex. And I chased that
back down and found out that some of that money went to no-till farmers
in South Dakota. Presumably they had still been farming in South
Dakota. It didn't change their behavior. And some of that money also
went to a coal-fired generating plant at Chillicothe, Iowa, that had
received a government grant to burn switchgrass. I went there and
looked at that. They hadn't burned any switchgrass in 2 years and got a
check anyway. That's how cap-and-trade will work in the United States
of America. If we can't get it right in Congress, we are not going to
get it right in America.
Mr. AKIN. I appreciate that vivid example of more wasted time. I am
going to yield again to my good friend Congresswoman Bachmann from
Minnesota.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Last weekend my family sat down and we were watching
the commercial movie ``Titanic.'' And as I was listening to Dr. Burgess
from Texas talk about the debt and the burgeoning debt load that the
United States takes, once the ice gash came in the side of the Titanic,
which we all remember was called the ``unsinkable Titanic,'' we think
of the United States. Nothing can possibly sink the United States. We
will always be a superpower. But one thing that has kept us a
superpower has been freedom, free market economists. We are in the
process of watching the deconstruction of free market economists before
our very eyes, something we have never seen. But as the ice ripped that
hole in the Titanic, water started being taken on, and the engineer
came out and brought the blueprint of the Titanic. Water came into the
first chamber, spilled over to the second, spilled over to the third,
and by the time it filled up so many chambers, it was over. It was
impossible to resurrect that ship.
That's, I think, Mr. Akin, what you have been bringing before this
body this evening. You've been showing to the American people that at a
certain point when we have such excessive levels of spending that in
turn leads to such excessive level of taxation that in turn leads us to
excessive levels of borrowing that at a certain point we wonder what
that tipping point will be if the United States will not be able to
recover.
We do have an alternative, as Dr. Broun said. We have a positive
alternative that next quarter we could already see growth in our
economy. But this plan that President Obama has put forward is the kind
of plan that we could watch last night, or last weekend on TNT in the
movie ``Titanic.'' If we follow that plan that President Obama has put
before us, we know what that outcome will be and a lot of very innocent
people may go down with that ship.
Mr. AKIN. I very much thank Congresswoman Bachmann and the other
great guests that we have had tonight. I thank you for this little
symposium on freedom and the need to have the Federal Government
restrained to its proper limits.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized
for 60 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, for the next hour, I am going
to be joined by a number of my colleagues on the Republican side of the
aisle, and most of them are members of the GOP Doctors Caucus, and we
are going to spend time, Madam Speaker, talking about health care
reform. Certainly that is the number one thing that's on our plate as
we go through these next 6 weeks leading up to the August recess. And,
of course, as the President has outlined his desire to have a health
reform bill on his desk for signature sometime in mid October of this
year, whether or not that can be done remains to be seen. There are a
lot of thoughts out there as to how to approach this, but we feel that
it's very important as physician Members. I think there is something
like 339 years of clinical experience combined in this GOP Doctors
Caucus. About 15 of us are health care professionals who have actually
practiced in the field, if you will, most of us involved just in
clinical medicine, what I like to refer to, Madam Speaker, as meat-and-
potatoes medicine. Not research at some high academic institutions but
actually seeing patients every day in the office, in the operating
room, in the delivery room. And so I think we have a perspective that
we would like to share with Members on both sides of the aisle.
Earlier in the evening, Madam Speaker, we heard from the 30-Something
Group on the Democratic majority side. They were very articulate, very
well spoken, but I think very wrong in some of the ideas that they have
in regard to a government default plan, and we will talk about this
during the hour.
{time} 2200
I have been joined by a couple of my colleagues, Dr. John Freeman,
the doctor from Louisiana; and Dr. Paul Broun from Georgia.
I would like to yield time to my colleague from Louisiana at this
point.
Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend and fellow physician and colleague,
Dr. Gingrey.
You made reference to the 30-Something Democrats, and I watched that
debate, that discussion with great interest because, to be honest with
you, with 32 years of medical practice and also owning businesses for
nearly as long, when I hear this discussion about how a public plan can
work, I really try to view that and try to understand that; but I
always come out totally mystified with how this sort of thing could
ever work.
And to clarify the debate, basically Congress right now is looking at
three different options. One is a total single payer nationalized
health care system, Medicare for all. One would be a private system for
all, which is what we, on the Republican side, back. And then the other
is a public and private system that are competing with one another. So
I really watch with great interest our colleagues on the other side--
none of whom are physicians, I might add--talk about how this could be
a great deal, a great success, where you have a public system that's
competing with a private system, somehow that's going to drive cost and
prices down, and we're going to get a dividend from that.
Well, what I would do is point out to my colleagues, let's look at
Medicare today and Medicaid as well, both government-run systems. Both
of them are running out of money rapidly, the budgets are exploding and
expanding, and they are living off the fat of the private system. Today
we know--in fact, a recent survey, a study came out showing that the
average subscriber to private insurance spends an extra $1,000 a year
to support the Medicare and Medicaid system. We also know that a lot of
that support comes by way of the uninsured who are routed through the
emergency room, who don't have any coverage; and if you think that the
Medicare recipients pay for that, forget
[[Page 14446]]
it. That's not happening. Who is paying for that is the taxpayer and
those who subscribe to private plans.
So right now the systems that exist, Medicare and Medicaid, are, for
the most part, supported not by premiums and not even fully by the
taxpayers, but are supported by those who pay premiums into private
plans. So if you expand Medicare to where everyone is eligible for a
Medicare-type plan, who in their right mind is going to stay on private
insurance when they know that they're going to have to pay increasing
size premiums in order to get the same level of care that those on
Medicare, who are largely supported by taxes, are going to get?
What ends up happening is you lose that critical mass of those under
private insurance, and so private insurance then becomes only an
afterthought, a sliver of the economy. So what you're left with is a
giant public system, a Medicare that's much bigger than what we have
today. Incidentally, I will remind those that today, as it stands,
Medicare will run out of money within 10 years, as it is. It's
unsustainable as it is. Now if we grow it into a much bigger system,
where are those cost savings going to come from?
I will yield back in a moment, but I just want to bring out the fact
that no one has ever been able to show that a government-run system,
particularly a health care system, but any government-run system in
which the economy is being controlled in some way has ever controlled
cost. And even today we know that health care costs are going up twice
the rate of inflation.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to apologize to the gentleman. I
referred to him as Dr. John Freeman. Actually, it's Dr. John Fleming, a
family practitioner from the great State of Louisiana. And it reminds
me, the reason I did that, Madam Speaker, is because Dr. John Freeman
was one of my classmates in medical school and also one of my co-
residents in my OB/GYN training back in Georgia. I think Dr. John
Freeman practiced his entire career in Boone, North Carolina; and I
hope Dr. John, wherever he is, is doing well, if he happens to be
tuning into C-SPAN tonight.
I wanted to say before yielding time to my colleague, Dr. Paul Broun,
a fellow physician and family practitioner from the Athens and Augusta
areas of Georgia, there was a letter sent from the National Coalition
on Benefits within the last couple of days, addressed to the leadership
of the House and Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority
Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, talking about the strong opposition to
a public plan. I don't have time to stand here and read the names of
all of these firms, but just to mention a few: Wal-Mart Stores, Xerox
Corporation, Wellpoint Incorporated, Weyerhaeuser Company, National
Restaurant Association, Bank of America, National Association of Health
Underwriters, CIGNA Corporation, Chrysler LLC, Nike. I could go on and
on. That's just maybe 5 percent of the number of companies that are a
part of this National Coalition on Benefits that are so opposed to this
idea of a public plan, which our colleagues, the 30-Something group,
just an hour ago touted so strongly.
At this point, I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague
from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding.
I think the American people need to look at what President Obama said
as a candidate and go back to what Dr. Fleming was talking about just a
few moments ago about the options. Republicans are offering options
because certainly we need to do something about health care financing.
People are hurting. Health care expenses have gotten too high.
Medicines are too high in the drugstore. Doctor bills are too high.
Doctors are actually earning less money today. When I was practicing
full time prior to coming to Congress, I was making in real dollars
less money than I did 20 years ago and seeing as many or more patients.
We see the whole health care system being strained tremendously. But
candidate Obama talked about giving the American public options, a
public versus private option. He said, if you like your current
insurance, fine. Stay there. But as Dr. Fleming was talking about just
a few minutes ago, what President Obama is actually offering us is a
reduced-price health care financing system that's going to take away
people's choices. It's going to take away their ability to choose their
doctors. It's going to take away their ability to choose the hospital,
what medicines that they have. It's going to delay them being able to
get needed procedures, surgeries, delayed in getting x rays that are
needed, ordered by their doctor. It's going to take the choices away
from the patient, and it's going to put those choices in the hands of a
Washington bureaucrat. I don't think the American people want that. I'm
not sure that they understand yet what we're talking about tonight in
our second opinion, that government-run health care is not going to
give them the choices that they're used to today. They're not going to
be able to stay in their private plans because they're going to be
priced out of the market. They're going to have to go to that
government-sponsored plan that is going to markedly narrow their
choices.
What it's going to do is it's going to kill people because, as we saw
in the stimulus bill, there is a new program set up in the Federal
Government to look at cost effectiveness and comparative effectiveness,
comparing the effectiveness of health care decisions. Age is going to
be one of the measures of how those decisions are going to be made.
{time} 2210
We already see this happening in Canada. We already see it happening
in all the socialized health care systems around the world. When people
have celebrated a few birthdays and are getting what growing up down in
Georgia folks talked about being ``long in the tooth,'' a little white
haired, as I am turning to be, then what happens in those government-
run health care systems is they just deny the procedures, deny the
tests, deny the care that the people need to stay alive, and people
just die.
Now, in Canada, a system that many tout, many on the other side in
the Democratic Party tout the Canadian system and others, if you are a
certain age and need a kidney transplant, you just don't get it. If you
need bypass surgery, if you are a certain age, they will put you on the
list, but you never get off the list. You just die. If you need
medications, you are denied those. If you have cancer treatment that is
needed, you just don't get those.
We in this country, with the health care that we as physicians can
give, we have made marked strides since I graduated from the Medical
College of Georgia in how people survive various forms of cancers.
I think Dr. Roe is probably going to talk about breast cancer,
because he very eloquently talks about that frequently, but our breast
cancer survival rates in this country are extremely good. In other
countries, where they have socialized medicine, people die, and there
is very poor long-term survivability of that disease. Heart disease,
diabetes, you can go down the list of all these chronic diseases.
In socialized health care systems, as this administration and the
leadership in this House and the Senate across the way want to take us,
it is going to take away people's choices. They are not going to be
able to get the care that they desperately need to stay alive, and it
is just the wrong thing to do.
Dr. Gingrey, I just congratulate your efforts in trying to bring
these things out to the American public, and I appreciate your being
one of the cochairman of the Doctors Caucus and helping the American
people to understand the direction that we are being led by this
leadership, the liberal leadership in this House and the Senate,
because it is not going to be in the best interests of the American
public, and it is actually going to create a financial collapse, as Dr.
Fleming was talking about, that is going to be exacerbated, and people
are going to be exasperated
[[Page 14447]]
because of this rationing of care, taking away their choices, and some
Federal Government bureaucrat in Washington, DC is going to make those
health decisions for them. It is not going to be their doctor, it is
not going to be their family and it is not going to be the patient, and
it is the wrong thing to do.
I thank you for yielding.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Before yielding to our colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, a fellow
OB-GYN physician, I just want to say to my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, Madam Speaker, that what we are about is trying to work in a
cooperative way on both sides of the aisle and offer our expertise, to
say to our colleagues, and there are some health care practitioners on
the majority side as well, and we have reached out to them and made
ourselves available, we want to be at the table.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we are not at the table. We haven't
been enjoined, if you will. But we still hope, we still have hope that
that can occur, because we do have some ideas, I think some very good
ideas, in regard to bringing down the cost of health care, making it
more accessible, making it more portable, making it available to
everybody, and that would include people who are currently considered
high risk, maybe even considered uninsurable, or if they can get
insurance it is because they can afford to pay three or four times the
normal standard rate, which many, many cannot.
So we want to talk about some of those things tonight, and we will
get back to that.
At this point I yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Representative
Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey and also Madam Speaker.
It is good to be here tonight to discuss a very important, and I
believe, Dr. Gingrey and Madam Speaker, probably from a social
standpoint, the most important issue that we will discuss, and probably
this health care debate is the most important one since the mid-sixties
when Medicare was voted on.
Just to give you a little background, I am a native Tennessean,
practiced medicine in Johnson City, Tennessee, in that region for 31
years, and really saw a tremendous change in the health care delivery
system from 1970 when I graduated from medical school until the
current. I really marvel myself at the miracles that occurred.
I recall when I was in medical school when St. Jude's Children's
Hospital had just opened, it hadn't been there long, and the death rate
among childhood cancers was 80-plus percent. Today, over 80 percent of
those children survive and live and thrive.
We are having a debate on what kind of system best fits America and
its personality, and I will share with you some things we have learned
in Tennessee about a public and a private system.
What I hear when I am out talking to people is that, number one, they
are worried about the cost of care. They are worried about the
availability of it. And there is another whole discussion that we
haven't had, which is accessibility.
As we age, as the medical population and caregivers age, there is
going to be a huge problem of accessibility in this country. We are
already seeing it in our own communities, where in the next 7 years we
will need 1 million more registered nurses in America. In the next 8 to
10 years there will be more physicians retiring and dying than we are
producing in this country.
Well, you know, that is not sustainable. You cannot maintain the
quality of care that we have grown to expect and the medical advances
we have grown to expect without practitioners. That is an entirely
different issue, not part of this debate, but indeed very much a part
of this debate.
In Tennessee, about 14 or 15 years ago we had Medicaid. We got a
waiver to try a managed care system. Back in the eighties and nineties,
managed care was going to be how we were going to control the ever-
escalating health care costs. So it was a wonderful idea to try to
provide care to as many Tennesseans as we could at as low a cost as we
could.
What we did was we hastily put a plan together, as we are doing right
here in this Congress right now. The most astounding thing I have ever
heard in my life is in 60 days, or less than that, we are going to vote
on a health care plan that affects every American citizen, 300 million
of us. And your health care choices, as you know, are very personal
choices. They are between you and your physician and your family.
So the plan was a managed care plan, and it was a very rich plan. It
provided a lot of care for not much money, and for some people no
money. What happened was that people made very logical choices. About
45 percent of the people who ended up on TennCare actually had private
health insurance, but dropped it. Why did they drop their care? Well,
you had a plan, this TennCare plan, which was cheaper, but provided
more coverage, so therefore people made again a very conscious
decision.
The problem with the plan is, as with every public plan so far, is it
does not pay the cost of the care. That cost has been shifted over to
the private sector. So when you look at your health insurance costs
going up each year, you are paying or supplementing, a tax really, on
your private health insurance premiums caused by the increased usage of
the public plan.
In Tennessee, for instance, the TennCare plan covered about 60
percent of the cost of actually providing the care. If everyone in
Tennessee had the TennCare plan, most providers would lock the door,
throw the key away and walk away because they couldn't pay their bills.
Medicare, another plan that we have, pays about 90 percent of the cost,
and our uninsured pay somewhere in between.
Now, what I think will happen with this public plan is that once
again, because politicians are involved in designing the plan, what
will happen is more and more and more things will be promised about
what will be covered in the plan, but when it comes to paying for it,
and if we have time we can get in and discuss the Massachusetts plan a
little bit, what will happen is you will have a Medicaid plan that
doesn't pay the cost, you will have a Medicare plan that doesn't pay
the cost, and you will have a public funded ``competitive'' plan that
is subsidized by government but doesn't pay the full cost of the care,
meaning more and more costs will be shifted on to the private payers.
{time} 2220
Well, what will happen over time, I think, is that, again,
individuals first, small businesses, 20, 30, 40, 50 in the business
will say, We just can't afford this private continually escalating cost
of private health insurance. And what will happen then is more will be
shifted to the public plan, and over time you'll end up with a single-
payer system. And a lot would say, and I've heard it argued here on the
House floor, Well, so what? What's wrong with that? We have a
government-run, one-payer health care system. What's the problem with
that? Everybody has coverage. Well, everybody has a health insurance
card, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can get health care. Don't
confuse a plastic card that says you have coverage with actually
getting care.
Well, what do I mean by that? Well, let me give you an example.
When President Clinton had his heart attack, he went to the hospital,
had a heart attack. He was operated on several days later, I think 3 or
4 days, and probably the reason, in my opinion, he probably got a blood
thinner that took a few days to get out of his system. And he was
operated on and went home.
Had he had that heart attack in Canada, they would have said, Mr.
Clinton, you can go home and in 117 days, that's the average amount of
time it takes to get a bypass operation in Canada, you can come back
and get your bypass operation.
Two weeks ago, I was in Morristown, Tennessee, talking to a physician
there who is Canadian. His father began to have chest pain. I won't go
through all the details about how long it took him to get a treadmill,
how long it took him to see a cardiologist. Anyway, 11
[[Page 14448]]
months later, the man got--his left anterior descending coronary artery
was 90 percent blocked, and he finally survived and got a bypass
operation. I do not believe the American people are going to put up
with that type of health care system. We are not.
The other thing that I think that's been so astonishing to me, and I
know Dr. Gingrey and Dr. Fleming, you have seen this, and Dr. Broun
also, are the medical advances. When I graduated from medical school,
we had one cephalosporin antibiotic, one. That's a type of antibiotic
we use in infection. There probably are 50 today.
There were about five antihypertensives, high blood pressure
medicines, three of which caused severe side effects. I mean, it was
almost better to have the high blood pressure than take this medicine.
Today there are over 50, and the side effects have been reduced
dramatically. People do so much better.
So there are a lot of reasons, and we can go to it, and I'm going to
yield back some time now, Dr. Gingrey and Dr. Fleming, for comments.
And I have some other comments about a single-payer system. It's a good
idea, as you pointed out a moment ago, to try to cover as many people
as we can in this Nation as inexpensively as we can, and I agree with
that.
I yield back.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, I thank the gentleman. And before
yielding back to Dr. Fleming, I wanted to say to my colleagues, Madam
Speaker, that we are the party of a second opinion. And, of course,
tonight we are talking about health care reform, but it could be an
energy bill, a comprehensive, all-of-the-above approach to solving our
energy problems and any other issue. But none really at this point in
time is more important than solving this health care problem.
And the bottom line is to, again, to lower the cost of health care,
to make it accessible to everyone within their financial reach. And
there are so many things that we can do short of, Madam Speaker,
turning this over to the Federal Government to run what may be like
they run Amtrak or the post office or, indeed, the Medicare program.
And I don't think that that's what people really want and expect. We
can do better than that. And there are a number of issues in particular
that we could talk about in detail if we had more than just an hour,
Madam Speaker.
But clearly, this idea of electronic medical records, I think, is a
way eventually to save money. I think the money that we put in the
stimulus package, $19 billion to provide grants, I've got a piece of
legislation that would help physicians purchase hardware and software
and a maintenance program that's specialty specific, whether it was my
specialty of OB/GYN or Dr. Fleming's specialty of family practice or a
general surgery specialty program produced by a company in my district
called Greenway where you have, as part of that electronic medical
record program, you have algorithms set up of best practices that are
developed not by a government bureaucrat, Madam Speaker, but by that
very specialty group, those men and women, those leaders of that
specialty society that want to do what is best and they want the best
outcome at the lowest possible cost. They want to get paid a fair
amount for their services, of course.
And, in fact, with an electronic medical records system, they're more
likely, Madam Speaker, especially under the Medicare program where you
have something called evaluation and management code and intensity of
care that you bring, doctors, I think, tend to undercode because, Madam
Speaker, they're petrified that some inspector general is going to come
along and demand to see 10 charts out of their 10,000 and nitpick and
find some few, two out of 10,000 where they overcoded, and first thing
you know they're not participating in the Medicare program and maybe
even they're facing a jail sentence.
So electronic medical records would--I don't know how much money, my
colleagues, it would save, but I know that it would lead to a better
practice of medicine based on best principles. We wouldn't need to have
some comparative effectiveness institute, kind of like the Federal
Reserve Board, telling doctors what they should do and not do, when
it's time to operate, what medication to prescribe. We would have those
best practices as part of an electronic medical records system. We
could cut down on duplication of testing.
People could be in Timbuktu, and with that little card smaller than
our voting card, they, Madam Speaker, they could take that card, even
in a country where they don't speak the language, or maybe they come to
the emergency department comatose and can't speak any language, you
reach in their pocket, pull out that card, swipe it, just like we would
our voting card, and there's the entire record. We know what they're
allergic to. We know what medications they're on. We know their past
medical history, and we give them the best and most effective, cost
effective, safest medical care.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I'll be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Just a point right here. You were making an
excellent point, Dr. Gingrey, about why you don't want the Federal
Government to come between a patient and a doctor.
A veteran can go to an emergency room, have an electronic medical
record at the VA, can show up somewhere in an emergency room, let's
say, in our area we have a VA Hospital in Johnson City, and let's say
he lives in Mountain City, Tennessee. He shows up there and the doctor
in the emergency room at Mountain City does not have access to his VA
record, to his electronic record that they have at the VA. Now, I think
we can do better than that, and that's going on right now.
So that veteran who's up there with, maybe he's an elderly veteran, a
World War II veteran with a very complicated medical history, that
emergency room doctor is flying by the seat of his or her pants, and I
think we can do better.
And again, the health care decisions should be made between a patient
and a doctor. And I don't want to let the private insurers off the hook
here. You and I know this, and Dr. Fleming, also.
I remember one of the last cases I did in practice before I retired
to run for Congress, I spent almost as much time on the phone with a
private insurer trying to get the case approved as I did actually doing
a major surgical procedure. Now, that's the ridiculous item of the day
when you do that, when you're not providing care to someone, you're
arguing with a bureaucrat at the private health insurer.
I yield back.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, those stories are just
all too familiar, and it's a shame that that time is wasted when it can
be better spent with the patient.
I wanted to mention too, Madam Speaker, the issue of medical
liability reform. Now, for a number of years--I've been here 7, this is
my fourth term, and every year I have introduced medical liability or
tort reform modeled after the system that was adopted back in the late
seventies in California. The acronym for that bill is MICRA, but it has
worked. It has stabilized the malpractice insurance premiums in that
State. Yes, they've gone up somewhat because of inflation, but compared
to other States that don't have that reform where there is a limitation
on a claim, a judgment for pain and suffering, noneconomic, and where
there is the elimination of this joint and several liability and there
is collateral source disclosure--and I could go into some of the weeds
of it.
{time} 2230
But, obviously, we have not been able to pass that. When we
Republicans had the majority in this House, we would pass it every
year, Madam Speaker, in the House; but so many attorneys who are
Members of the United States Senate would block that.
Well, why can't we come together again in a bipartisan way and say,
look, we can agree that part of the cost of medicine, cost of health
insurance is the fact that medical practitioners order so many
unnecessary--and in some cases, Madam Speaker, harmful--
[[Page 14449]]
tests, draw too much blood, get an MRI one day and a CAT scan the next
day and a standard x ray the next day because they're trying to cover
the possibility that someone would say, Why didn't you order this, or
why didn't you order that?
Lord knows we've gotten to the point now where everybody who shows up
in the emergency department anywhere across these great 50 States with
a headache is going to get a $1,200 CAT scan instead of a blood
pressure check and an aspirin and a ``come back to my office in the
morning.''
So this is an area in which we could clearly come together in a
bipartisan way and hash out. Well, if the California version of tort
reform is not acceptable, how about a medical tribunal, a group of
independent people looking at the claim and saying whether or not it
has merit?
There are so many things that we could do. And I've got a few more
ideas, Madam Speaker, that I want to talk on, but I do want to refer
back to Dr. Fleming and hear from him because I know he's got a lot of
things he wants to share with us.
I yield to Dr. Fleming.
Mr. FLEMING. I wanted to tone down on the debate a little bit more.
Again, we heard the 30-something Group Democrats talking about the
debate earlier, and one said something very interesting. It really
caught my ear. He said that the debate is basically Democrats want
health care reform, Republicans do not want health care reform.
Now, I have spoken on this floor, as you know, Dr. Gingrey and Dr.
Roe as well, and I've heard you speak many times; many Members of our
conference have spoken; I've spoken a number of times throughout the
district. I've listened to everyone from Speaker Gingrich to many
others. I have yet to hear one Republican say that he is against health
care reform.
So I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
the only way we're ever going to solve our health care problems--which
make up about 20 percent of our economy--we must have an honest debate.
And framing the other side into a position that really doesn't exist is
not going to get us there. In fact, I would say that we really agree,
from what I can understand, on 90 percent of the discussion.
We all agree that we should do away with pre-existing illness; we all
agree that we should have portability; we all agree there should be a
hundred percent access to care; we all agree that we should lower the
cost of care. I can draw you a great list. There is really, when you
get down to it, only one thing we disagree with, and that is we feel
that a private system, private industry--even if it's paid for by the
Federal Government--in many cases does a much better job in terms of
quality of care and customer service and a much better job of
controlling costs.
This is proven time after time.
Compare our economy with a socialistic economy and you see every time
that we provide much better products and services and at a much better
price than those countries do.
So, really, the only disagreement is who is actually controlling the
care. And, of course, I submit to you that a government-run system is a
real problem. And I will tell you where I learned this.
When I was in the Navy as a physician, I noticed in the first year
that the commanding officer of the hospital sent out a call and said if
there is--this is budget time of the year--and if there is anything
that you think we could ever want in this hospital, wink wink--meaning,
think of something; dream of things--put it on a list, because if we
don't preserve that budget the way it is, then our budget will be cut
next year. And that, my friend, is the way government works. If you
don't force it into the budget, if you don't make sure and protect your
territory, it won't be there next year. Somebody will cut into it. And
that's really the way government works.
And I will give you an example, a real-life example of how we will
never be able to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse from our health
care system if it's run by the government.
Think about this: we have to throw out a wide net, which is very
expensive. We may capture a few offenders out there. Because it would
have to be a criminal act, we would have to prove that they really did
it on purpose; and then at the end of the day we would have to
prosecute them with a lot of dollars; and then we may get one person,
and we may get a few dollars. That's the way you get rid of fraud and
abuse in a government system.
In a private system, much different. You have a physician or some
other provider in a health care organization that's privately run, and
if his practices are not the best practice and he's not practicing in a
cost-effective way, that shows up on a graph; and often, of course, you
go to that provider and you reeducate, and you have him work with
colleagues, and you get him back to the protocols. And if that doesn't
work, then you fire him. Easy problem to solve. It doesn't require all
of that--there is no crime involved. So you can work in the most
effective way possible.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I think that the
gentleman has certainly hit the nail right on the head in regard to
this, and we could go back to what we talked about earlier in regard to
electronic medical records, which would be specialty specific--the
information, of course, would be available for any provider who is
seeing the patient.
But in regards to best practices, as the gentleman was talking about,
and these algorithms, I mean, doctors, let's face it, they're busy.
They're operating; they're delivering babies. They don't have time, nor
can they afford every 4 months going to a continuing medical education
course. A lot of times they have to do that online. And it is hard to
keep up.
But with electronic medical records, this would help them keep up. It
would absolutely help them order the right tests, give the best
outcomes. And as Dr. Fleming pointed out, if they're in a single
specialty group of eight surgeons and one in the group is not getting
the information the others are getting, that information is available
internally and externally. And you kind of police your own.
I want to give--I think he just asked for 1 minute--my good friend,
Dana Rohrabacher, is going to be on the floor in the next hour. He
asked for a minute, and I yield to him.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. As we are making fundamental decisions about things
such as health care, which is so important to our country and important
to each and every citizen, we should keep in mind the fundamental
differences that you are bringing up tonight between a government-
controlled health care system and an individual-controlled health care
system, where the individual basically controls a great deal of the
resources that he or she depends upon for his or her health or the
health of their family as compared to having those resources totally at
the command of the government. And the one word that comes to mind is
politicalization of what's happening and what could that possibly mean
in health care.
Let me give a little suggestion that if we have government-controlled
health care, we're going to have illegal immigrants involved in the
system. Our Democratic colleagues, as good-hearted as they are, cannot
get themselves to say ``no'' to providing health care benefits to
illegal immigrants. If we provide the type of operations that we want
for our own people--heart operations and various things that are very
expensive operations for health care--to be granted to illegal aliens,
you can expect that it will, number one, bankrupt the system; but,
number two, we will have illegal aliens coming here from every part of
the world. And, in fact, one of the problems right now is that we
already provide too much health care for illegal immigrants.
{time} 2240
That issue alone should be a red bell for everyone out there saying,
Do I really want the government to control health care and make the
decision and give part of the money to an illegal immigrant?
[[Page 14450]]
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, reclaiming my time, and I thank the
gentleman for his contribution in regard to that.
When you look at that number of 47 million who do not have health
insurance, according to the Census Bureau, Madam Speaker, probably as
many as 10 million of them are illegal immigrants. Now, they're not
entitled, so to speak, to health insurance. That's not to say that you
might not have a situation of extreme compassion if an illegal
immigrant is admitted through one of our emergency departments and they
are absolutely in the throws of a fatal illness, maybe it's a young,
otherwise healthy person with congestive heart failure or congenital
malformation that is resulting in an inability to sustain their blood
pressure and they are on the verge of death, they would get the care in
that hospital--in any hospital I think across the United States.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And no one argues with that.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Yes. Of course not. They would get that care
to save a life, of course we would. But the gentleman brings up a good
point. And I did want to point out the segue into that number of 47
million.
It is estimated that maybe 18 million of those 47 million are making
more than $50,000 a year, and many of them just choose, of their own
volition--maybe they're 10 feet tall and bullet proof, 20-somethings,
30-somethings, have the Methuselah gene, they think, and don't spend
much money on health care, and they just elect not to put the $200 a
month payroll deduction or whatever it is. And maybe they have their
own escrow account or their own health savings account. I think it's a
bad decision, I think it's a bad bet, but a lot of people do that.
And you can't really force them, I don't think, unfortunately, in
this Democratic plan, Madam Speaker. What the President is talking
about is to have a mandate on the employer. If they are above a certain
number of employees and if they don't provide health insurance for
their employees, then they have to pay a tax or pay a percentage of
their payroll into this connector; and individuals are absolutely
required to sign up for health insurance, or if not, they have to pay a
tax. I mean, that is not the American system. We want to encourage
young healthy people to get health insurance.
And I want to make one point before I yield back to either one of my
two colleagues. The insurance industry can help in a great way by
looking at this. Let's say, take an example, a 22-year-old young man,
newly married, newly employed, is not really convinced that paying for
health insurance on a monthly basis is to his advantage, but he does it
anyway. And he puts in whatever the cost is for a family premium and
his portion of that payment month after month, year after year, with
the same company maybe 15 or 20 years. During the course of that time,
Madam Speaker, envision this, that individual develops high blood
pressure, or maybe in addition to that high blood pressure develops
type 2 diabetes--maybe the diabetes comes first, and then the high
blood pressure--and then after that develops coronary artery disease.
And then all of a sudden the company goes out of business and that
individual is out of work, out of insurance, and desperately needs it.
But because of these preexisting conditions, once COBRA runs out, how
are they going to get health insurance? How are they going to afford--
struggling maybe to find a new job, but how are they going to be able
to go out with no tax deductibility and purchase a health insurance
plan that is three and four times the amount of a standard plan for
everybody else?
What I would say, Madam Speaker, to the Association of Health
Insurance Plans, why don't you grant those individuals credible
coverage, just like we did in Medicare part D, the prescription drug
benefit? If you have a credible insurance plan that covers prescription
drugs, say, on a supplemental plan, and then you lose that after 4 or 5
years, then you shouldn't be penalized when you get into part D--and,
indeed, the law says you won't be penalized. But why should the
insurance company penalize these people who, in good faith, all those
years have put that money, that premium--the insurance industry had it
invested and had a good return on their investment--when these people
all of a sudden are in a high-risk situation, I think they should get a
community rating.
I would be very curious to know how my colleagues feel about that,
and I will yield to Dr. Fleming.
Mr. FLEMING. I appreciate your yielding. I just wanted to take a
moment to follow up on what you said and Mr. Rohrabacher.
We have 47 million uninsured, 10 million of course are illegal
aliens. And of course that is a solvable problem by only allowing legal
aliens and requiring them to pay taxes and insurance like anyone else,
and those who are here illegally should not be here. So that's not
really a health care problem, at least primarily, that is an
immigration problem.
We also have, as you point out, at least half that 47 million who are
insurable people, and very cost effectively, but they choose not to.
That really hurts the risk pool, and we should do things to incentivize
them.
The real problem is the 10 or 15 million people who are either
business owners or they work for small businesses and they can't get
cost-effective insurance. And they're the ones that delay care, they're
the ones that don't go to their primary doctor, they're the ones that
end up going to the emergency room, getting care at a time when the
outcomes are the worst and the cost is the highest.
So when you think about it--and polls show that 75 percent of people
are happy with what they have, whether it's Medicare or Medicaid,
private insurance--it's that 25 percent that can't get affordable care.
That's where the problem is, and that's where the focus needs to be.
And if we do that, we get cost-effective coverage for them--and there
are many ways of doing this, and we would have to get into ways to
determine that--we would really have this problem under much better
control. But if we, on the other hand, blow this thing out with a
single-payer system, we are going to have exploding budgets as far as
the eye can see, and I don't see any end to that. I thank you, and I
yield back.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Just a couple of comments.
Our colleague from California made great points. And I am going to
ask the two of you who have been here for a while to discuss this
Medicare part D discussion in just a moment. But he is correct. What
happened was, when we created the TennCare plan in Tennessee, we are
surrounded by eight States in the State of Tennessee, and we had a plan
much richer than the surrounding States. So guess what happened? People
came into the State. First of all, when we first put the plan out, all
you had to have was a post office box. Well, there were a lot of post
offices boxes that occurred, and a lot of people came into the State of
Tennessee to get care.
The way the Governor handled that--and remember that government-run
plans--and I want people to understand, this is a very important
point--in Tennessee, when it was about to break the State, our
Governor, along with the legislature, made some very tough decisions.
They cut the rolls. They limited the number of people that were on the
TennCare plan. In a plan in England or in Canada or other single-payer
systems, what happens is you ration care, you create waits. For
example, in Canada--and this is the head of the Canadian Medical
Association, not Phil Roe saying this--but he said you could get your
dog's hip replaced in a week in Canada, but it takes 2 to 3 years for a
person to get their hip replaced in Canada. And I think you made that
point this morning during 1 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, we did talk about it this
morning, and it was a Canadian testimony, was it not? And I yield back
to you.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. It was. And I think the discussion, as I
recall--and
[[Page 14451]]
Dr. Fleming is absolutely right, there are not that many disagreements,
it's who is controlling these health care decisions; is it a bureaucrat
or is it the patient and a doctor? And I think that is where the big
discussion is.
Now, as I recall, when the Medicare part D discussion came up, the
problem was going to be--the argument I heard the other side make was
that without this public option there wouldn't be enough competition,
and therefore prices would go up. But was what happened in part D--and
I'm not saying part D certainly is perfect, it's not--but what happened
was, with a competitive market out there, that actually came in lower
without the public option when you had the private option competing in
the open market. And I believe the discussion among the Democrats was
that without this public option, that wouldn't happen. Well, just the
opposite happened.
And again, we have seen what happened in Tennessee, I don't want to
go over it again. But I can assure you that it will be a plan that
promises more than it can deliver for the funds that are available, and
there will be two options. And you know what those options are, and
that's long waits--and I just don't think the American people are
interested, I know I'm not interested in that.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, reclaiming my time, and I think you're
absolutely right, that the only way to solve the cost overruns, which
would no doubt occur--and I do believe, as our friend from California
suggested, that if the government was running the whole show, and
eventually if we approve this government default plan, that's just a
giant step, and it's just a baby step toward a single-payer system. And
when you get into that situation, I can almost assure you, Madam
Speaker, that under current leadership, you would have any and all,
come one come all, just like they did in Tennessee. And Dr. Roe was
describing the TennCare program and the problems they ran into.
{time} 2250
And then the only way you could pay for it, as he points out, would
be to start cutting reimbursement to the providers, to the health care
providers, to the physicians, to those primary care docs that we so
desperately need to be focusing and to be running our medical homes and
to make sure that people are taking their medication, that there's an
emphasis on wellness and keeping people healthy, keeping them out of
the doctor's office, keeping them out of the emergency room, out of the
hospital, and toward the end of life hopefully out of the nursing homes
and in their own homes. That's why I think it's a mistake to even go in
that direction of government-run health care.
I clearly feel, and I know my colleagues on the floor tonight agree
with me, Madam Speaker, that the private marketplace works. And my two
colleagues that are with me tonight weren't in the House back in 2003,
but I know they were following the debate very carefully and very
closely and maybe even felt that Medicare part D was something that we
couldn't afford. Certainly it added cost, if you crunch the numbers
statically, to the Medicare annual payments, Medicare part D did. But
in the long run, in the long run, because of that program, if they can
afford to take their medications for some of these diseases that I
mentioned earlier, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and
keep these things under control, then clearly what happens is you shift
costs from part A, the hospital part of Medicare, and from part B, the
doctor part, the surgeon part, the amputation part, the renal
transplant part, and then also in part D keeping folks from having a
massive stroke hopefully by controlling their blood pressure and you
spend less on the skilled nursing home part. So I think that's a pretty
good bargain and a pretty compassionate way of approaching things.
But our Democrat colleagues, Madam Speaker, who were in the minority
at the time, stood up here and they symbolically, some of them, tore up
their AARP cards because that senior organization had the audacity to
support a Republican bill. And then, of course, they said, well, why
can't we have a government default plan and why can't the government
come in and set the price and say, okay, this is the price, this is the
monthly premium for part D, the prescription drug part, and these free
market thieves will not be able to run up the price? And they even
suggested, Madam Speaker, that we set that monthly premium at $42 a
month. Fortunately, my colleagues, that amendment was defeated. And
when the premiums first came in from the prescription drug plans, the
private plans competing with one another for this business, they came
in at an average of $24 a month. Now, 3 years later, that has gone up a
little bit because of inflation, but it's nowhere near $42 a month.
So if we don't learn from our history, we are going to repeat those
same old mistakes. And it looks like the Democrats, with this idea of
letting the government come in and run everything and saying that we
can't trust the free market, I guess that's what they want to do with
General Motors as well, and I'm very anxious to see how that one turns
out.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Good points about the private versus the public
sector. The private sector will always be more efficient and more
responsive. And you have heard this story before, but when I began
practice and when you did, Dr. Gingrey and Dr. Fleming also, when a
patient came to me, and I took care of nothing but women, and when they
came to me with breast cancer--which I unfortunately saw way too much
of and our practice diagnosed about a case a week. It was that common
or is that common.
And we just had a relay this weekend. In 1977 or so, the 5-year
survival rate was about 50 percent, maybe a little bit better, but
about 50 percent. And the big argument came: Do you do a disfiguring
operation of a radical mastectomy or a lumpectomy? Because the survival
rates were the same. So what has happened over that time is that now a
patient can come to you or me or any of our colleagues and we can tell
them that because of early detection, because of education, because of
mammography, you're going to have a 98 percent survival rate in new
medications. That is a wonderful story to tell. And I know no matter
how tough the times are for that patient, you can look at them and say,
You're going to be okay.
In the English system, they quit doing routine mammography. And why
did they quit doing that? Screening mammograms aren't done anymore.
Why? Well, because it costs more than the biopsies. Sometimes a test
will tell us we have something when we don't have it. That's called a
false positive. And the phone call that I love to make is to my
patients to say, You do not have cancer. So this is one where they quit
doing that because the cost of the biopsies was more than the
screening. The best rates they had were 78 percent survivals, and those
are going to go down if you use that technique.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will allow me, as we get
very close to that bewitching hour of 11 o'clock, my southern drawl had
better get a little faster than a drawl. But my mom, Helen Gingrey, who
lives in Aiken, South Carolina, in a retirement community, a great
community, Kalmia Landing, my mom had her 91st birthday on February 8
of this year. Well, when she was 90, about 5 or 6 months ago, 6 or 8
months ago, she had a knee replacement. And Mom had gotten to the
point, Madam Speaker, where she could barely walk, in constant pain, on
the verge of falling and breaking her hip at any moment. And now she is
enjoying life and enjoying being with her friends, and maybe she's
going to live another 10 or 15 years. I don't know. She seems to have
the Methuselah gene. But do you think in Canada or the U.K. or one of
these countries where they ration care that she would have had an
opportunity to have that knee replacement? The answer we all know,
Madam Speaker, is absolutely not.
[[Page 14452]]
I would say in closing, the one thing I would like to see is the
equal tax treatment of the health care benefit for individuals who have
to go out and buy them in the market on their own. They don't get it
from their employer. Why should they not get a tax advantage health
care plan just like everybody else? And you know what, Madam Speaker? I
have not heard the Democrats in the House, the Democrats in the Senate,
or President Obama talk about that. And talk about fairness and wanting
to be equitable, let's hear some more about that. We will talk about it
in future Special Orders.
I want to thank my colleagues Dr. Roe, Dr. Fleming, and my good
friend from California, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, for being with
me during this hour.
____________________
{time} 2300
THE BIGGEST POWER GRAB IN HISTORY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kilroy). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, a thought came across me about 2 days ago. I was out
on the water, surfing off of San Clemente, California. I was sitting
there on my surfboard. The pelicans and the birds were jumping into the
water and carrying fish out of the water, and the dolphins were
swimming by. It was just a beautiful day. I couldn't help but remember
that many years ago when I was a young reporter, one of my first
assignments was to cover a speech being given by Jacques Cousteau. He
was a hero to me at that time, and I really relished the idea of going
out and being able to interview him after a speech he was giving at
UCLA. I got to the speech, and I found that Mr. Cousteau was being very
pessimistic about the future of the oceans, and he was telling the kids
there was no future in the ocean, that 10 years from now--this was in
the early 1970s he was saying this--there would be no life in the
ocean. ``The oceans will be black, lifeless masses, black goo.'' I felt
that it was a bit pessimistic; and when I had my chance to interview
him afterwards, I turned on my tape recorder and introduced myself. He
was ready for the interview. I said, Aren't there also some optimistic
sides about the ocean, that perhaps we will someday be able to farm
them, like with shellfish and regular fish perhaps, being able to ranch
them, you might say, in the ocean? And that might be a great source of
protein for the whole world that we would then have under better
control. He came right up to me, and all these students were watching,
and he put his face right up next to my nose, and he said, Didn't you
hear me? The oceans will be dead in 10 years. Black goo. Dead.
I'll never forget that. I mean, that was something that was really
pounded right into my memory because his nose was almost touching my
nose. I could smell the garlic on his French breath, and I will tell
you that it was an experience. I thought about that just 2 days ago
while I was surfing. The fish were jumping, and the porpoises were
swimming, and the pelicans were landing and picking up the fish in the
water, the oceans totally alive, and I am totally alive and very
grateful to have the oceans that we have. Obviously Mr. Cousteau was
wrong. I can't tell you today whether he was lying or intentionally
misinforming those students, but he was dead wrong.
Now students come to visit me a lot. I've been in Congress now over
20 years, and I try to see every student that comes from my district. I
try to see them; and I talk to them, giving them a chance to ask me
questions. But I always ask them a question too. So my students from
Southern California, young high school students, I always ask them, Is
the air in our congressional district, in our area of Southern
California, is it cleaner or dirtier than it was 45 years ago when I
went to high school in this very same area? And almost 90 percent of
the students adamantly insist that the air back then was so much
cleaner: Oh, you're so lucky to have lived in an age in Southern
California where the air was so clean, and now it's so dirty and all of
us are destined to die and to be infected with this pollution in our
lungs.
Well, the fact is, that is dead wrong as well. Someone continues to
misinform our young people, perhaps for political reasons, whatever.
But the fact is, when I tell them that they are 180 degrees wrong,
that, in fact, the air is so much cleaner now that there's almost no
comparison to what it was when I was a young person in high school,
they are incredulous. Many of them don't believe me when I say that.
But they know afterwards when they check up on it that they have been
lied to.
Well, whatever the reason, whatever the motive behind this
misinformation that's being provided to young people, whether it was
Jacques Cousteau or whether it's the educational establishment or if it
is any of the other people we're talking about who have ties to the
radical environmental movement, whatever the reason they are
misinforming our students, it's not just the students. It's our general
population as well.
For decades, phony, frightening predictions, false climate
assumptions and inaccurate information fed into computer climate models
have been foisted on the American people, including our young people,
and people throughout the world. Even worse, honest discussion on these
issues of climate have been stifled, and critics have been silenced in
order to create an illusion of a consensus that the climate is going
haywire and that we're in for a global warming calamity. So why is
this? Why do we have this specter of man-made global warming being
portrayed as a global calamity in the making? Well, it's being used to
stampede the public and, yes, stampede officials into accepting what
appears to be the biggest power grab in history. One doesn't have to be
a conspiracy nut to realize there are a significant number of people
who really believe in centralizing the power of government into the
hands of elected and even unelected officials, centralizing that power
in Washington and elsewhere. And these unelected officials, who now
will be given so much power, are expected to be competent and expected
to be well motivated. They are expected to prove that by doing the
things that are consistent with the goals and the values of the people
who are pushing to centralize power in their hands.
That we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power
should not surprise anyone. But what we have here is the leftist
politicos in this country who believe in centralizing power anyway have
been willing to go along and exaggerate and, yes, play fast and loose
with the facts in order to promote this notion of man-made global
warming. But we didn't expect these people who have a motive of trying
to centralize power, or whatever the motive is of these alarmists in
the radical environmental movement, we didn't expect them to act any
other way. But we need to ask ourselves, why did it take prominent
members of the science community so long to step forward to be counted
in the face of this massive, heavy-handed campaign of deceit?
Well, I trace the reluctance of our scientists to step up back to the
abrupt dismissal of Dr. William Happer, who was then the top scientist
at the Department of Energy back in 1993. Happer was too professional,
too objective for what Vice President Gore had in mind. So off with his
head. Immediately that was one of the first actions taken when the
Clinton administration took power. Out the door with Dr. Happer. This
man, this prominent and very well-respected Ph.D., his dismissal in
that way was a message to the science community: If you want a grant,
you toe the line. And what followed was a one-sided drum beat, one-
sided promotions, one-sided research grants, and one-sided thinking.
Those were the order of the day for the 8 years of the Clinton
presidency. The media bias, which of course went along with that,
played hand in glove, has never let up with that bias. We just had
[[Page 14453]]
a major conference here in Washington with hundreds of prominent
individuals, many of whom are great scientists, Ph.D.'s, and heads of
major university science departments. Yet that conference, which was
skeptical of man-made global warming, didn't get any publicity. Very,
very few news articles came out of this. Yet these were very prominent
and important people.
This kind of repressive atmosphere where the press doesn't report
that and that we had years and years where people were not being able
to get grants unless they toed the line that Vice President Gore
wanted, in this repressive atmosphere, many leaders of the scientific
community just remained silent. They sort of became turtles. They
tucked their heads in and figured they'd hunker down and live through
it. But the ignoring of a campaign of deceit that was utilizing the
prestige of the science community has taken its toll, and it's taken a
long time to get these scientists out of their shell and to step
forward with integrity, as is expected of the men and women of science.
So here we are on the edge--laws, taxation, controls, regulation,
mandates are about to be enacted; and we've had 15 years of stifled
debate. Even my GOP colleagues are afraid to take on the phony science
that is at the heart of the man-made global warming propaganda
juggernaut. Again, these people in the GOP, they oppose this theory;
but they just want to say that what is being proposed by the Democrats
will cost too much and will have too little impact on climate or
temperature for it to justify this huge cost. Well, they're right.
What's being proposed will have a huge cost and very little impact; but
if, indeed, we are facing a global warming calamity that's being caused
by human activity, the costs shouldn't matter.
{time} 2310
So I have to argue that principle and basic science is the important
element of the discussion of the manmade global warming theory and the
laws and regulations and controls and taxation that we are now on the
verge of passing here in Washington, D.C.
The bottom line is that the science behind the manmade global warming
proposals in Congress and the draconian laws which will follow are
based on faulty science. The science is wrong. What has been presented
to us by Vice President Gore and the radical environmental community
and liberal leftists who want to centralize power in government, the
facts that they have presented us have not been accurate. This has
either been an intent to deceive, or perhaps just a benevolent intent
to save the world.
So it is not just a cost analysis of current legislative proposals
that show that the proposals claiming to thwart manmade global warming
would obliterate jobs. We know that.
All these proposals that say, well, we are going to try to thwart
global warming that way or this way, or this regulation, this taxation,
this requirement of cap-and-trade, we have had major economists warn
these things will destroy the American economy. But if they claim it is
about saving the planet, people are going to listen to them.
But it will destroy the economy, and the irony of it is, this will
have nothing to do with saving the planet, but will in fact perhaps
make the environment of our planet worse, rather than better. That is
why they have tried to stifle the debate.
The real scientific justification for their power grab is science,
and an honest discussion of that science will show that the science
being presented to justify this power grab is at best inaccurate, and,
at worst, a total lie.
You have all heard it, and everyone knows about this. People in
Washington, we don't need to be told that there has been an attempt to
stifle debate. But I would ask that the American people think about
what they have heard about the manmade global warming theory over these
15 years, but especially over these last 4 years.
How many have heard the words ``case closed?'' Isn't it ironic that
all of a sudden everybody started using the words ``case closed?'' What
does that mean? That means no more debate. The words ``case closed''
was a clumsy, and, I might add, a heavyhanded attempt to shut off
discussion even before we had a chance to have an honest discussion of
the issues. Because, as I said, the scientists in the 8 years
beforehand had been denied research grants unless they were wanting to
toe the line on global warming. How many have heard ``case closed?'' We
all have.
When Mr. Gore speaks about global warming, he never takes questions.
Why would it be that someone who believes in something so adamantly
refuses to debate the issue on TV and refuses to take questions? I have
certainly a lot less invested in this issue than Vice President Gore. I
give speeches and always take questions, and I have certainly been
willing to debate this issue in public and on television.
So why do we hear the words ``cased closed,'' stifling debate, and
Mr. Gore, one of the prime advocates of this issue, not willing to take
questions? Why is it that people who have, you know, skepticism about
manmade global warming, why is it that they complain, like Robert Gray,
former chairman of the American Meteorological Association? Why do we
hear from them that they were turned down for grant applications so
many times? Why do we hear that from a man who mentioned that he had
received 13 such research grants prior, prior, to the Clinton
administration, and then been totally cut off?
Doesn't that say something, when someone of that caliber, a Ph.D.,
the president of the Meteorological Association, can't get a grant to
study the frequencies of hurricanes? And even today this man points out
contradictory information. His view is--a man with decades of
experience and credentials, Ph.D.'s and credentials in meteorology,
says no, the idea that mankind's human actions is causing hurricanes is
false, and there is no evidence of that.
Well, and then what else do we hear? We hear name-calling. I was on a
television show recently where they called me a troglodyte, I guess
troglodyte, that is the word, that I am anti-science, and I am bigoted
in some way. I kept presenting scientific arguments about manmade
global warming, but all I got back was name-calling.
Case closed. We are not going to answer any questions. No grants for
skeptics. And, yes, anybody who disagrees with us is a low-life who
doesn't believe in science. Yes, you don't believe in science.
Can you imagine moving forward to have an honest discussion about
manmade global warming and being dismissed before you get to the
discussion as being anti-science, and then after insisting on four or
five issues on science, not having those arguments even answered, but
instead having my religion questioned?
Well, dismissing rather than answering legitimate challenges to the
manmade global warming theory is par for the course. This is standard
operating procedure. Case closed, standard operating procedure. No
questions, standard operating procedure. No grants for skeptics,
standard operating procedure.
These people have been trying their best to basically steamroll over
anyone who would get in their way without having to have the honest
discussion of an issue of this magnitude. All of it is simply a
Herculean effort not to discuss the scientific assumptions that are at
the basis of the manmade global warming concept.
So what is that all about? Why are they not willing to discuss the
science? All it is about is not discussing the science, shutting down
anybody else with any other ideas without combating the ideas.
Well, the reason why they have tried so hard to have ``case closed''
and all of these things that I have just mentioned, it is because their
basic theory, the science theory behind manmade global warming is
wrong. It is dead wrong, and that is why they won't discuss it. And if
they won't discuss it, we can discuss it.
I would suggest that if there is anyone in this Congress who would
like to debate me on this issue for an hour
[[Page 14454]]
sometime between now and the time this Congress has to vote on cap-and-
trade legislation, I will gladly meet them for an hour and discuss this
issue.
So let's start discussing it tonight, and then maybe sometime in the
next few weeks someone from the other side will take advantage of that
offer to have an honest discussion with me and with the public about
this issue. If it is so important, let's have an open and honest
discussion. So let's look at some of the real science-based challenges
to the predictions of an oncoming manmade global warming calamity.
Okay. In briefing after briefing--I am a senior member of the Science
Committee--and over the years in briefing after briefing on global
warming, I couldn't help but notice that the charts that showed that we
have increased the temperature of the planet by 1 degree, here is the
chart, it is going up like this, I couldn't help but notice where they
started, down here. And down there was 1850.
1850 is actually the line, the baseline that is used for temperature
comparisons by the global warming community, by the people who believe
in manmade global warming. But 1850 has some significance. 1850, in
that era, those few years there, that was the end of the little ice
age. That was the end of a 500-year decline in world temperatures.
Okay, so why is it that people who want us to be concerned about a 1
degree temperature increase are making the baseline of comparison the
bottom of a 500-year decline? Well, if it is at the bottom of a 500-
year decline, if it is that low point they are comparing it to, what is
all the hysteria about if we are talking about a 1 degree rise in
temperature? What is that all about, or even a 2 degree rise in
temperature?
The fact is we know that there have been weather cycles and climate
cycles throughout the history of the world. They are now trying to use
a low point of a cooling cycle to compare it to say we should be upset
when there is even a 1 degree change.
What about those other weather cycles? Number one, let's ask, how can
you use that as a baseline? Number two, what about the other weather
cycles and that weather cycle? How about the weather cycle that went
down for 500 years?
The fact is that over 500 years ago, actually 1,000 years ago, the
weather was very warm. It was a lot warmer than it is today, a lot
warmer than the 1 degree that we have.
{time} 2320
The fact is, there were big areas of Greenland that were green. They
actually had agriculture and a green part of that area. Iceland was an
area that had plants and crops. Vineland, which the Vikings said,
people thought, well, they were claiming that there were vines there
but there really weren't. No, the temperature was different. It was
warmer 1,000 years ago.
So there have been numerous weather cycles that have had nothing to
do with human activity, unless you believe that the Vikings, of course,
there was something that they were doing that was changing the weather.
And, if there was a warming cycle, and again, if we've had a warming
cycle since that time, it's only been 1 degree.
But these past climate cycles, there's one thing that we have to try
to pick up. Why is it then that we've had these cycles? Why is it then,
and why is this cycle we are claiming which is a 1 degree rise in
temperature from a 500-year low, why is this different? Why are we
trying to change the rules of the game and centralize power and look at
this as some sort of crisis when it's just another cycle? And why, what
is causing the cycle then?
Well, it seems that cycles of climate follow solar activity. The
cycles we've had before mankind even emerged can be traced back through
ice cores to solar activity. Now, we've seen it here on Earth and we've
seen it on other planets.
Let's note this. When I was in this debate the other night, a Member
of Congress, a good friend, went on about how horrible it was, of
course we're having manmade global warming. Look what's happening in
the Arctic. In the Arctic, the polar bears are being destroyed. Well,
of course that's not true. There's a polar bear explosion in terms of
their population. There are two types of polar bears that are losing,
that are not able to keep up with the changes in the climate there. But
most other polar bears, because it's warmer, actually are living better
than they were before, and the population of polar bears is going up.
How ironic that we end up putting them on an endangered species list at
a time when their numbers are increasing.
But let's get back to the central point. Something's going on in the
Arctic. And my friend and colleague is saying, oh, how horrible it is
and going into great detail to touch people's hearts about a polar bear
on a piece of ice. And then I said, you're saying that this is caused
by human activity and, thus, we have to have all these taxes and
controls and things to save the planet from this?
Well, yes, that's what he's saying. Well, I said exactly what I've
said to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I said this to myself on the program.
Yes, the ice cap is retreating. There's no doubt about that. But when I
say that, I'm not talking about our ice cap. That's clear to us. But
what about the ice cap on Mars? There is an ice cap on Mars, and just
by coincidence, it is retreating at exactly the same time as our ice
cap is retreating. Doesn't that indicate that it might be the sun and
not us driving SUVs or modern technology that's creating these many,
many cycles that we've had, including the one that we are already in?
Yes, an ice cap is retreating on Mars and it's retreating in the
world. Is that just a coincidence? Well, that's a scientific challenge.
Let's have an answer to that. So, we have polar ice caps melting on
Mars, and it's not just a coincidence, I believe. So tell me why this
doesn't indicate to us that what we're really talking about is solar,
what we are facing today in the climate changes that have taken place
today, just as it has in the past is that it has to do with solar
activity.
So now remember, by the way, ice caps may have been melting in the
Arctic, but one thing people miss, the ice caps are not melting
everywhere, just the northern ice cap. In Antarctica, to the south, ice
is actually accumulating. And so in the north, yeah, there is a polar
bear population, I think two species of polar bears are suffering. Most
every one, the rest of them are expanding their population.
And by the way, I understand now, even in that area, the ice is
beginning to return. But the ice has always been accumulating in the
Antarctic over these years. That's never told to us. It's as if the
whole world is increasing in temperature, but they don't bother to
mention the areas where the ice is actually accumulating.
Well, the manmade global warming theory has been focused on
CO2. This is, of course, and again, let's talk about the
science of these issues. CO2 is a miniscule part, a
miniscule part of our atmosphere, and if you ask the ordinary person,
they think it's 20 percent of the atmosphere. Well, actually it's .023
percent, I believe, so that's less than 1 quarter of 1. It's less than
1 quarter of 1 percent of the atmosphere is CO2. And of
that, at least 90 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is
not traced to human activity.
I've been in hearings where most people claim it's more like 5
percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is traced to human
activity. You know, and by the way, one huge volcano or even massive
fire like they've had in various countries would dwarf everything that
we're trying to do to reduce CO2 into the amount of
CO2 that that would put into the atmosphere, because
CO2 is not a significant part of the atmosphere. It's a
miniscule--it's like a thread being put across the line on a football
field, and that's what you're changing by focusing not just on the
CO2, which is .023 percent, but it's also, of that, 90
percent of that is not manmade. It's made by nature.
So the most important discussion in terms of manmade CO2,
which, as I say, the manmade part of it is just a small contributor,
it's a small contributor to a very tiny element in the atmosphere,
[[Page 14455]]
and suggesting that that is changing our climate is ludicrous. In fact,
it is warming and has released CO2 and there have been--it
is warming a little bit. There has been, over the years, until
recently, and over the years, there has been times when CO2
was going up dramatically and down dramatically but had nothing to do
with the climate of the planet. For example, manmade--if manmade--
here's a basic can question. Here's another science challenge. If
manmade CO2 causes warming, why, as CO2 levels
were rising dramatically in the 1940s, fifties, sixties and seventies,
why, if the CO2 was rising in those decades, why was there
actually a cooling of our climate in those decades?
Okay. Let's hear the science. Come on. I just had a science. I've had
five or six points now. Why is everyone afraid to take on these
scientific answers? If indeed CO2 causes it to warm, well,
then how come, when we had massive increases in CO2 in the
forties, fifties, sixties and seventies that it got cooler and not
warmer? Well, the calculations on global warming have been based on
fraudulent numbers.
And here's another scientific challenge. A recent study shows that
over 80 percent of America's temperature and weather stations which
have been the source of temperature readings that supposedly indicate a
warming trend, supposedly, these very same monitoring facilities have
been compromised and are faulty in the information they're providing.
{time} 2330
The numbers have been skewed. They are suspect because the monitors
that have been relied upon do not meet the basic scientific standards
that are required of them for us to believe in the numbers that they're
giving us. In other words, the equipment is compromised; the figures
coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. And our system, with
80 percent of our monitors who do not meet the standards, the
scientific standards for us to rely on their numbers--our system has
been heralded as the best in the world. So think about that. What's
going on in the rest of the world when we're talking about one little
rise, a one-degree rise in temperature since the end of the little ice
age which was a 500-year low of temperature?
So even that we can't figure out--even with that one degree we don't
know, because the monitors have been placed in faulty ways or have not
been kept and maintained in the right way.
And so what we have had is a lot of people who have been making
predictions over the last 20 years, especially Vice President Gore. But
if the science community had been given these grants--but only if
they're going to come to the conclusion about global warming that we
want you to--these people in the science community and these other
political people who have got their own motives behind this bulldozer
approach and this steamroller approach to accomplishing what they're
out to accomplish, those people have been telling us that we're facing
a man-made global warming climate calamity and it was in the making.
And we were told that the temperatures were either going to continue to
go up and up and it would reach a certain point and then there would be
some sort of tipping point and then it would jump up by a number of
temperature points. So it would be five or six points, or whatever they
were predicting. It was a huge jump in temperature at some point.
Well, that's not what's happened. I heard that for 10 years, 10 years
for the people who were giving out all of the grants, 10 years from all
of the people who were shutting out any type of real debate, 10 years
of ``don't ask any questions, case closed.'' And those people are on
the record, and they have been warning us of man-made global warming
that was about to get out of hand. But for over a decade, it has not
gotten any warmer.
Yes, 11 years ago in 1998 it was a very hot year, and that was the
year--since then, every year has been cooler. It has not gotten warmer
since then. And they say, Well, that was a very hot year. Well, so was
1931 was a very hot year, and it was followed by decades, I might add,
of cooling. So that doesn't mean anything. That was just an anomaly
that we had a hot year in 1998, because ever since then the temperature
has not been going up.
The global warming alarmists' predictions were wrong, all right? Come
and debate that. There is a scientific challenge. I keep giving
scientific challenges, and what I get back in this debate is, You're a
bigot; you're anti-science; you're stupid. Name-calling. I mean, the
people on the other side who always are willing to call people names
rather than confront their arguments are very easy to spot. You just
take a look. You listen to what's being said. Who is offering an
argument that needs to be discussed? Who's calling names? They have
been trying to shut down this debate by calling anybody who disagrees
with them horrible personal names.
Well, let me repeat this one point: it has not gotten any warmer for
over a decade and we're still--it looks like we're even still getting
cooler. That is totally contradictory to the predictions that were
aggressively made to us, as they only gave their grants to the people
who would agree with that over the years.
This is why global warming alarmists have now, en masse, changed the
wording that they use. They were wrong, so let us just change the way
we talk about things. Now it's climate change, okay? Everybody think
about it. All of these same people were talking about global warming 20
years ago, spending billions of dollars on research that was bogus
research, you know. It was intended to come out with what they were
buying from the scientists. They were telling us it was going to get
warmer, and they kept using the term ``man-made global warming.'' And
now they call it ``climate change,'' and all of a sudden, they all
change and it all became climate change.
Well, every time you hear that word used by an environmental radical,
by one of these alarmists, it is an admission that they were wrong and
that they refuse to admit that they were wrong. Refusing to admit
you're wrong after you've been so aggressive in promoting something is
certainly not an honest debate and an honest discussion.
If I am proven wrong on a point, I will apologize and change my
position. I won't try to change my wording so it sounds like I was
never wrong in the first place.
These people were wrong. Remember it. Every time the word climate
change is used, remember these were the same people who were talking
about global warming, and they want to have it both ways. No matter if
it gets warmer or colder, they want to blame it on human activity when,
in fact, all of the evidence suggests that cycles come from solar
activity.
Expert after expert is now pointing to the flaws in the central
argument.
And the other thing you hear is, of course, that all of the
scientists agree. There is your other way of shutting down debate. All
of the scientists, all of the prestigious Ph.D.s and scientists agree.
That is not true. And it hasn't been true for years.
So Al Gore's scientific mumbo-jumbo was wrong, all of the scientists
agreeing with him is wrong, the temperature predictions have been
wrong, and the man-made CO2 premise is wrong.
Now we find out that the monitors used to collect the data were
placed next to air-conditioning exhaust vents--which made the
temperature higher--and in parking lots, and on top of buildings, and
near other heat sources which, of course, made all of their statistics
totally unreliable. We hear that.
We also know the methodology of using computer models has been
questionable from the very beginning. We all know the saying: garbage
in, garbage out. But no one was permitted to hear the questions; no one
was permitted to ask follow-up questions as to--no one has been
permitted to totally understand the software that went into that
questionable computer modeling.
The observations have been wrong. The attempt to stifle debate and
shut up those people who disagree by calling
[[Page 14456]]
them names, denying grants, and making personal attacks has been wrong.
Thus, I would suggest the biggest power grab in our history is wrong,
and the public should wake up. The public should understand that what
we are seeing is a brazen power grab that is wrong.
So, let's review the scientific challenges to the man-made global
warming theory. See if anybody ever tries to come and have an argument
about the science.
Baseline comparison is at the bottom of a 500-year decline in
temperature. That is not the scientific way of determining whether a
slight rise in temperature is significant. The science measurements
were partly or severely flawed by a monitoring system that was--did not
meet the standards necessary to have accurate information. Past climate
cycles were frequent even before the emergence of mankind. Cycles like
the retreating polar ice caps are parallel to similar cycles on Mars
suggesting solar activity, rather than human activity, is the culprit.
Increasing CO2 levels did not cause warming, which can be
shown in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s where there was an
increasing level of CO2, but yet it was getting cooler.
So let's have an honest debate. Let's quit calling names. Let's quit
dismissing legitimate science-based questions.
{time} 2340
Address the scientific issues being raised rather than sloganeering
about a consensus of scientists that does not exist. Again, the so-
called ``consensus,'' case closed--that consensus does not exist. More
and more, thousands of scientists are signing on as skeptics to this
manmade global warming theory.
This leads to an important point that needs to be made. Perhaps the
biggest lie the public must deal with is that all the prominent
scientists in the world totally agree with the manmade global warming
theory. That's probably the biggest lie, as I mentioned. Instead of
answering scientific questions, alarmists have simply claimed all the
scientists agree. I've been interviewed on this at least half a dozen
times, and every interview begins with, well, all of the scientists
agree that manmade global warming is a reality, how can you disagree
with all of them? It is just another tactic aimed at repressing an
honest discussion of something that should be a scientific issue and
discussed with all sincerity.
I will now submit the names of 10 prominent scientists, 10 of the
thousands of scientists who have signed on to suggest that manmade
global warming is far from accepted by all scientists. These are the
heads of science departments, the presidents of scientific and academic
associations, people with doctorates in the areas of study, and they
are coming forward at last, they're coming out of their shell at last
after all of these years of intimidation. This is only a list of 10,
but there are thousands more who are stepping forward to voice honest
skepticism, if not total rejection, to the claim that human activity is
creating a global warming climate catastrophe.
The first one is Dr. Richard Lindzen, top scientist from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. William Gray, Colorado State
University, former president of the American Meteorological
Association. Dr. David Nowell, former chairman and NATO meteorologist
from Canada. Dr. Gerhard Kramm, University of Alaska in Fairbanks. Dr.
Yury Izrael of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a senior member of the
Russian Academy of Sciences whom I met and spoke to, and also a member
of the IPCC United Nations report, who now makes it very clear that he
does not believe in that report or manmade global warming. Dr. Ian
Pilmer of the University of Melbourne. Dr. Diane Douglas, climatologist
and paleoclimatologist. Dr. Harry Lins, cochairman of the IPCC
Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group. Dr. Antonio Zichichi,
president of the World Federation of Scientists. Dr. Ivar Giaever,
Nobel Laureate and physicist.
So this idea that all the scientists are lockstep in favor of the
theory of manmade global warming is a lie, not just a lie, a damnable
lie aimed at cutting off honest communication. And who's doing that?
Who's making this adamant statement that all the scientists are in
agreement with this? Well, we've had people who say these things and
said things all along. There's the global warming alarmists now who are
making these statements. But let us just remember, these scares have
happened in the past. I remember when my mother wouldn't serve
cranberries at Thanksgiving because they caused cancer. I remember when
Professor Meryl Streep warned us of alar-causing cancer, which just
about ruined the apple industry for 2 years. That also was wrong.
We heard about cyclamates causing cancer, which cost the industry
billions of dollars and disrupted very healthy patterns of nutrition
that could have been based on cyclamates rather than high fructose corn
syrup. That, too, was wrong.
We remember the nuclear power catastrophe at Three Mile Island, when
Dr. Jane Fonda, that Ph.D. genius, taught us that nuclear power was so
dangerous, that what we have done instead of using nuclear power, we
began relying on overseas oil and gas and burning coal. Then remember
the acid rain? That was as near a high pitch as what we hear about
global warming. Ronald Reagan stood up, put his hand up and said, no,
we are going to have scientific research on this acid rain issue before
we commit to all sorts of regulations and taxes that will destroy our
economy. Luckily, Reagan did that, and when a $500 million study was
complete, it verified the fact that acid rain was a minimal problem,
not a major problem, a minimal problem that didn't justify any of the
draconian raises in taxes and controls that were being suggested by
those environmental alarmists.
Then of course the granddaddy of them all was, many of the same
people who now talk about global warming were then talking about global
cooling back in the early 1970s, some of the very same people. Yes. And
what happened to global cooling? The cycle started going in another
direction. Then it became, Oh, my God, it's global warming. Well, now
it's back to global cooling. So is this all caused by us driving SUVs?
No. Maybe it's caused by the sun. Maybe there are natural reasons for
the cycles of climate on this planet.
The so-called ``experts'' were wrong when they told us about all of
these things. All of these were exaggerated problems, exaggerated
threats to our well-being. And the American people were deceived in
many of these cases, whether it was about nuclear energy or whether it
was about cranberries. And we had fanatics who were fast and loose with
the truth and fast and loose with facts. Well, that's exactly what's
going on today.
And what's the problem with that? Well, the problem is there are
serious side effects when one gets you focused on something that's not
true, like cranberries causing cancer or nuclear energy being such a
threat. You end up doing things that are actually harmful to you that
you wouldn't do otherwise. When you have CO2 being called
the primary pollutant for concern, you are doing a horrendous
disservice to the people of this country. By focusing on
CO2, which is not harmful to human beings at all and in fact
is a plant food--CO2 makes plants grow better, it does not
harm human beings. And if our job is just to try to reduce the amount
of CO2 in the world, we will actually be doing a grave
disservice because we won't be concentrating on the pollution, like
NO2 and other things that are very harmful, the particulates
out of diesel trucks that are particularly--again, no pun intended--but
particular particulates that are very harmful to people. I have three
children. I have my baby Anika and Tristan and Christian. I love those
babies, and I do not want them to breathe in dirty air. And if we focus
on CO2, we are doing a disservice to them and their
generation and we are doing a disservice to the older people of this
country who will also breathe in the dirty air. And focusing on
CO2 to save the planet. That's because what's happening here
is these people are out to
[[Page 14457]]
save the planet, but they are not out to save the people of the planet.
I remember one solution to a nonexistent threat, which also caused a
huge destruction of people, was, of course, the eliminating of DDT.
Now, DDT, we were told, was destructive to the environment, especially
to bird egg shells. Well, then, DDT is banned. And what is the result
of DDT being banned? Malaria out of control in Third World countries
where before it had been nearly eliminated. DDT was eliminated and
malaria made a comeback, and millions of children in the Third World
have died because of this nonsense.
I can't tell you if pelican egg shells are less fragile because of
DDT, but I can tell you the tradeoff with millions of young children
dying in Third World countries isn't worth that tradeoff about how
fragile and building up the shell of a pelican.
Unfortunately, the people driving policy here are out to save our
planet; they're not out to save our children or our seniors or any
other people on the planet. That is the same mindset that would
dramatically damage our economy in order to save the planet, with no
consideration of the hardship and deprivation to ordinary people that
would result from the draconian controls and taxation that is being
proposed here in Washington right now as an answer to the global
warming threat, the manmade global warming threat.
Now that manmade global warming has been driven into the public
consciousness, the alarmists have the leverage right here in
Washington. What should we expect unless the public changes its
perception? There is a price to pay, just like those millions of little
kids dying in Africa of malaria, and there is a price to pay for
listening to irrational alarmists.
Excessive taxation regulation mandates are now being proposed in
Washington, and they will reduce our gross domestic product by over $7
trillion, destroying nearly 2 million jobs by 2012, at a time when we
really need jobs. It will raise electricity rates by 90 percent above
inflation, incur $33,000 worth of additional Federal debt for every
man, woman and child in America. And it will help the Chinese and other
people steal our businesses from us. And this is only step one.
And even with this monstrous cost, little progress is expected.
Here's back to the central point most Republicans want to make: That
that cost isn't worth what we're going to get out of it. Well, no,
there won't be any change in the temperature, and little change in the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 isn't
harmful to people or this world.
The real calamity brought on by global warming will be the economy-
killing taxes and regulations that are put in place to solve a
nonexistent problem. That economic decline that we're talking about is
just Round one, however. Round two is easy to predict.
{time} 2350
Global and international bodies and our own government and our own
Congress will be given the right and power to intervene in our lives to
prevent manmade global warming. That's what it's all about, globalism.
If man makes it, man must then be controlled. That's why it was so
important for them to steamroll over anybody who is in opposition and
wanted to ask some questions. They want nobody to ask questions about
their theory about manmade global warming because they believe men and
women, people, need to be controlled. That is part of their theory of
government. It will make it a whole new, more benevolent world.
Unfortunately, a lot of the government they are talking about is not
the American Government. We are talking about international mandates
from unelected bodies that we will then pass on power and authority to,
which is supported by many of the people right here in this Congress.
For example, in the future, we are going to face all kinds of
mandates and controls from the Federal Government and the
internationalcy. Some of these would be, for example, mandated
increases in parking fees. Do they tell you that now? All your local
communities are going to have to raise your parking fees. And there
will be major impediments to the private use of automobiles. And then,
of course, they've got to end frequent flyer miles and they've got to
end discount air travel because, believe it or not, and nobody has ever
been telling you this, they believe that airplanes are the biggest
CO2 footprint of all. That's right. Your frequent flyer
miles and your discount tickets have got to go. Of course, the elite
will be able to fly around in their private planes giving a donation by
supposedly planting trees somewhere and thus they can fly in their
private planes. But the rest of us cannot go to see our sick relatives
on a discounted ticket. No one has heard about this. Nobody has heard
about these types of controls that are going to be mandated on our own
people by the United Nations perhaps. What has been the purview of
local government will be transferred to much higher authorities. Local
government will be required to follow international guidelines, climate
guidelines, when it comes to building, zoning, even local planning.
This is part of our liberty. Where we live, what we eat, how we run
our lives, this is what is at stake. It's called liberty. This is a
fight between the globalists, who found a vehicle to try to gain power
and grab power, and those people who do believe in liberty and justice.
We call them patriots. We call them people around the world who do
believe in these Western values of dignity for the individual and
freedom and justice.
Yes, even our diet has been targeted by those claiming that animal
flatulence and deforestation make meat the enemy of climate. We aren't
even going to be able to have barbecues in our backyard, much less have
hamburgers. Now, these are one of those things that people will laugh
that no one could ever go that far. What is going on here is laying the
foundation for extensive controls that now are up to the individual or
up to the local government being given to a central government.
If you aren't frightened by this, you should be. We have a fanatical
movement of steely-eyed zealots who cannot admit they made a mistake,
who always attack the other person rather than trying to have honest
discussions of issues. Couple that with self-serving interests, and
there are many self-serving interests who are involved in this. They
now have joined in a political coalition that believes they have the
right to run the economy, run business, run local schools, and run our
lives. They have been looking for an excuse to assume power.
Now, the left has always wanted to have power. Leftists have always
wanted it. They believe that they can do better and make humankind over
and make it a better world by having absolute power over the choices of
the people who live in this world. Well, they have found a calamity.
They can threaten the people of the world with a calamity in order to
stampede them into a monstrously horrific policy, and that's what we
are on the edge of here in Washington.
In this last 8 months here in Washington, hundreds of billions, even
trillions of dollars have been shoveled into the coffers, and no one
knows where the heck this money has gone to. There have been looters
from all over the world in our financial system and everyone who has
benefited from that. The American people know that this Congress was
stampeded into giving away trillions of dollars because we were told
there was going to be an economic calamity. I'm very proud I never
succumbed to that hysteria that was perhaps the greatest rip-off in
history. Well, the global warming stampede is designed to cover up the
biggest power grab in history, and it too will be costly.
Wake up, America. Wake up, America. We should not be giving our power
and our liberty, not to the central government in Washington, D.C.,
certainly not to the United Nations, which is composed of countries who
are governed by crooks and kooks. And the United Nations having power
to set regulations over our lives in the name of saving this world from
a climate catastrophe would itself be a catastrophe
[[Page 14458]]
to the freedom of liberty and justice in this country and to the
freedom-loving people of the world.
Well, even Al Gore must be a bit embarrassed now that he has to use
the words ``climate change'' rather than ``global warming.'' It's an
inconvenient truth for him. The fact is it's no longer warming. He must
think that we are stupid if he thinks that we have not noticed that
it's now ``climate change'' instead of ``global warming'' and that we
haven't noticed that there are large numbers of scientists that are
opposing what is being proposed. And he must think we are stupid if he
thinks that these taxes and regulations and draconian laws that are
being proposed are things that we will just accept because we have been
frightened into submission.
Wake up, America. We need to save our country and future generations
and we need to save the world from this incredible power grab, the
greatest power grab and worst power grab in history.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Richardson, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Poe of Texas) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Poe of Texas, for 5 minutes, June 16.
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, June 16.
Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, June 16.
Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McClintock, for 5 minutes, June 10.
Mr. Bishop of Utah, for 5 minutes, June 10.
____________________
SENATE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
S. 256. An act to enhance the ability to combat
methamphetamine; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 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.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House reports that on June 9, 2009
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bills.
H.R. 1595. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 3245 Latta Road in Rochester, New
York, as the ``Brian K. Schramm Post Office Building''.
H.R. 1284. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 103 West Main Street in McLain,
Mississippi, as the ``Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office''.
H.R. 663. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta,
Georgia, as the ``Yvonne Ingram-Ephraim Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 918. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown,
New York, as the ``Stan Lundine Post Office Building''.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 57 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2078. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Importation of Longan From Taiwan [Docket No.:
APHIS-2007-0161] (RIN: 0579-AC89) received May 20, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
2079. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0554; FRL-8413-5] received May 27, 2009, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
2080. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Exemptions from the Requirement of a
Tolerance; Technical Amendments [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0923; FRL-
8417-9] received May 27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
2081. A letter from the Acting Secretary, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
fiscal year 2008 Performance Report for the Animal Drug User
Fee Act, enacted on November 18, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-130); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2082. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Mgmt. Staff, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revision of the
Requirements for Publication of License Revocation [Docket
No.: FDA-2009-N-0100] received May 29, 2009, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2083. 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: South Carolina; Approval of
Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard for Cherokee County [EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0797-
200824(a); FRL-8911-5] received May 27, 2009, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2084. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Florida; Removal of Gasoline Vapor
Recovery from the Southeast Florida Area. [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-
0836-200739(f); FRL-8911-6] received May 27, 2009, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
2085. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Implementation of the New Source
Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0062; FRL-8910-6] (RIN:
2060-AN86) received May 27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2086. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Update of Continuous Instrumental Test
Methods; Correction [EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0071; FRL-8910-5] (RIN:
2060-AP13) received May 27, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2087. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.622(i), FinalDTV Table of Allotments, Television
Broadcast Stations (Derby, Kansas) [MB Docket No.: 09-33 RN-
11521] received May 18, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2088. A letter from the Acting Assoc. Gen. Counsel for
General Law, Department of Homeland Security, National
Protection and Programs Directorate, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2089. A letter from the Staff Director, United States
Commission On Civil Rights, transmitting notification that
the Commission recently appointed members to the Connecticut
Advisory Committee, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.70; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
2090. A letter from the Acting Chairman, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
REGULATIONS GOVERNING FEES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED IN
CONNECTION WITH LICENSING AND RELATED SERVICES-2009 UPDATE
[STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 16)] received May 29, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk
[[Page 14459]]
for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 522. Resolution providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 1886) to authorize democratic, economic, and
social development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize
security assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes, and
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2410) to
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and the
Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, to modernize the
Foreign Service, and for other purposes. (Rept. 111-143).
Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. Issa, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Nadler of New York, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Poe of
Texas):
H.R. 2765. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation
judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers
of interactive computer services; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Ms. DeGETTE (for herself, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Polis
of Colorado):
H.R. 2766. A bill to repeal the exemption for hydraulic
fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GRAVES:
H.R. 2767. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to extend
and improve the Small Business Innovation Research Program
and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business, 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. WAMP:
H.R. 2768. A bill to declare nuclear energy to be clean
energy, for purposes of Federal law; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BRIGHT:
H.R. 2769. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to
promote the commercialization of certain small business
research and development projects, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Small Business, 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. FILNER (for himself and Mr. Buyer):
H.R. 2770. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
modify and update provisions of law relating to nonprofit
research and education corporations, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. SHEA-PORTER (for herself, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, Mr. Massa, and Mr. Bishop of New York):
H.R. 2771. A bill to amend titles 10 and 37, United States
Code, to provide a more equitable process by which the
military departments may recover overpayments of military pay
and allowances erroneously paid to a member of the Armed
Forces when the overpayment is due to no fault of the member,
to expand Department discretion regarding remission or
cancellation of indebtedness, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. SCHOCK:
H.R. 2772. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to
enhance the Small Business Innovation Research Program and
the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business, 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. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mrs.
Capps, and Mr. Massa):
H.R. 2773. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to cover transitional care services to improve
the quality and cost effectiveness of care under the Medicare
Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. HALVORSON:
H.R. 2774. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
make permanent the extension of the duration of
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage for totally
disabled veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. HIGGINS (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Ms. McCollum):
H.R. 2775. A bill to prohibit, as a banned hazardous
substance, certain household dishwashing detergent containing
phosphorus; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Ehlers,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Sestak):
H.R. 2776. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 and title 5, United States Code, to allow leave for
individuals who provide living organ donations; to the
Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the
Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and House
Administration, 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. HOLT (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Welch, Mr.
Ellison, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms.
Schakowsky, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Ryan of
Ohio, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Quigley):
H.R. 2777. A bill to include costs incurred by the Indian
Health Service, a federally qualified health center, an AIDS
drug assistance program, certain hospitals, or a
pharmaceutical manufacturer patient assistance program in
providing prescription drugs toward the annual out of pocket
threshold under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act and to provide a safe harbor for assistance provided
under a pharmaceutical manufacturer patient assistance
program; 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. JACKSON of Illinois (for himself and Mr.
Cummings):
H.R. 2778. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
redesignate the National Center on Minority Health and Health
Disparities as the National Institute for Minority Health and
Health Disparities, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy,
Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Crowley, and Ms.
Schwartz):
H.R. 2779. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide transparency with respect to fees and
expenses charged to participant-directed defined contribution
plans, and to improve participant communication; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ROONEY:
H.R. 2780. A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of
section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of
title 18, United States Code; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SCHRADER:
H.R. 2781. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
to designate segments of the Molalla River in Oregon, as
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. WALZ (for himself, Mr. Carney, Mr. McIntyre, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Perriello, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Space, Mr. Welch, Mr. Minnick, Mr.
Kanjorski, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Michaud, Mr.
Ortiz, Mr. Boswell, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Mr.
Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr.
Hinojosa):
H.R. 2782. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to
incorporate regional transportation planning organizations
into statewide transportation planning, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.R. 2783. A bill to amend part D of title IV of the Social
Security Act to repeal a fee imposed by States on certain
child support collections; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Pierluisi, and Mr.
Gonzalez):
H. Res. 520. A resolution impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge
of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DENT (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Burton
of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Cao, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr.
Gerlach, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Sestak, Mr.
Skelton, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. McHenry, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Petri, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr.
[[Page 14460]]
Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Honda, Mr. Serrano, and
Mr. Kanjorski):
H. Res. 521. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to the importance of having a
census that is complete and accurate; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. ROONEY (for himself, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Doggett, Mr. Kingston, and Mr. Paul):
H. Res. 523. A resolution congratulating the Lambda Chi
Alpha Fraternity on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary; to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Ms. TITUS (for herself, Mr. Platts, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Capps, Ms.
Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Fattah, Mr.
Grayson, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
LaTourette, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. McGovern, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Yarmuth, and Mr. Young of
Alaska):
H. Res. 524. A resolution recognizing and supporting the
National Day on Writing; to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 4 of Rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
67. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the State House of
Representatives of Georgia, relative to House Resolution 477
Recognizing the vital role the manufacturing industry plays
in the American economy and requesting that the United States
Congress support legislative efforts to invest in the
manufacturing sector, including the domestic auto industry;
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
68. Also, a memorial of the State General Assembly of Rhode
Island, relative to H. 6026 URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
TO SUPPORT FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO PROTECT AMERICAN HORSES
FROM SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
69. Also, a memorial of the State Senate and House of
Representatives of Washington, relative to HOUSE JOINT
MEMORIAL 4000 respectfully praying that the United States
Congress pass H.R. 5968, the Restoring Partnership for County
Health Care Costs Act of 2008; jointly to the Committees on
Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
70. Also, a memorial of the State Senate and House of
Representatives of Washington, relative to SENATE JOINT
MEMORIAL 8013 respectfully urging the United States Congress
to enact legislation to eliminate the 24 month Medicare
waiting period for participants in Social Security Disability
Insurance; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce
and Ways and Means.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 22: Mr. Reyes, Mr. Paulsen, and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H.R. 28: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 43: Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Luetkemeyer,
and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 162: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 197: Mr. Matheson, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, and Mr.
Radanovich.
H.R. 205: Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 333: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H.R. 393: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 403: Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Sablan, Ms. Lee of
California, and Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 413: Mr. Welch, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Roskam, and Mr. Davis of Alabama.
H R. 426: Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 433: Mr. Thornberry.
H.R. 442: Mr. Boehner, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Coffman of
Colorado, Mr. Pence, and Mr. Poe of Texas.
H.R. 484: Mr. Terry, Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 503: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.
H.R. 571: Mr. Capuano and Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 653: Mr. Massa.
H.R. 658: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 676: Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 678: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 745: Mr. Himes and Ms. Kosmas.
H.R. 816: Mr. Ellison, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Gene Green of
Texas.
H.R. 840: Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 878: Mr. Chaffetz.
H.R. 930: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
H.R. 952: Mr. Stupak, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Mr.
Reyes.
H.R. 997: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 1016: Mr. Snyder, Mr. Perriello, and Ms. Corrine Brown
of Florida.
H.R. 1021: Ms. Kosmas.
H.R. 1064: Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Baca, Mr. Price of
North Carolina, and Mr. Welch.
H.R. 1067: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 1074: Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, and
Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 1080: Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1082: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1103: Mr. Herger and Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 1115: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 1142: Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 1144: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 1146: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1158: Mr. Ross.
H.R. 1193: Mrs. Napolitano and Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 1203: Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Nye, Mr. Welch,
and Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 1204: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 1207: Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Tonko, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Shea-Porter,
Mr. Carney, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1221: Mr. Olson.
H.R. 1229: Mr. Heller.
H.R. 1255: Ms. Tsongas.
H.R. 1283: Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. McMahon, and Mr.
Yarmuth.
H.R. 1308: Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 1310: Mr. Hare.
H.R. 1327: Mr. Latta and Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
H.R. 1346: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1362: Mr. Inslee, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Snyder,
and Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 1392: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 1398: Mr. Melancon, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Miller of North
Carolina, Mr. Fleming, and Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
H.R. 1405: Mr. Sestak and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 1425: Mr. Farr.
H.R. 1428: Mr. Nye, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Connolly of Virginia,
Mr. Carter, and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 1441: Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 1452: Mr. Boswell.
H.R. 1454: Mrs. Bachmann.
H.R. 1505: Mr. Driehaus, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Loebsack, and
Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1508: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 1509: Mr. Tonko and Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona.
H.R. 1520: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1523: Mr. Hodes, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr.
Delahunt.
H.R. 1528: Mr. Moran of Virginia and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1530: Mr. Moran of Virginia and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1531: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr.
Manzullo.
H.R. 1548: Mr. Pierluisi.
H.R. 1552: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1587: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 1600: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 1608: Ms. Fudge, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Jackson of
Illinois.
H.R. 1612: Mr. McDermott and Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1616: Mr. Platts, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1670: Mr. Dent and Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 1685: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1688: Mr. Boccieri and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 1691: Mr. Cao and Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 1708: Mr. Space and Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 1724: Mr. Tonko.
H.R. 1740: Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Akin, Mr.
Bartlett, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr.
Camp, Mr. Carter, Mr. Castle, Mr. Coble, Mr. Cole, Mr. Davis
of Kentucky, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Franks of Arizona,
Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Graves, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Hensarling,
Mr. Herger, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mrs. Lummis,
Mr. Mica, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pence,
Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Ryan
of Wisconsin, Mr. Souder, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr.
Watt, and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 1751: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 1799: Mr. Peterson.
H.R. 1826: Mr. Foster and Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 1894: Mr. Rehberg and Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1898: Mr. Wu and Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 1912: Mr. Heinrich.
H.R. 1924: Mr. Lujan.
H.R. 1925: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Cohen, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Quigley, Ms.
Speier, and Ms. Tsongas.
H.R. 1944: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 1956: Mr. Pastor of Arizona.
H.R. 1963: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1977: Ms. Kosmas and Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 1984: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1989: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 1993: Mr. Himes.
H.R. 2001: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 2004: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Camp, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Ehlers,
Mr. Hoekstra, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Levin, Mr.
McCotter, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Peters, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Schauer, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Upton.
H.R. 2006: Mr. Crowley and Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 2014: Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Walden.
H.R. 2017: Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, and Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 2035: Mr. Olson.
H.R. 2058: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Mr. Latham.
[[Page 14461]]
H.R. 2060: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 2072: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2076: Mr. Sablan and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 2084: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 2097: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. Maloney, and
Mr. Massa.
H.R. 2109: Mr. Latham, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Cummings, and Mr. Adler of New Jersey.
H.R. 2116: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 2123: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr.
Sestak, and Mr Pitts.
H.R. 2129: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 2149: Mr. Langevin and Mr. Towns.
H.R. 2156: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Filner, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Ross.
H.R. 2178: Mr. Conyers and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2195: Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Brady
of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 2196: Mr. Pierluisi.
H.R. 2222: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 2245: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Massa, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Calvert, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Rush, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Israel, Mr. Issa, Mr.
Hill, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Pierluisi, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Tanner, and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2254: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Cao, and Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina.
H.R. 2256: Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Boccieri, Mr. Rothman of
New Jersey, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Kind, Mr.
Kucinich, and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 2269: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 2296: Mr. Boccieri, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Michaud, Mr.
Boehner, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Minnick, Mr. Holden, and Mr.
Chaffetz.
H.R. 2304: Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 2324: Mr. Pastor of Arizona.
H.R. 2329: Mr. Sestak and Mr. Ellsworth.
H.R. 2332: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 2339: Mr. Bishop of New York, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr.
Stark.
H.R. 2360: Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 2373: Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Delahunt,
and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 2390: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 2403: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 2404: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2414: Mr. Welch, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr. George Miller
of California.
H.R. 2421: Ms. Berkley, Mr. Holt, Mr. Inglis, Ms. Kosmas,
Mr. Langevin, Mr. Latham, Mr. Loebsack, Mrs. Lummis, Ms.
Matsui, Mr. Perriello, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Roe of
Tennessee, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Schauer, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ms.
Titus, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Ehlers, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Walden, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Olson, Mr. Culberson,
Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Donnelly
of Indiana, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, and Mr. Smith
of Nebraska.
H.R. 2452: Mr. Paul, Mr. Schock, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida, and Mr. Boccieri.
H.R. 2478: Mrs. Davis of California and Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 2497: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 2499: Mr. Spratt, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. McDermott, Ms.
Fallin, and Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 2502: Mr. Holt and Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 2520: Mr. McClintock.
H.R. 2525: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 2553: Mr. Rooney.
H.R. 2555: Ms. Giffords, Mr. Hill, Mr. Sires, Mr. Conyers,
Mr. Cohen, and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 2560: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 2561: Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Sestak, and Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 2562: Mr. Altmire, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Abercrombie, and
Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 2568: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 2584: Ms. Jenkins.
H.R. 2593: Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Moran of
Kansas, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Bishop of New York, and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2607: Mr. Souder and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2648: Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. Lee of California, Mr.
Sestak, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Lewis of
California, and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2662: Mr. Boren, Mr. Holt, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Pierluisi,
and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 2669: Mr. Sires and Mr. Polis of Colorado.
H.R. 2670: Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 2672: Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Minnick, and Mr.
Manzullo.
H.R. 2681: Mr. Polis of Colorado.
H.R. 2743: Ms. Kosmas, Mr. Clay, Mr. Hare, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Holden, Mr. Loebsack, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
of Florida, Mr. Boswell, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mrs. Maloney, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Massa,
Ms. Fudge, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Gene
Green of Texas.
H.R. 2750: Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 2751: Mr. Griffith, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, Mr.
Turner, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Welch, Ms. Kosmas, Mr. Maffei, and
Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 2760: Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bilbray,
Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Gallegly, Ms. Harman, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Issa, Ms. Richardson, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Lewis of
California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McClintock, Mr.
McNerney, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Royce, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Speier, Mr. Thompson of California,
Ms. Waters, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.J. Res. 26: Mr. Conyers.
H.J. Res. 37: Mr. Calvert.
H.J. Res. 47: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey and Mr. Forbes.
H.J. Res. 50: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.J. Res. 54: Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky,
and Mr. Chaffetz.
H. Con. Res. 49: Mr. Putnam, Ms. Titus, Mr. Latham, Mr.
Meek of Florida, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Castle, Mr. Kratovil, Ms.
Kilroy, Mr. Reichert, and Mr. Foster.
H. Con. Res. 59: Mr. Delahunt.
H. Con. Res. 121: Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Wolf.
H. Con. Res. 131: Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Cantor, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
McKeon, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Wamp, Mr.
McCaul, Mr. Camp, Mr. Pence, Mr. Lance, Mr. Olson, Mr.
Bachus, and Mr. Simpson.
H. Con. Res. 132: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H. Con. Res. 142: Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr.
Hinchey.
H. Con. Res. 144: Ms. Sutton, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Nunes, and Ms. Clarke.
H. Con. Res. 145: Mr. Rangel.
H. Res. 6: Mr. Kagen, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr.
Sestak.
H. Res. 69: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida and Ms. DeGette.
H. Res. 89: Mr. Sestak.
H. Res. 90: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H. Res. 111: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Mr. Calvert.
H. Res. 150: Mr. Sestak.
H. Res. 156: Mr. Calvert.
H. Res. 260: Mr. Sestak, Mr. Engel, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Baldwin,
Ms. Matsui, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, and Mr. Space.
H. Res. 278: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H. Res. 318: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr.
Terry.
H. Res. 346: Ms. Richardson, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Doggett, Mr. Israel, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Rush, Mr. Moore of
Kansas, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Kaptur,
and Mr. Sires.
H. Res. 350: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Platts, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Latta,
and Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 351: Mr. Perriello, Mr. Boccieri, and Mr. Shuler.
H. Res. 390: Mr. Lamborn.
H. Res. 409: Mr. Peters and Mrs. Capito.
H. Res. 411: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. Cardoza.
H. Res. 454: Mr. Visclosky.
H. Res. 475: Ms. Hirono.
H. Res. 476: Mr. Cao, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Pierluisi.
H. Res. 479: Mr. Shuster, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Sablan, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Conyers,
Mr. Courtney, Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Reyes, Ms.
Sutton, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mrs.
Biggert, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Brown of South Carolina,
Mr. Duncan, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Reichert,
Mr. Miller of Florida, and Mr. Forbes.
H. Res. 480: Mr. Sestak.
H. Res. 482: Mr. Butterfield, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Shuler.
H. Res. 498: Ms. Granger, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. Al Green of
Texas.
H. Res. 502: Ms. Waters.
H. Res. 503: Mrs. Dahlkemper.
H. Res. 505: Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Holt, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Massa, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, and Mr. Gene Green of
Texas.
H. Res. 507: Mr. Sestak, Mr. Neugebauer, Ms. Pingree of
Maine, and Mr. Murphy of New York.
H. Res. 515: Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Hunter, and Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina.
H. Res. 518: Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Moran of Kansas.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 1 of Rule XXII.
47. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the American Bar
Association, relative to a resolution approving the 2008
Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,
promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws in 2008, as an appropriate Act for those
states desiring to adopt the specific substantive law
suggested therin; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
[[Page 14462]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING MAYOR GIGI GRUBER
______
HON. PETER J. ROSKAM
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated public
servant from my Congressional District, Mayor Claudia ``Gigi'' Gruber
of Itasca. After twelve years as Mayor, Gigi is stepping down.
In her first experience with elected public office, Gigi served one
term as a Village Trustee in Itasca. Then, in May 1997, Gigi was
elected Mayor of Itasca. Over the years, Gigi has been an insightful
observer, keen in her understanding of the long-term challenges facing
the Village. Throughout her career, she has tackled these challenges
with deft skill, deep understanding, and strong personal integrity.
While constant change has brought a steady stream of new difficulties
for Itasca to confront, one thing has remained the same. Mayor Gruber
has kept a steady hand to the wheel, advising the Village Board and
working tirelessly for the benefit of the community and her residents.
Gigi Gruber has been an advocate for the people of Itasca since her
very first days in office. Gigi truly embodies the meaning of a public
servant as she approaches her job with compassion and humility. In her
time with the Village, she has shown true leadership to bring economic
development to the area. Gigi has improved all of our lives and left an
indelible impression on the Village of Itasca.
Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Gigi Gruber is a
remarkable leader who has dedicated her life to serving the people of
Itasca. Please join me in recognizing her extraordinary service and
wishing her every happiness in her life's upcoming endeavors.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN REMEMBRANCE OF MANUEL BURGOS
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Manuel
Burgos, a distinguished community activist of East New York.
Manuel Burgos is a true East New Yorker and operates the small
business Rare Arts. Growing up in East New York during the 1970s
enabled Mr. Burgos to see first hand how disinvestments, crime, lack of
social services and inadequate healthcare effects the neighborhood he
is from. Mr. Burgos decided to enter community service to enhance the
atmosphere and nature of East New York.
Before he turned 13, Mr. Burgos had already participated in many
vacant lot clean-ups throughout the neighborhood. By his late teens he
worked as a youth leader in his church's efforts to provide a Friday
night safe haven for other youth in his neighborhood. At the age of 16,
Mr. Burgos worked on a political campaign that made him realize
political participation was the necessary means to effecting real
change in communities like East New York. While in college he learned
of the community organizing work of other young Latinos around the
country and this shaped his future in critical ways.
Throughout his twenties, Mr. Burgos worked in his church as a youth
mentor providing youth programming and a safe haven for teens. He
worked in several nonprofits such as Cypress Hills LDC and the East New
York Urban Youth Corps (ENYUYC) as a director for afterschool
programming. While working for ENYUYC Mr. Burgos partnered with local
police, community leaders, residents and merchants in a pilot program
called Community Safety Initiative (CSI) to create a powerful problem
solving consortium that was directly responsible for significant drops
in violent crime. During this time, Mr. Burgos served as co-writer of
the East New York Weed & Seed.
Today Mr. Burgos continues his work as a technical assistance
provider on the local level, giving back to community projects that he
helped build years ago. He has authored many papers on community-based
collaborative problem solving and he developed a training guide on the
same subject. His business, Rare Arts, is the mold of his writing and
designing skills.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Manuel
Burgos.
____________________
AARON MENDOZA
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Aaron Mendoza who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Aaron Mendoza is a senior at Arvada High
School and received this award because his determination and hard work
have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Aaron Mendoza is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential that students at all levels strive to make the most of
their education and develop a work ethic that will guide them for the
rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Aaron Mendoza for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING WILL ORR FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
ACADEMY
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
young man from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has
distinguished himself as an excellent student and leader and has
committed to serving his country. I am proud to announce that William
Orr from Rome, Georgia, has received an appointment to the United
States Military Academy. Will attends Darlington School, where he has a
3.93 Grade Point Average and has been selected as a member of the
National Honor Society. In addition to his academic achievements, Will
has also been an athletic star for Darlington, where he has played on
Darlington's football, basketball, and soccer teams. He has earned
varsity letters in four sports while at Darlington and was a captain on
the football team for two years. Will is also very dedicated to public
service and has participated in multiple mission trips with his church.
Further, he has been selected to be a part of West Point's Summer
Leadership Seminar.
Will Orr is an incredibly well-rounded young man, and I am honored to
have the privilege to nominate him for an appointment to the U.S.
Military Academy. I ask that my colleagues take this time to
congratulate Will as well as his parents, James and Jo Orr, for all of
his accomplishments. It is because of dedicated young people like Will
that America has the finest military in the world. Our nation is
fortunate to have his service.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JOHN M. McHUGH
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 21, 2009, I was
unavoidably delayed and unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 288 through
291. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on No. 288, ``yes''
on No. 289, ``no'' on No. 290, and ``yes'' on No. 291.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SSG JEFFREY ALAN HALL
______
HON. PARKER GRIFFITH
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of SSG
Jeffrey Alan Hall.
[[Page 14463]]
On June 1, 2009, Jeffrey Hall and two other soldiers were killed in
Afghanistan by a roadside bomb west of Kabul. Jeffrey was part of the
U.S. Army's 2nd Battalion in the 10th Mountain Division and had
achieved his lifelong goal of earning the distinction of serving as a
U.S. Army Ranger. As our nation and my community struggles with this
sudden loss, I would like to pause and recognize Staff Sergeant Hall
and the ultimate sacrifice paid by him and his family.
Jeffrey was an eight-year veteran of the United States Army, earning
many well-deserved awards and decorations including two Army
Commendation Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, a NATO Medal
and a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. This was Jeffrey's
third tour in Afghanistan. He was an American Hero who believed in his
mission and told his father that this was a sacrifice he was willing to
make to protect his country and the freedoms we enjoy.
Jeffrey Hall was a soldier but he was also a loving son to his
parents Charles and Annette, a devoted husband to his wife Allison and
eleven months ago became a father to Audrey Faith. Jeffrey loved life
and his family and the outpouring of love and affection by his family
and friends is the real tribute to the man that he was and the life
that he led.
Staff Sergeant Hall is an inspiring example that we can all look up
to and aspire to be like. He put the safety of all Americans before his
own, and the people of this nation will be forever grateful. He
motivated and inspired those around him and will be greatly missed by
all who knew him, and by those who never had the honor and privilege of
meeting him.
Our country lost a great soldier and an even better son last Monday.
All of us in north Alabama are deeply saddened by Jeffrey's passing. On
behalf of the entire community in the Tennessee Valley, across Alabama
and a grateful nation, I rise today to remember SSG Jeffrey Allen Hall
and to pay tribute to his honor, his sacrifice and his memory.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, please excuse me for departing early on
Thursday, June 4, 2009. I left for personal reasons due to the severe
illness of my brother. If I would have been here, I would have voted
for H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.
____________________
A SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO THE RETIREMENT OF RICHARD A. GILTS AS PERRYSBURG
POLICE CHIEF
______
HON. ROBERT E. LATTA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I pay
a very special tribute to an outstanding Police Chief in the Fifth
District of Ohio. Richard A. Gilts of Perrysburg, Ohio has been serving
the area for Thirty-Nine years, where he was promoted as the Sixth
Chief of Police of Perrysburg in 2003.
Madam Speaker, there is no question that the safety of our citizens
is vital. In January of 1976, when Richard was hired on to the
Perrysburg Police Division, he rose through the ranks to become
Sergeant in 1983 and Lieutenant in 1993. The safety of its citizens is
of upmost importance to the city. Chief Gilts has demonstrated his
commitment to this goal through his involvement in programs such as
Safety Town, D.A.R.E., and the Perrysburg Police Foundation. Chief
Gilts was an active member of Rotary International, having served as
the President of the Perrysburg Rotary Chapter from 2005 to 2006.
On August 12, 2004, Chief Gilts dedicated a new 26,000 square foot
police facility, which replaced the 4800 square foot station that was
constructed at the same location in 1965. On August 28, 2004, Chief
Gilts and the Police Division assisted with operational matters during
a visit by President George W. Bush at the historic Fort Meigs Memorial
Park. In the week leading up to the event, Chief Gilts and the
Department were consumed by logistical and tactical issues, such as
procurement and placement of equipment and props, fencing, barriers,
site and crowd security, medical assistance, personnel scheduling and
perimeter security.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying special
tribute for the service of Chief Gilts. On behalf of the people of the
Fifth District of Ohio, I wish Chief Gilts all of the best in his
future endeavors.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN REMEMBRANCE OF RONALD S. CLINTON
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ronald S.
Clinton, dedicated community leader and advocate.
Ron Clinton's remarkable twenty year experience is highlighted by a
personal dedication to organizational effectiveness and empowering
others to succeed. He has devoted most of his professional services to
the areas of assessment, consultation, development, planning and
management services for small, mid-size and large companies.
Mr. Clinton graduated from Boriqua College with a bachelor's degree
in Human Services. He continued his graduate studies at Yeshiva
University where he received his Masters of Social Work and specialized
in community organizing. It was during this time that Mr. Clinton
pursued and developed Helping Hands Unlimited, Inc. (HHU), a not-for-
profit organization. It was through HHU that Mr. Clinton created and
committed himself to the mission of bringing qualified health
professionals into impoverished communities to ensure the delivery of
quality care.
Mr. Clinton is President and Founder of Helping Hands Unlimited, Inc.
He has represented clients in various capacities working closely with
inter-governmental affairs at the city, state and federal levels
ensuring the public interest of his clients. One of his paramount goals
is to build a creative and aspiring consulting company over a strong
foundation and guiding principles of leadership and success.
As a community leader and activist, Mr. Clinton serves on numerous
boards and committees. His drive and passion for effecting positive
change are evident through his personal efforts and commitment to stay
involved in community service. The vast influential relationships he
built over the years strengthened his solid position among his
colleagues. Mr. Clinton served as the vice president of Pueblo
democratic club in Williamsburg/Bushwick. He was elected as the
Democratic Party's Kings County delegate for Al Gore's presidential
candidacy. Mr. Clinton ran for the New York City Department of
Education School District 32 School Board in 2002. In 2004, Mr. Clinton
ran for New York State Senate and served as co-chair of the East New
York and Brownsville HIV Care Network and is currently serving as
chairperson of Woodhull Medical Center North Brooklyn Network Community
Advisory Board.
Mr. Clinton enjoys spending time with his ten-year-old son, Ronald,
coaching baseball, basketball and wrestling.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing a man
of great conviction and dedication to community service, Ronald S.
Clinton.
____________________
EMANUEL MENDEZ
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Emanuel Mendez who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Emanuel Mendez is a senior at Arvada High
School and received this award because his determination and hard work
have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Emanuel Mendez is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Emanuel Mendez for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
MEDICARE TRANSITION CARE ACT OF 2009
______
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the
Medicare Transition Care Act of 2009.
[[Page 14464]]
When people leave the hospital after an operation or illness, they
are often overwhelmed by a complicated and risky road to recovery.
Patients frequently report difficulty remembering clinical
instructions, confusion over medications, and, in cases where multiple
providers are involved, often get conflicting instructions from
different providers. Providing a transitional care benefit within
Medicare will help coordinate care, develop a care plan for patients
and their caregivers, identify potential health risks, and prevent
unnecessary hospitalizations.
This bipartisan legislation gets to the heart of improving quality
while reducing costs. A study published in April 2009 in the New
England Journal of Medicine found that almost one-third of Medicare
beneficiaries studied who were discharged from a hospital were re-
hospitalized within 90 days. Additionally, one-half of the individuals
re-hospitalized had not visited a physician since their discharge,
indicating a lack of follow-up care. The study estimated that Medicare
spent $17.4 billion in 2004 on unplanned re-hospitalizations.
The Medicare Transition Care Act will directly address continuity of
care problems by increasing support to patients as they move from the
hospital to their new care setting and ensuring that appropriate
follow-up care is provided during this vulnerable period. The benefit
would be phased-in, initially targeting just the most at-risk
individuals by providing evidence-based transitional care services
tailored to their specific needs.
I am proud to partner with Congressman Boustany, a cardiothoracic
surgeon, on this commonsense legislation that will improve the quality
and efficiency of our health care system.
____________________
HONORING THE INDIANA NATIONAL GUARD'S 1313TH ENGINEER COMPANY WHO WILL
SOON BE DEPLOYING TO IRAQ
______
HON. BARON P. HILL
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, today, I would like to pay honor to the
Indiana National Guard's 1313th Engineer Company, who will be deploying
to Iraq in July and spending the next year there. These brave citizen
soldiers, based out of Camp Atterbury in Edinburgh, IN, will be
conducting a wide range of engineering missions in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom; including searching for improvised explosive devices,
building roads and bridges, and, in general, improving lives to both
our service personnel in Iraq and Iraqi civilians.
I am confident that their skilled work and dedication to duty will
save lives, improve conditions in Iraq, and ultimately work toward the
completion of our country's mission in Iraq.
I would also like to honor the families of these Guardsmen, who
without their love and support, would make this already difficult task
that much more challenging. They too share in the hardships of military
service, and they too deserve our utmost thanks and respect.
These brave Hoosier Guardsmen and their families will be in my
thoughts and prayers.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RAMSEY POLICE DEPARTMENT D.A.R.E. PROGRAM STUDENTS
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, the Ramsey Police
Department will hold its D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony with the students
from the John Y. Dater and St. Paul Interparochial Schools. The young
people participating in this important program have made a commitment
to say no to drugs, underage drinking, and gang violence. They have
done this with the support of Chief of Police Bryan Gurney and the
brave men and women of the Ramsey Police Department.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small
program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than
75 percent of our nation's school districts and in more than 43 other
nations. This program allows children to defeat the negative cultural
influences that they are challenged with daily by opening the lines of
communication between law enforcement and youth and empowering them
with confidence and courage to say no to drugs.
I am proud of the young boys and girls who participated in this
program in Ramsey, and I would like to recognize them all for taking
this step toward positive citizenship:
Mark Andersen, Michael Babikian, Samuel Berman, Brianna Bussiere,
Olivia Carriero, Michael Cassella, Francesca De Palo, Matthew De Pinto,
Sonny Del Valle, Ross Farcas, Fiona Flood, Melanie Greenberg, Dwight
Han, Sarah Hattar, Lindsay Hoffman, Morgan Kleinberg, Julie McNamara,
Justin Millet, Brandon O'Callahan, Courtney Schreiber, Ryan Scialla,
Nikita Serafin, Ashley Sicard, Jacob Simpson, Zachary Becher, Jessica
Bell, Jacob Berkofsky, Kaley Bogden, Michael Brunton, Elizabeth Burch,
Michael Careccia, Connor Chamberlin, Kara Checke, Emily Derleth, Marc
Doran, Shannon Fine, Joseph Frohlich, Christina Goudelias, Joseph
Guthrie, Patrick Journick, Brian Lander, Elaine Les, Enmanuel Lugo
Abreu, Brandon Mazzola, Rebecca Moya, Allison Murphy, Stephen Pirro,
Kelly Richter, Alaina Sebes, Lucas Alvarez, Rosemary Arpino,
Christopher Di Palma, Katherine Donnelly, Daniel Donovan, Ryan
Faulkner, Thomas Feehan, Daniel Giallombardo, Meredith Halik, Haruna
Ishii, Kevin Johns, Melissa Lara, Devan Larson, Maria Martino, Jesse
Mitchell, Megan Murphy, Mariana Perez, Eric Pflugfelder, Stephen
Porter, Christine Song, Austin Triglia, Kayla Vanderbilt, Siera Vari,
Alexandra Aloi, Robert Beers, Joshua Bialkin, Emma Bogaenko, Megan
Bosso, Gregory Botz, Carlie Capela, Joseph Carroll, Nicole De Franco,
Matthew Donnelly, Bridget Gregory, JohnEric Hornyak, Ashley Houser,
Kenneth Kasprzak, Kevin Latz, Kellen McDonald, Peter McNally, Kazuki
Miyamoto, Amanda Nedelkoff, Bridget Quinn, Victoria Stitz, Samantha
Stollman, Caitlin Sweeney, Evan Szucs, John Alicandri, Jenna Bahnsen,
Olivia Cseh, Matthew Desimone, Conor Dobson, Olivia Gilligan, Mackenzie
Juhlin, Elise Kelly, Sean Kopczynski, Kelsey Larkin, Erin Latz,
Katherine Lenahan, Garrett Mast, Kathryn Miller, Jennifer Monteith,
Patrick O'Keefe, Jeffrey Padovano, Jacqueline Pesco, Sean Riordan,
Jared Schwarz, Alexander Sebastiano, Haydn Van Dyk, Lauren Venturini,
Kaitlyn Zwerling, Sarah Ahearn, Kayla Azouri, Danny Balbuena, Tye
Baruffaldi, Nicole Borbone, Samuel Brickman, Gabrielle Daniels, Kristen
Foelsch, Anne Glerum, Jake Gursaly, Josue Herrera, Siranush
Hovhannisyan, Kathryn Iannuzzi, Kazel Kapadia, Brendan Mahon, Peter
Mariani, Robert McOwen, Victoria Medlicott, David Mende, Harrison
Mobbs, Jessica Pevny, Elena Polin, Henry Ruitenberg, Ryan Shevlin,
Christopher Spittler, Kimberly Tuntigian, Brita Andersen, Taylor
Corbett, Julia D'Antonio, Matthew Davidson, Sean Donnelly, Sean
Donohue, Timothy Finnegan, Lillian Hong, Samantha Hotz, Harrison Illes,
Brendan Jahnke, Khadija Khan, Lily Kramer, Brian Kurnentz, Lacey
Laggan, Thomas Lanning, James Messina, John Milligan, James O'Keefe,
James Pupalaikis, Alyssa Rose, Breanna Russell, Elisa Silecchia, Kara
Sutcliffe, Anna Wanner, Jack August, Brooke Bernier, Carlo Alberto
Bolognini, Kelly Carolan, Jake Cataldo, Christina Cowie, Deanna De
Luca, Brooke Dommenge, Matthew Eng, Jacob Englishman, Zachary Gampel,
Evan Graf, Rio Greenshields, Beatrice Lee, Chae Young Lee, Matthew Lee,
Daniel Moon, Kyle Pacenza, Arpeet Patel, Emily Patunas, Madison Smith,
Brooke Tommaney, Hannah Tracy, Heather Wang, David Acampora, Antonio
Belmonte, Paige Cassella, Michael Cirilli, Ethan Cohen, Samantha
Creamer, Athena Davis, Lia DiPiazza, Brianna Francis, Brianna Jakus,
Matthew Lowery, Wesley Ng, Ian Quin, Basit Qurbanzada, Adam Reisfield,
Alexa Remia, Zachary Rockefeller, Bridget Scanlon, Thomas Scanlon,
Jonathan Scheibenpflug, Shayna Scott, Jeong Seo, Ashley Silecchia,
Emily Yankovich, Laura Branna, Kyle Buser, Dale Cheyne, Sophia Colon,
Pauline Crepy, William Danz, Kyle DeBel, Amber Finkeldey, John Gaffney,
Lina Hyman, Julianne Kadien, Alexandra Kilkenny, Julia Kissel, Kendall
Magennis, Thomas McCormack, Michael McGuirk, Jannica Mendez, Aleasa
Molinari, Matthew Myhr, Matthew San Julian, Margaret Schiazza, Evan
Shi, Michael Turso, Peyton Wejnert, Min Soo Kang, Scott Balcom, Bridget
Beyer, Emily Boylan, Kevin Caroli, Sophie D'Souza, Lauren Gallagher,
Yeonsoo Kim, Jack Kuipers, Connor LaSpina, Jeffrey Lieto, Margaret
McCarthy, Ryan McKenna, Justin Murad, Kerri-Anne Nicholson, Rosemary
Pawloski, Brandon Potenza, Nicholas Proscia, Tyler Ramirez, Hayley
Rieman, William Romano, Melissa Samanoglu, Nicholas Scavone, Kathleen
Smith, Alexander Tekerian, Daniel Tuite, Roberto Paraz, Michael Han,
and Issaac Utter.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize Patrolman
Timothy Shoemaker, Lead D.A.R.E. Instructor for the Ramsey Police
Department. A thirteen-year veteran of the force, Patrolman Shoemaker
was recently honored as the New Jersey D.A.R.E. Officer of the Year. As
Patrolman Shoemaker told the Bergen Record, ``A policeman needs to be a
leader and a role model in the community. I'll protect you from the bad
guys. But, also, if
[[Page 14465]]
you're going through something tough . . . a policeman can be your
friend.'' Patrolman Shoemaker has daily lived up to these words. All
who interact with Patrolman Shoemaker--criminals aside--can't help but
sing his praises, and today I add my voice to the choir. I commend this
humble and dedicated public servant on this well deserved recognition.
I know Ramsey students and parents alike would join me in saying that
our streets are safer and communities stronger for his presence.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, yesterday, I missed three
votes. I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 311, on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to
H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of
2009, I would have voted ``yea.''
Rollcall No. 312, on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to
H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009, I would have
voted ``yea.''
Rollcall No. 313, on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.
Res. 420, Celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and
supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN REMEMBRANCE OF REVEREND DOCTOR PASTOR LAURENT LOUIS
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Reverend
Doctor Pastor Laurent Louis, a man dedicated to serving God, his family
and the community.
Pastor Laurent Louis was born on February 12, 1956 in Port-au-Prince,
Haiti. He attended Lycee Petion a school that stressed duty,
responsibility and serving others. In June 1978, he graduated high
school and studied theology at the International Seminary of
California. He is a caring father, loving husband, devoted pastor and a
committed community leader.
At the age of 15, Pastor Louis began serving his church and the
community with great respect and responsibility. He taught Sunday
school and led the youth to a spiritual and disciplined life while
devoting time and energy to his community. People in his community
elected him to be the General Secretary of the soccer teams of the
Croix Des Bouquets. He later became a sports broadcaster and an
impartial referee in his sportive career. He knew health and sports can
lead to good academics and a successful life.
Pastor Louis came to New York City in January of 1981 and soon fell
in love with the Big Apple. He saw the need for his community to
organize spiritually, and he immediately joined Emmanuel Baptist
Church. It did not take his pastor long to discover Pastor Louis'
leadership and appointed him assistant pastor, youth president and
leader of the missionary. He accomplished his mission so well that when
there was a need for a station church at Coney Island, Pastor Louis was
selected to take on the task; within a few months there were 40
members.
Pastor Laurent Louis also founded an academic club to have students
help one another. He understood how to bring good people together from
the community to help in this endeavor. This club saved many young
students and 95 percent succeeded academically. With good will and the
help of good people, Pastor Louis was able to accomplish so much for
his community.
Pastor Louis has been happily married for 25 years, and enjoyed a
successful life with his wife Marie Mireille Louis and their six
children. His first daughter Deborah, his sons Nathanael and Benjamin
are attending college. His daughters Eltamar and Jessica are in high
school and Johanna is in elementary school.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Pastor
Laurent Louis.
____________________
JUSTIN McADOW
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Justin McAdow who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Justin McAdow is a senior at Arvada High
School and received this award because his determination and hard work
have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Justin McAdow is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential that students at all levels strive to make the most of
their education and develop a work ethic that will guide them for the
rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Justin McAdow for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING DUNCAN HALL FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES NAVAL
ACADEMY
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
young man from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has
distinguished himself as an excellent student and leader and has
committed to serving his country. I am proud to announce that Duncan
Hall from Kennesaw, Georgia has received an appointment to the United
States Naval Academy.
Duncan attends North Cobb High School, where he has a 4.104 Grade
Point Average and is the Vice President of the student body. Duncan is
the Commanding Officer of the North Cobb and Harrison High School
NJROTC Unit and has been the NJROTC Unit Academic Team Commander for
the past two years. Duncan also serves as NJROTC Academic Tutor and a
Character Education Advisor for Underclassman. He was presented the
Theodore Roosevelt Youth Medal for Outstanding Performance of Duty in
the NJROTC program by the Navy League of the United States and was
selected as the Atlanta Metropolitan Navy League's 2nd runner up for
Cadet of the Year. Duncan has also been recognized with the American
Legion's Scholastic Achievement Medal.
In addition to Duncan's focus on academics and military preparation,
he has remained very active in extracurricular activities, lettering on
both North Cobb's track and cross country teams. Duncan Hall is an
incredibly well-rounded young man, and I am honored to have the
privilege to nominate him for an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy.
I ask that my colleagues take this time to congratulate Duncan as well
as his parents, Duncan and Stefani Hall, for his accomplishments. It is
because of dedicated young people like Duncan that America has the
finest military in the world. Our nation is fortunate to have his
service.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PAUL W. HODES
of new hampshire
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes on June 8,
2009. I would have voted as follows:
(1) Rollcall vote 311--H.R. 1736--International Science and
Technology Cooperation Act of 2009 (Representative Baird--Science and
Technology)--``yea''
(2) Rollcall vote 312--H.R. 1709--STEM Education Coordination Act of
2009 (Representative Gordon--Science and Technology)--``yea.''
(3) Rollcall vote 313--H. Res. 420--Celebrating the symbol of the
United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day
(Representative Latta--Oversight and Government Reform)--``aye.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was
unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on Thursday, the 4th of
June. Had I been present, I would have voted:
[[Page 14466]]
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 309, On Motion to Recommit with
Instructions to H.R. 626.
``Yea'' on Final Passage of H.R. 626, Federal Employees Paid Parental
Leave Act of 2009.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 8, 2009, I was not present
for 3 recorded votes. Please let the record show that had I been
present, I would have voted the following way:
Roll No. 311--``yea,'' Roll No. 312--``yea,'' Roll No. 313--``yea.''
____________________
IN HONOR OF JAMES E. LEIGHTY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL, USMC
______
HON. JOHN P. MURTHA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant
Colonel James E. Leighty, USMC, upon his retirement after twenty years
of service to the Marine Corps and to the Nation. My initial experience
with Lt. Col. Leighty was when he was selected to serve as a
Congressional Fellow in my office in 2004. During this period, he
displayed a dedication to duty and a maturity that represent the finest
attributes of the men and women wearing our Nation's uniform. After
completing his fellowship, Lt. Col. Leighty was assigned to the
Pentagon, assuming the vitally important position as the principal
Marine Corps Appropriations Liaison Officer. In that capacity, he was
the primary source of information and education regarding Marine Corps
programs for the Members and staff of the Congress' Appropriations
Committees. Lt. Col. Leighty was instrumental in articulating Marine
Corps requirements on a wide range of issues, from the needs of our
Wounded Warriors and their families to the requirements of Marines on
the front lines in Iraq.
In addition, Lt. Col. Leighty often accompanied Members of Congress
and their staff on official travel to various locations around the
world. During these trips, he was always focused, enthusiastic and
totally knowledgeable on the Marine Corps. He provided valuable
insights to all those he accompanied.
Lt. Col. Leighty was born in Roseburg, OR and graduated from the
University of Rochester in 1989 with a degree in Economics and
Political Science, and received his commission through the NROTC
program. His various assignments included a tour as a Budget Officer
with the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, VA, Deputy
Comptroller for the 3d Marine Division in Okinawa, Comptroller for the
12th Marine Corps District aboard Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San
Diego, and analyst within Programs & Resources, Headquarters Marine
Corps. He has attended the Amphibious Warfare School at Quantico, and
the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
Lt. Col. Leighty's personal awards include the Meritorious Service
Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.
On behalf of the United States Congress, I wish to express my sincere
thanks for his hard work, selfless service, and dedication to the
Marine Corps. I want to personally wish him and Jayne continued success
in all their future endeavors.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN REMEMBRANCE OF RONALD LAW
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ronald Law,
a dedicated public servant of New York.
Ronald Law has spent his career in both public and private sectors as
an advocate for education, health care, community development, business
management and human rights. Mr. Law has held key positions in city,
state and federal government. He has served two governors, a United
States Senator and New York City Mayor. He has an undergraduate degree
from the State University of New York at New Paltz and is a graduate of
Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Mr. Law began his career in 1976 as a member of the advance and
scheduling team for the mayoral candidacy of then Manhattan Borough
President Percy Sutton. In 1978 he joined the staff of Governor Hugh L.
Carey, as a confidential assistant. In July of 1985 Mr. Law was
appointed Executive Director of the Paul Robeson Health Organization in
Central Harlem, a fee-for-service health care facility offering 32
medical services. Upon leaving the Paul Robeson Health Organization, he
became the Executive Director of the Center for the City, an
organization sponsored by the New York City Council of Churches. Mr.
Law directed IDS education, drug prevention, emergency shelter and
community outreach for this organization.
In 1990, Governor Mario M. Cuomo appointed Mr. Law Director of the
New York State Crisis Prevention Unit within the New York State
Division of Human Rights. In 1993, Mr. Law joined the staff of the U.S.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the New York Regional Director. In
1996, he joined Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's administration as the chief
of staff for Deputy Mayor Rudy Washington. Today he is the Director of
Intergovernmental Relations for Metro Plus Health Plan, a subsidiary of
the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation.
Mr. Law is a member of the New Paltz Foundation which raises funds
for scholarships, campus programs and student/faculty mentoring
experiences. Mr. Law has published an article on health care in The
Review of Black Political Economy.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ronald
Law and his many contributions to New York.
____________________
KAITLYN MAZZONE
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Kaitlyn Mazzone who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Kaitlyn Mazzone is a senior at Arvada West
High School and received this award because her determination and hard
work have allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Kaitlyn Mazzone is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Kaitlyn Mazzone for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt she will exhibit the same dedication she has shown in her
academic career to her future accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING SCOTT ROWE FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES NAVAL
ACADEMY
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
young man from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has
distinguished himself as an excellent student and leader and has
committed to serving his country. I am proud to announce that Scott
Rowe from Kennesaw, Georgia has received an appointment to the United
States Naval Academy. Scott attends Harrison High School, where he has
a 3.75 Grade Point Average and has earned the College Board AP Scholar
Award. Scott is also a member of Mensa. In addition to Scott's focus on
academics, he has remained very active in extracurricular activities.
He is on Harrison's wrestling and swim teams and is President of the
school's Integrity Team.
Scott is also very involved in community service activities, such as
Habitat for Humanity. Scott Rowe is an incredibly well-rounded young
man, and I am honored to have the privilege to nominate him for an
appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. I ask that my colleagues take
this time to congratulate Scott as well as his parents, Larry and
Barbara Rowe, for his accomplishments. It is because of dedicated young
people like Scott that America has the finest military in the world.
Our nation is fortunate to have his service.
[[Page 14467]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHNSON COUNTY ASSISTANT ELECTION COMMISSIONER KAREN
BROWNING
______
HON. DENNIS MOORE
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to pay Karen Browning, who recently stepped down after 41
years of service with the Johnson County, Kansas, Election Office,
including 27 years as Assistant Election Commissioner.
Dedicated, experienced public servants like Karen Browning are the
glue that holds government together at all levels, but they often do
not receive the respect and consideration that they deserve. Karen
Browning's retirement took from her office 41 years of deep devotion to
her community and an intricate knowledge of the rules and history of
Johnson County elections--a background that the citizens of Johnson
County will find to be irreplaceable. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to share with the other members of the House of
Representatives a brief profile of Karen Browning which recently was
published in the Johnson County Sun. I know that all Johnson Countians
join with me in wishing Karen Browning all the best as she embarks upon
her much deserved retirement, and we also thank her for her years of
dedicated service and work to ensure that Johnson County elections have
been conducted in a manner above reproach.
Election Official Retires After Serving 40 Years
(By Chuck Kurtz)
It was a one-issue, one-candidate ``election'' and
assistant election commissioner Karen Browning cast the only
vote: ``Yes to Proposition Retirement.''
After nearly 41 years with the Johnson County Election
Office in Olathe, Browning officially retired May 22; a
reception in her honor is planned for 3 to 6 p.m. June 17 at
the Election Office, 2101 E. Kansas City Road, Southeast of
Bass Pro, where Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh will
pay tribute to her service.
Also speaking will be County Chairwoman Annabeth Surbaugh
and Johnson County Election Commissioner Brian Newby.
Browning said she always will look back on her career with
great fondness.
``My time at the Election Office was an incredible
experience, full of hard work, passion for elections and
democracy,'' she said. ``It has been a great career that I
have always enjoyed, but it's time for a new chapter in my
life and to take it easy.'' In the past 40 years Browning
has: Worked in more than 200 Johnson County elections,
including 11 presidential elections; Served under six of
Johnson County's eight election commissioners and 32 county
commissioners; and, Watched the county's voter registration
increase almost fourfold.
She said she welcomed the end to hand-counting thousands of
paper ballots when the county switched to touch-screen voting
machines. Counting paper ballots is time consuming, she said,
and computers bring quicker results and less stress.
Browning's passion for the importance of voting was
instilled in her as a child.
``My folks always talked about voting and how important it
was,'' she said. ``I started when I was young. Voting was
already an important part of my life.''
That led to her passion for doing her best as an employee
at the election office. Newby said Browning was a walking
encyclopedia and office historian. She has complete records
on every election since she has been with the county.
``If anyone has a question about a past election, Karen is
the person to ask,'' he said.
``She has given so much to our county and to our voters;
she provided the best return on tax dollars that could ever
be imagined,'' Newby said. ``She leaves with the distinction
of being the most effective election office employee ever in
Johnson County.''
In Browning's first presidential election Nov. 5, 1968, a
total of 88,314 of Johnson County's 100,610 registered voters
cast their ballots. In her last presidential election, Nov.
5, 2008, a total of 285,001 of the 364,441 registered voters
cast ballots.
Her first job at the election office was as a key punch
operator since all voter registration cards and reports were
typed by hand.
``When we processed registrations, we typed them into the
books that went to the polling places,'' she said. ``We typed
men on one page and women on another, which I found very
interesting.''
Newby said Browning has been instrumental in the evolution
of the voter registration process, which she has overseen for
many years.
In 1978, Browning was named election clerk supervisor
followed by election manager in 1979 with primary
responsibilities for voter registration and list maintenance.
She has served as assistant election commissioner the past
27 years.
Browning also has overseen Census and mapping operations,
and knows Johnson County geography like the back of her hand,
since any ``visible ground feature'' might someday be needed
as a precinct boundary.
Although the election process has experienced significant
changes over the years, Browning said one thing has not
changed. The integrity of the ballot, even from a touch-
screen voting machine, is still held sacred, and that
requires rigorous adherence to the office's confirmation
procedures, she said.
Browning has mixed feelings about leaving Johnson County
public service, but admits she will most miss the people.
``Elections begin and end with people,'' she said.
In retirement, Browning plans to spend more time with her
family, and continue to volunteer in her many civic and
church activities.
Her family includes three sons, three grandchildren, and
two great-grandchildren.
``We will miss her and wish her well,'' Newby said, ``but
we are gratified to know that she will always be a phone call
away to advise us if we have a thorny issue. We even
offered--threatened, I guess--to continue equipping her with
a Blackberry so she could still be in the e-mail loop and
give us guidance.''
So far, no response from Browning.
____________________
EARMARK DECLARATION
______
HON. JO ANN EMERSON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information in
regards to the Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science
Appropriations Bill and the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill.
Requesting Member: Representative Jo Ann Emerson
Bill: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
Bill
Account: OJP-Byrne
Requesting Entity: Southeast Missouri Network Against Sexual Violence
Address of Requesting Entity: 1106 Missouri Avenue, West Plains,
Missouri 65775
Description of Request: To provide an earmark of $200,000 to the
Southeast Missouri Network Against Sexual Violence (SEMO NASV) to equip
and staff an office in the Bootheel of Missouri to assist victims of
domestic and sexual violence, as well as support local law enforcement
investigations. SEMO NASV provides services to over 700 adult and child
victims of sexual and physical abuse. The organization serves a 10
county region in Southeastern Missouri. It plays a vital role in the
process of convicting sex offenders, provides counseling and other
services to victims. The funds will be spent as follows: $126,000 for
personnel, $59,000 for equipment, $12,000 for office space, and $3,000
for training and travel.
Requesting Member: Representative Jo Ann Emerson
Bill Number: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science
Appropriations Bill.
Account: COPS-Meth
Requesting Entity: Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force
Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 1763, Sikeston, Missouri 63801
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $200,000 to supplement
and support operations of the Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force (SEMO
DTF). SEMO DTF is a multijurisdictional drug task force unit that
serves a 10-county area of Southeast Missouri. The unit conducts both
covert and overt investigations into the possession, manufacture, and
distribution of controlled substances. The funds will be spent as
follows: $32,000 for personnel, $89,000 for overtime compensation,
$66,000 for equipment, $4,500 for telecommunication services, $6,000
for supplies, and $2,500 for personnel expenses.
Requesting Member: Representative Jo Ann Emerson
Bill: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
Bill
Account: COPS-Meth
Requesting Entity: Mineral Area Drug Task Force/City of Leadington,
Missouri
Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 349, Farmington, MO 63640
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $200,000 to assist with
funding Mineral Area Drug Task Force's enforcement efforts in locating,
dismantling, and reducing the number of methamphetamine laboratories
within the area of their operation. Approximately $124,000 is for the
purchase of equipment to assist officers in their investigations,
$36,000 is for overtime for officers assigned to methamphetamine
investigations, $16,000 is for office and field supplies to assist
officers in the preparation of reports and to provide supplies
[[Page 14468]]
to facilitate the processing of clandestine labs, and $24,000 is for
travel and training to equip officers with the knowledge to efficiently
perform their duties.
Requesting Member: Representative Jo Ann Emerson
Bill: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
Bill
Account: COPS-Meth
Requesting Entity: Howell County, Missouri
Address of Requesting Entity: 1106 Missouri Avenue, West Plains,
Missouri 65775
Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $250,000 for the South
Central Drug Task Force to enhance drug enforcement in project area.
South Central Drug Task Force is a multijurisdictional drug enforcement
task force, and an existing HIDTA initiative within Midwest HIDTA,
comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers
including nine Sheriffs Departments, Municipal Police Departments,
Missouri State Highway Patrol, United States Forest Service, and United
States Park Service. Approximately $50,000 in overtime funding for
existing narcotics officers; $122,500 for technical surveillance and
reporting equipment; $65,000 for civilian personnel/Intel analyst; and
$12,500 for consumable supplies.
Requesting Member: Representative Jo Ann Emerson
Bill: Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
Bill
Account: COPS-Law Enforcement Technology
Requesting Entity: St. Francois County, Missouri
Address of Requesting Entity: 102 Industrial Drive, Park Hills, MO
63601
Description of Request: Provide an earmark for the Southeast Missouri
Law Enforcement District for $697,000 project for the following
counties of the 8th Congressional District to acquire and greatly
benefit from availability of a Law Enforcement Visual Tool: Iron,
Washington, and Bollinger. Federal, state, and local agencies will have
a common tool to jointly manage emergencies. The project enhances
public safety, officer safety, by placing sophisticated geospatial
intelligence information in the hands of emergency responders. The
funding would be used as follows: $12,000 for project administration,
$675,000 for image libraries, and $10,000 for equipment.
Requesting Member: Representative Jo Ann Emerson
Bill: Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill
Account: State and Local Programs
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Howell County Emergency Preparedness
Address of Requesting Entity: 3 Courthouse, West Plains, Missouri
65775
Description of Request: Provide an earmark for $250,000 for an
Emergency Operations Center in West Plains, Missouri. The Emergency
Operations Center will serve the residents of Howell County and
surrounding counties in the region in case of any natural or man-made
hazards. The funding is budgeted at approximately $7,275 for
administrative and legal expenses; $81,000 for land, structures, right-
of-ways, appraisals, etc.; $2,925 for project inspection and
architectural and engineering fees; $153,175 for equipment,
construction and miscellaneous items; $5,625 for contingencies.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. KURT SCHRADER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, on June 8, 2009 I missed rollcall votes
311, 312, and 313 due to personal reasons. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN REMEMBRANCE OF DENNIS J. TAYLOR
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dennis J.
Taylor, a community activist and ordained minister who has impacted
Brooklyn in countless ways.
Dennis Taylor has been living and serving the East New York and
Brownsville communities for more than twenty years. He began his career
as a volunteer, ministering and advocating for the rights of community
residents. For a number of years, Mr. Taylor served as a community
organizer for a local nonprofit organization where he assisted
residents by empowering them through the creation of tenant and block
associations. As a member of Community Board #5, Dennis Taylor leads
the council in creating positive change for all residents, regardless
of their ethnicity or culture.
As the founder and executive director of The Sabaoth Group, Inc.,
Dennis Taylor conceived and developed strategies that provide community
support services to more than 800 families in the East New York,
Brownsville, Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant communities. He is the
primary coordinator of services and initiatives, in addition to
securing funding through foundations, government grants and Requests
for Proposals. Mr. Taylor developed strategies to create linkages
between community law enforcement, community residents and faith-based
organizations. He also created initiatives and developed strategies for
resident advocacy, tenant organizing and community activism while
conducting tenant relocations for more than 300 families. Mr. Taylor is
also a founding partner in TDT Development, LLC, a community housing
development organization.
Mr. Taylor began his involvement in tenant services by leading the
residents of a dangerously neglected city-owned property through a
process of renewed commitment from the City of New York and their
subsequent resettlement. He has a reputation for producing consistent
results and maintaining honor and integrity in the community. Mr.
Taylor sits on various steering and advisory committees in East New
York.
In 2006, Dennis Taylor became an ordained Minister who has garnered a
sterling reputation in the East New York community.
Dennis Taylor is married to Anita Joyner-Taylor. He has two daughters
(Danesha and Keyeira), and two granddaughters (Faith and Patience). Mr.
Taylor holds an A.A.S. in Computer Technology, a Certificate from
Fordham University in Social Work and numerous certificates from the
Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Mr. Taylor is a
first call advisor to many grassroots organizations seeking guidance,
direction and/or logistical assistance in the acquisition of their
goals and objectives.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dennis
J. Taylor.
____________________
KELSEY MAY
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Kelsey May who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Kelsey May is a senior at Arvada High School and
received this award because her determination and hard work have
allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Kelsey May is exemplary of the type of
achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It is
essential that students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic that will guide them for the rest of
their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Kelsey May for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt she will exhibit the same dedication she has shown in her
academic career to her future accomplishments.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DAVID J. KEARS
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David J.
Kears, Agency Director for the Alameda County Healthcare Services
Agency. Mr. Kears is retiring from his position and a farewell party
has been planned in his honor on June 10, 2009.
Mr. Kears' scholastic endeavors brought him to the University of
California, Berkeley, where he graduated in 1968 with a major in
Sociology. He continued his graduate work at Berkeley and received a
Masters Degree in 1970 in Social Welfare with a Psychiatric Casework
Specialty. He also holds a Clinical Social Work license.
Mr. Kears performed his internship at the Sonoma State Hospital and
Children's Guidance Clinic in Palo Alto. After graduation, he went to
work as a Psychiatric Social Worker at Napa State Hospital. He thrived
in that setting from 1970 to 1974 and advanced to Assistant Program
Director.
He began his career with Alameda County as a Psychiatric Social
Worker in 1974 and
[[Page 14469]]
held a number of major department head positions in the Health Care
Services Agency. In March 1986, Mr. Kears was appointed to the Agency
Director position, at which time he not only took over the weighty
matters of the Agency but also became Acting Director of Highland
General Hospital during a time of reorganization.
Currently, as director of the Health Care Services Agency, Mr. Kears
provides overall direction, consultation and troubleshooting to the
four major departments comprising the agency which include Indigent
Care; Public Health Department; Environmental Health Services and
Behavioral Health Care Services. From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Kears assumed
the additional responsibility for developing a public/private Medi-Cal
managed care program, the Alameda Alliance for Health, pursuant to the
State of California Department of Health Services' directive. The
Alliance is now a fully licensed HMO comprised of traditional Medi-Cal
and safety net county and community providers.
Mr. Kears' most recent major program responsibilities included
coordinating the County's Indigent Medical Care System and monitoring
contracts with the Alameda County Medical Center and a broad network of
community-based primary care providers.
A number of non-profit organizations, commissions, government
agencies and health systems have benefited from Mr. Kears' leadership,
vast knowledge and experience in the development and implementation of
county and state health care policies.
I join Dave Kears' colleagues in thanking him for his years of
commitment and service in making a difference in the lives of others.
____________________
HONORING ANDREW NEAULT FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
young man from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has
distinguished himself as an excellent student and leader and has
committed to serving his country. I am proud to announce that Andrew
Neault from Kennesaw, Georgia has received an appointment to the United
States Merchant Marine Academy.
Andrew attends Paulding County High School where he has a 3.7 Grade
Point Average and is a member of the BETA Club. Andrew has been very
active with the JROTC where he has excelled as a State Champion JROTC
raider. He also served as the Athletic Director and Chief Petty Officer
for the Navy Delayed Entry Program.
In addition to Andrew's focus on academics and military preparation,
he has remained very active in extracurricular activities. Andrew is on
Paulding's football and wrestling teams and is a four-time nominee for
the ``People to People'' student ambassador program. He is also very
involved in community service, having volunteered at the Sunbelt
Christian Youth Ranch in Mississippi, Thanksgiving for the Homeless,
Thanksgiving for Youth Penitentiary, and Operation North Pole.
Andrew Neault is an incredibly well-rounded young man, and I am
honored to have the privilege to nominate him for an appointment to the
U.S. Naval Academy. I ask that my colleagues take this time to
congratulate Andrew as well as his parents, Raymond and Lynette Neault,
for his accomplishments. It is because of dedicated young people like
Andrew that America has the finest military in the world. Our nation is
fortunate to have his service.
____________________
HONORING THE WORK OF LOUISE BALLERSTEDT RAGGIO, MOTHER OF THE TEXAS
FAMILY CODE
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
recognition of Louise Ballerstedt Raggio, a trailblazer and an advocate
who has spent her life making sure that women and families have equal
rights under the law.
Mrs. Raggio was born in Manor, Texas and spent the early part of her
life as the daughter of a hardworking, Texas farm family. From an early
age, she learned the importance of perseverance and dedication to a
cause, and these traits have remained persistent throughout her life.
She graduated first in her class from high school and went on to earn
an undergraduate degree with highest honors from the University of
Texas at Austin.
After marrying and giving birth to two children, Mrs. Raggio began
law school at Southern Methodist University in a time when it was not
typical for a woman to do so. During law school, she gave birth to a
third son, and although it was difficult, she persisted, graduated, and
passed the Texas State Bar in 1952. Later, she took a job in the Dallas
County District Attorney's office and took over all child and family
cases. She was soon promoted and began doing criminal prosecution.
During this time, she became active with the Texas State Bar and joined
the newly-formed Family Law Section of the State Bar in 1960. She would
eventually become Chairwoman of the committee, making her the first
woman in Texas history to become Chair of any such committee.
As Chairwoman, Mrs. Raggio and her committee uncovered 44 state laws
which discriminated against women, and notably, married women. She
began a campaign to enact a Marital Property Bill and after seven
drafts, Governor Connally signed it into law, marking the end of a
three-year effort. She was so successful that she was asked to
undertake the entire revision of all family laws in Texas and after ten
years the Family Law Section of the Texas State Bar created the first
complete Family Code of laws in the world.
Today, Mrs. Raggio has garnered numerous recognitions and honors
including being elected the first female director of the State Bar of
Texas. She is consistently regarded as the Mother of the Texas Family
Code and Southern Methodist University has developed an annual Louise
Ballerstedt Raggio Lecture Series in her honor. I ask my fellow
colleagues to join me in honoring the work of Mrs. Raggio and her
lifelong commitment to a fair and just legal system.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO SUSAN M. BRITTON
______
HON. PAUL TONKO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, New York State American Legion Auxiliary
President, Susan M. Britton, has served with distinction during her
term in office from July 2008 through July 2009. Mrs. Britton traveled
to all 62 counties in the great state of New York, inspiring the
members of the American Legion Auxiliary to honor and serve the
veterans of New York State.
Susan Briton is a 35 year member of Clarke White Unit 589, American
Legion Auxiliary in Albany County. She has remained an active and vital
member of the organization, volunteering her services to veterans at
the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany and at the Albany VA Fisher
House.
This year Department President Britton has chosen ``Operation
Purple'' as her special project. Operation Purple began in 2004 and is
sponsored through the National Military Family Association (NMFA).
Operation Purple is the only program open to children of personnel from
all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces (``purple'' representing
inclusion of the branches). The program focuses on helping military
children deal with the challenges and stress that come with deployment
by providing free weeks of summer camp at different locations to bring
children together in a fun and healthy environment.
As word has spread about Operation Purple, there is a pressing need
for additional support to allow as many children as possible to attend
this specialized program. All funds donated will support resident
children within New York State. There are two camps, located in Lewis
and Orange counties.
Special fundraising projects have been conducted to support Operation
Purple, including those by the American Legion Family, which include
The American Legion, American Legion Auxiliary, and the Sons of the
American Legion. To date, over $60,000 has been raised to provide
military children in New York with the opportunity to attend one of
these camps.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN REMEMBRANCE OF THEORA KING
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Theora King,
a community
[[Page 14470]]
leader and educator who has contributed enormously to the lives of many
children in need.
Theora King has worked in the field of education for over forty
years. She has a bachelor of science degree in education from Mercy
College where she graduated magna cum laude. In 1990, Ms. King received
the Educator of the Year Award from a parent organization in District
17. Ms. King has worked in several programs including Big Apple, Head
Start, Learning Through Science, Title I, Latch Key, Summer Early
Childhood Program, and Platform For Learning and Special Education.
Theora King often goes above and beyond what is required of her in
order to keep children who are in need from being deprived of
opportunities that are afforded to other children who have supportive
families. Her love for children is demonstrated by using personal
monies to pay for trips, breakfast, lunch, clothing and other
essentials needed when a child's parents are unable to provide for
them. Ms. King has volunteered her personal time to tutor children in
reading to help them gain self-confidence, a love for reading, and
reading proficiency to pass State Reading Examinations.
During her career, children have demonstrated love and respect toward
Ms. King and children often come to her for advice and assistance to
handle difficulties they encounter at home and in school. Ms. King is
never too busy to take time from her personal life to help a child and
his or her family who may be in need of assistance. Ms. King is also a
member of the Open Door Church of God and Christ and she has served on
the Usher Board. In the past, Ms. King served as Acting Parent
Teacher's Association president and secretary when her children were
students at P.S. 316. Ms. King has also chaired the Social Committee at
P.S. 316 from 1968 to 2005.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Theora
King.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, today the Naval Postgraduate School in
Monterey, California will celebrate its 100th anniversary.
Founded a century ago as the School of Marine Engineering at the U.S.
Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, the Naval Postgraduate School has
grown in response to a changing world. The school moved to Monterey,
California in 1951, taking over the landmark Hotel Del Monte resort.
Today, NPS is a global leader in national security and defense-related
education and research.
The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) is a unique graduate school--an
institution dedicated to providing education and research with a focus
on relevance to the defense and security arenas and on recognizing and
innovatively solving problems in support of our military forces, our
country's global partners and our national security.
NPS provides high-quality, relevant and unique advanced education and
research programs that increase the combat effectiveness of the Naval
Services, other Armed Forces of the U.S. and our partners, to enhance
our national security.
NPS is one of the oldest and most prestigious institutions belonging
to the United States Department of Defense. Since its inception almost
a century ago, NPS has been found to be worthy of the investment that
both the Navy and the nation has made in it. The school has educated
some of the most brilliant and effective leaders of our nation and of
the world. Countless numbers of NPS graduates have made significant
contributions to global stability and national security, and some
remarkable breakthroughs in research at NPS have saved the lives of the
men and women who so bravely defend their nations daily.
Madam Speaker, I want to wish a happy 100th birthday to the Naval
Postgraduate School.
____________________
NATHANIEL MARTINEZ
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Nathaniel Martinez who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Nathaniel Martinez is a senior at
Jefferson High School and received this award because his determination
and hard work have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Nathaniel Martinez is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Nathaniel Martinez
for winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award.
I have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
A SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO COMPANY B, 202D ENGINEER COMBAT BATTALLION
______
HON. ROBERT E. LATTA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I
rise to pay a very special tribute to a brave group of men in Ohio's
Fifth Congressional District. Company B of the 202d Engineer Combat
Battalion is celebrating their sixty-sixth anniversary.
Madam Speaker, there is no question the military is one of the key
building blocks of our country. From the earliest days of our Nation's
history, courageous men and women have fought for the freedom and
safety of the American people. Our soldiers have opened doors for
America's citizens and allowed our children to live in a nation that is
peaceful and free.
During World War II, Company B served in campaigns in Normandy,
Central Europe, Northern France, Ardennes and the Rhineland. They were
the only group to serve in all five campaigns and receive five battle
stars in World War II.
The servicemen of Company B also fought alongside the 1st, 2d, 3d,
9th, and the 15th U.S. Army, the British 2d Army and the U.S. Navy
throughout the war in 10 countries. One of their most significant
contributions to the War effort was the construction of the longest
Treadway Pontoon Bridge in the world at 1152 feet, which was built in
less than six hours while facing enemy fire.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying special
tribute to Company B of the 202d Engineer Combat Battalion. Our
communities are well served by having dedicated servicemen who have
gone above and beyond the call of duty to protect our beloved Nation.
On behalf of the people of the Fifth District of Ohio, I am proud to
recognize this great group of men on their sixty-sixth anniversary.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF MOLALLA WILD AND SCENIC RIVER BILL
______
HON. KURT SCHRADER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce The Molalla
Wild and Scenic River Bill. This legislation would designate 21.3 miles
of the Molalla River as ``wild and scenic'' and would provide federal
designation in preserving the character of this section of the Molalla
River.
This legislation is supported by numerous elected officials, civic
leaders, and recreational and environmental groups in Clackamas and
Marion counties including American Rivers, the City of Molalla, the
Oregon State Police, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wild
Salmon Center, and the Willamette Riverkeepers. All of these groups
recognize the social, cultural and economic benefits of this bill.
In Oregon, the Molalla River is known for its many recreational
purposes which include hiking, diving, fishing, kayaking, whitewater
rafting, picnicking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. It still
serves as a water source for many citizens in Canby and Molalla,
Oregon, and is nationally recognized for its beautiful and scenic
wildlife. It provides spawning beds for threatened Steelhead Trout and
Chinook salmon and is also an essential wildlife area for the pileated
woodpecker, red tree vole, red-legged frog, northern spotted owl,
Pacific giant salamander, and both golden and bald eagles.
Designating this section of the Molalla River as ``wild and scenic''
would permanently ensure its protection and preservation as one of
Oregon's many natural state treasures. It would guarantee that future
generations can experience the river's rich historical, cultural,
[[Page 14471]]
and recreational purposes. I am excited to introduce this legislation
and urge my colleagues to support it.
____________________
HONORING BISHOP GUILFOYLE HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments
of the Bishop Guilfoyle High School girls basketball team of Altoona,
PA. As the 2009 Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association Class
A girls basketball champions, the Lady Marauders have shown the
discipline and teamwork required to achieve greatness.
The Lady Marauders have a rich history of achievement. Having won two
PIAA Class A championships in three seasons, and five overall, the Lady
Marauders are no strangers to success. Their season's record of 30-1 is
tied for the second most in a single season in Lady Marauder program
history.
This year's season came to a close on March 21st at University Park,
PA, and resulted in a 49-27 defeat of Nativity BMV by Bishop
Guilfoyle's Lady Marauders. The hard work and talent of the nineteen
players, as well as their five coaches, most certainly led to this
rewarding experience.
These young women are exemplary athletes and their pride in their
performance is an inspiration to all of Blair County. I believe that
this championship will be one of many successes in the lives of these
talented players and coaches, and I congratulate them for all their
efforts.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. ISAIAH R. McGEE
______
HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an
outstanding constituent and an award-winning educator, Dr. Isaiah R.
McGee. Dr. McGee is a 2009 recipient of the South Carolina Independent
Colleges and Universities Inc. Excellence in Teaching Award. He is the
director of choral studies and assistant professor of music at Claflin
University. He also directs the Claflin University Concert Choir.
Dr. McGee is a native South Carolinian, having been born and raised
in Anderson. He is a graduate of my alma mater, South Carolina State
University, and earned his masters from the University of South
Carolina. Dr. McGee earned his doctorate from Florida State University
in Music Education--Choral Conducting, and served as a graduate
assistant and director of the Gospel Choir at Florida State.
During his career, Dr. McGee has earned a reputation as an
accomplished vocalist, conductor, adjudicator, and clinician. He has
international experience, debuting as the Conte in Cimarosa's II
Convito at Teatro Signorelli in Cortona, Italy. He stays very active in
professional organizations including the American Choral Directors
Association and MENC.
Dr. McGee joined the Claflin University faculty in 1997, and has made
an enviable mark on the Orangeburg campus. Dr. McGee is always looking
for ways to enrich the experiences of his students to promote their
performance and their commitment to their craft. Last year, he took
Claflin's Concert Choir to China to participate in the pre-Olympic
ceremonies. They performed in both Beijing and Shanghai.
Dr. McGee has developed a great deal of respect from his colleagues
and students. Claflin University's president Dr. Henry Tisdale calls
him ``an exemplary member of our faculty and committed to teaching and
service.'' Claflin's vice president for academic affairs Dr. George
Miller says, ``Dr. McGee's approach to teaching and scholarship with
his student partners demonstrates the strength of the amalgam that
results when theory and practice are combined.''
Dr. McGee was selected for the Excellence in Teaching Award by his
peers at Claflin University. The purpose of the award is to honor
faculty members who demonstrate the highest standards of teaching that
encourage students to strive for excellence in their studies and
intellectual pursuits. In addition to the recognition, Dr. McGee
receives a $3,000 grant to be used for professional development
opportunities.
Madam Speaker, I invite you and my colleagues to join me today in
applauding the tremendous accomplishments of Dr. Isaiah McGee. He is an
extraordinary example of an educator who inspires intellectual
curiosity and demands outside enrichment to ensure his students reach
their full potential. This award is well deserved and is recognition of
a job well done.
____________________
SAMUEL MARKOFF
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Samuel Markoff who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Samuel Markoff is a senior at Arvada High
School and received this award because his determination and hard work
have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Samuel Markoff is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Samuel Markoff for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
IN SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF THE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE VILLAGE OF OTTAWA, OHIO
______
HON. ROBERT E. LATTA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following:
Whereas Congressman Robert E. Latta extends his congratulations on
the occasion of the One Hundred Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the
Village of Ottawa, Ohio; and
Whereas Ottawa, Ohio has been a proud member of the Northwest Ohio
community since 1834; and
Whereas the citizens of Ottawa, Ohio provide friendship and tradition
to all those in Northwest Ohio; and
Whereas Ottawa, Ohio has a long history of fostering business,
education, and community relationships; therefore, be it
Resolved The people of Northwest Ohio are grateful for the service of
the citizens and employers of Ottawa, Ohio. Ohio's Fifth Congressional
District is well served by their dedication and support. We wish
Ottawa, Ohio all the best during its celebration of the One Hundred
Seventy-Fifth anniversary.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GENERAL DAVID D. McKIERNAN
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
accomplishments, dedication, public service and valor of General David
D. McKiernan, U.S. Army, outgoing Commander of NATO's International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan,
who served our Nation with distinction during 37 years of faithful
service. General McKiernan will retire from the Army on 1 August 2009,
and we owe him our thanks and gratitude for his many efforts and years
of service on behalf of our Nation.
A native of Ft. McPherson, Georgia, General McKiernan entered the
U.S. Army in 1972, after graduating from the College of William and
Mary and receiving a ROTC commission from the U.S. Army. During the
course of his career he served at every level from platoon leader to
four star commander. The units he commanded included the 1st Battalion,
35th Armor (Iron Knights), 1st Armored Division, 1st Brigade (Iron
Horse) 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Calvary Division, and 3rd U.S. Army/
Combined Forces Land Component Command. He culminated his career
serving as the theater commander--COMISAF/US Forces Afghanistan.
This superb officer performed key leadership roles during many of the
crises and operations of the past 15 years. He served as the Deputy
Chief of Staff G-2/G-3 with the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction
Corp) while forward deployed in Sarajevo, Bosnia-
[[Page 14472]]
Herzegovina. From August 1998 until September 1999, he served as Deputy
Chief of Staff, Operations, Headquarters, United States Army, Europe
and Seventh Army during a period of simultaneous operations in Bosnia,
Albania, and Kosovo. General McKiernan subsequently became the
Coalition Forces Land Component Commander for Central Command. In March
2003, General McKiernan commanded and led all coalition and U.S.
conventional ground forces in the invasion of Iraq.
As the capstone for an exceptional career of service to our country,
General McKiernan distinguished himself from 3 June 2008 to 3 June 2009
while serving as the Commander, International Security Assistance Force
and Commander, U.S. Forces--Afghanistan. General McKiernan was
instrumental in developing the partnerships and setting the conditions
necessary for achieving mission success in Afghanistan. He revamped the
campaign strategy. He worked to improve command and control in that war
by reorganizing the ISAF headquarters staff to better execute that
strategy and working to establish a new command--U.S. Forces
Afghanistan, significantly improving coordination of counterinsurgency
operations across Afghanistan.
In the fall of 2008, General McKiernan articulated the need for a
sizeable increase in U.S. forces in the strategically important
southern region of Afghanistan to improve security and help safeguard
national elections in August 2009. He was the first to recommend the
need for a sizeable increase in civilian resources from the U.S.
Government to bolster governance and development efforts.
General McKiernan improved operations in Afghanistan, issuing new
Counterinsurgency Guidance as the campaign shifted to efforts to
protect the Afghan population, obtaining legal authorities to conduct
counternarcotics interdiction, improving force protection measures, and
issuing new guidance that cut down on non-combatant casualties. General
McKiernan worked with the Ministry of Interior to develop the Afghan
Public Protection Program, which could become a blueprint for
developing bottom up governance in the districts and provinces
throughout the country. He worked with the Afghan Government to support
a highly successful 2008-2009 voter registration program with over 4.5
million Afghans registering without major incident and prepared the
plans to support a fair and credible election in August 2009. He
received approval for his recommendation to accelerate the growth of
the Afghan National Army to 134,000 by December 2011, and has started
the planning effort to grow the Afghan National Security Forces up to
400,000 in the years to come. He also was the architect behind the plan
to bring in U.S. units in 2009 that can not only conduct a rigorous
counter-insurgency campaign in the south, but can build the capacity of
the Afghan Army and Police by training, partnering and mentoring with
Afghan Army and Police units. General McKiernan personally
reinvigorated the Tripartite Commission (TPC) process with Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and ISAF, and conducted bilateral meetings to improve U.S.
and Pakistan relations and to make the case that both countries face a
mutual terrorist threat. It is certainly my hope that General
McKiernan's initiatives build momentum going into the summer of 2009.
General David D. McKiernan is a true American patriot. His
leadership, keen intellect and performance throughout an intensive and
demanding period of military history were instrumental in achieving
success in mission after mission. He boldly led ``America's finest''
during combat operations in Desert Storm, the Balkans, the invasion of
Iraq and finally in the harsh and difficult mountains and deserts of
Afghanistan. I know his selfless performance of duty, courage under
fire, exceptional integrity and quiet pursuit of excellence has
inspired many American warriors who have served with him. I am sure he
will be truly missed in Afghanistan by his troops, diplomatic
colleagues, NATO and our Coalition partners, and the Government of
Afghanistan. It gives me great pleasure today to recognize and salute a
great American--General David McKiernan--before my colleagues. I wish
General McKiernan and his lovely wife Carmen all the best that life has
to offer as he concludes a most distinguished career in service to our
country.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE MILITARY OVERPAYMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009
______
HON. CAROL SHEA-PORTER
of new hampshire
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Military Overpayment Fairness Act. Payment errors are common in all
military branches and the burden of having to quickly repay an
overpayment can place a significant strain on military families.
When I had a meeting with National Guard families and asked for their
most significant problems, they spoke to me about the hardships caused
by overpayment errors. I heard the story of a National Guard Sergeant
from New Hampshire who was injured in Afghanistan and hospitalized in
Walter Reed. Due to an error by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS), he received four months of pay in error. He immediately
brought these overpayments to DFAS's attention. DFAS assured the
service member that there was no error and that he was entitled to all
of the money he received. The service member disputed the payments
several times, but was told they were correct. Then, a year later, DFAS
reversed itself and suddenly notified him that he had been overpaid.
They began deducting at the rate two-thirds of his monthly paycheck. To
make matters worse, by this time he had enrolled in college and still
had the continued, added burden of house payments. This and other
similar stories show the severity of this problem in my home state of
New Hampshire and across the nation.
I am introducing this legislation to ease the burden on servicemen
and women by requiring DFAS to take into account the finances of
members of the Armed Forces when pay errors are made. This bill gives
the Department of Defense the flexibility to negotiate the terms of
repayment, taking into account the finances of the service member, to
avoid causing service members undue hardship. In addition, the bill
states that not more than 10 percent of a service member's pay can be
deducted monthly for an overpayment. Currently, up to two-thirds of a
service member's salary can be deducted. The bill delays repayments if
service members are wounded, ill, or deployed. It also has a five-year
statute of limitations. These provisions should encourage the
Department of Defense to improve its accounting practices.
The men and women that serve our nation have already sacrificed for
our country--there is no excuse for placing undue financial burdens on
these men and women as a result of poor accounting practices. I was
proud to introduce legislation to address the hardships caused by these
errors. I look forward to its consideration in the House of
Representatives.
____________________
VITTORRO MAESTAS
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Vittorro Maestas who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Vittorro Maestas is a senior at Jefferson
High School and received this award because his determination and hard
work have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Vittorro Maestas is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Vittorro Maestas
for winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award.
I have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed
recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, June 8, 2009.
I ask that the record reflect that had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 311 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and
Agree to H.R. 1736); ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 312 (Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.R. 1709); ``aye'' on rollcall vote No.
313 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 420).
[[Page 14473]]
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF FEE DISCLOSURE BILL
______
HON. RICHARD E. NEAL
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce
The Defined Contribution Plan Fee Transparency Act of 2009. During the
last Congress, we expected some guidance from the Department of Labor
on the issue of fee transparency, but not much was finally implemented.
Therefore, I believe that Congressional action is warranted and this
bill provides a strong disclosure requirement to benefit both workers
and companies in understanding fees.
A few years ago, AARP conducted a survey of 401(k) participants to
find out what they knew about the fees paid by their plans. Plan fees
can make a huge difference in your account balance. As the Department
of Labor has pointed out in a helpful guide on the issue, ``Fees and
expenses paid by your plan may substantially reduce the growth in your
account.'' Literally, it pays to know what these expenses are. What the
AARP found in their survey is instructive: 83 percent of participants
acknowledged they do not know how much they pay in fees or expenses.
Considering the number of people who have told me they do not dare to
even open their 401(k) statement in this devalued market, that
percentage may have increased even more!
But fees are a serious issue and one which participants need to
understand from the outset. The House Education and Labor Committee has
held several hearings to highlight this issue over the past 18 months,
and I commend the Committee Chairman, Mr. Miller, for his leadership
and thoughtful ideas about how to address fair disclosure.
The growth in defined contribution plans offers great opportunities
for workers, with alternatives and options they did not have before.
Many workers, however, are simply overwhelmed with the information
distributed and, because of that, may not be able to utilize these
opportunities. Certainly, more disclosure is preferred. But, as AARP
found out, the need to better understand this information means it must
be in an easily digestible format and in plain English.
The legislation I am filing today, which updates the bill I filed
last Congress, would provide for disclosure both to the worker and to
the employer. Participants, or workers, would get both an enrollment
notice up-front and a quarterly notice updating them on their account.
At enrollment, the bill requires that for each of the plan's investment
alternatives, the employer would have to disclose the alternative's
objective and investment manager, its risk and return characteristics
and its historic rates of return in comparison to a benchmark. In
addition, the employer must indicate whether the alternative is
passively managed, as with an index fund, or actively managed, plus the
differences between these two investment styles and whether or not the
alternative is a single-alternative investment solution, such as a
lifecycle or target retirement date fund.
Regarding fees, the bill requires employers to disclose to employees
at enrollment the annual operating expenses for each investment
alternative (together with a translation of these asset-based fees into
illustrative dollar amounts), whether such fees pay for services beyond
investment management, such as plan administration, and whether there
are additional charges for buying or selling the particular
alternative, such as redemption fees. In addition, participants must be
provided with information about any separate fees they will be charged
for plan administration as well as a notice that certain plan services
they may decide to use could have separate charges associated with
them, such as investment advice programs, brokerage windows, or plan
loans. Accompanying these disclosures would be a statement that
participants should not select investments based solely on fees but
based on careful consideration of a range of factors including the
alternatives' risk level, returns and investment objectives. The bill
requires this information about plan investments to be provided to
employees annually as well.
In addition to this enrollment notice, each quarter, participants
would receive information about the investments they had selected and
the fees applicable to their accounts. This quarterly notice would
describe which investment alternatives the individual participant was
invested in, what percentage of the participant's total account each
alternative represented, the risk and return characteristics of each
such alternative and whether such alternatives were passively or
actively managed. The statement would also summarize for participants
what asset classes their account is invested in, with percentage
breakdowns. On fees, the quarterly notice must describe the annual
operating expenses (with dollar examples) and any sales charges for the
alternatives the participant has selected, any separate charges for
plan administration and any deductions for participant-initiated
services. In addition, to assist employees who may want to make
investment changes, the notice must tell participants how to access
investment characteristic and fee information for alternatives in which
they are not invested.
My bill also requires service providers to disclose to employers
various fee and expense information in advance of a contract. This will
ensure that employers have the information they need to bargain
effectively with plan service providers and to keep costs at reasonable
levels for participants.
Providers must give the employer an estimate of total fees, a
detailed and itemized list of all the services to be provided under the
contract and a schedule of any transaction charges that participants
may face. Providers that offer multiple bundled services must separate
the fees charged under the contract into fees for investment management
and fees for administration and recordkeeping and must also disclose
fees paid to intermediaries or other third-parties. Providers must also
disclose whether they expect to receive payments from third-parties in
connection with providing services to the plan, also referred to as
revenue-sharing, and if so, must name those parties and the amount
expected to be received from each. This revenue-sharing information is
critical so that employers understand how their providers are being
paid and whether any such financial relationships give rise to
potential conflicts of interest. Providers will likewise have to
disclose whether they may benefit from the offering of proprietary
investment products or those of third parties and must tell employers
if the investment products offered to the plan are available at other
price levels. Plan service providers must also provide this detailed
disclosure statement to employers every year the contract is in place
and prior to any material modification of the contract. In addition,
employers must make such statements available to plan participants upon
written request so that those employees who want to delve into the
details of the plan's financing can do so.
The Department of Labor's guide on 401(k) fees states that fees and
expenses generally fall into three categories: plan administration,
investment, and individual services fees. By requiring all service
providers, whether they just provide recordkeeping or if they perform
it all, to disclose fees in broad categories, such as these, companies
and employees can better evaluate what they are getting for what price
they pay. It is my understanding that some service providers are
already disclosing more than what is required. I hope that we can
capture those ``best practices'' and implement them across the board so
that all workers and employers have the best data available.
Additionally, my bill would apply not only to 401(k) plans, but to
all tax-preferred, participant-directed defined contribution plans,
including 403(b) plans and governmental 457(b) plans. The amendments
contained in the bill are all within the Internal Revenue Code, and
therefore, penalties for not complying will be taxes assessed per
violation per day, subject to a cap. The bill is forward-thinking,
pushing electronic delivery as much as possible. I hope to work with
the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, to address
this issue within the Committee very soon as I know he shares my
concern that the taxpayers' interests be protected.
Despite the fact that 8 in 10 participants do not know what fees are
charged, there is some good news out there too. According to a survey
released in April by Deloitte, the International Foundation of Employee
Benefit Plans, and the International Society of Certified Employee
Benefit specialists, the average expense ratio for plan investments was
down from the prior survey period. Clearly, the attention to fees is
having some impact resulting in lower costs.
It is my hope that this bill will provide much more information about
plan fees and expenses in a useful way without overwhelming recipients.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
____________________
WORLD ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important
work being done in Connecticut to bring attention to the
[[Page 14474]]
problem of elder abuse, and to ask that all of my colleagues join the
national observance of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day on June 15th.
Older adults are our parents and neighbors and friends--the grown-ups
who cared for us when we were young and once protected us from harm.
Now, we can help them live safely and with dignity. Sadly, elder abuse
and neglect happens all too frequently in America. Elder abuse can be
financial, sexual, emotional, and neglect; and it is not always
intentional. It can happen in any kind of home. Sometimes abuse is the
unintended action of an overwhelmed family member. Sometimes it is out
of anger. Never is it deserved. Only one out of five cases is ever
reported, and awareness of the problem is our first line of defense.
In Connecticut's Third District, The Coalition for the Advocacy,
Prevention and Elimination of Older Adult Abuse (CAPE), is working to
bring this hidden crisis into the light. They began a little over a
year ago with a grant from the National Committee for the Prevention of
Elder Abuse. CAPE is led by The Center for Elder Abuse Prevention at
The Jewish Home for the Elderly and the Southwestern Area Agency on
Aging. Today, the partnership has earned the generous support of The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Local Funding Partnerships and many
local funders including The Fairfield County Community Foundation and
The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation. These resources allow The
Center to help victims who cannot stay at a domestic violence shelter,
because of physical or cognitive issues that occur in late-life, find a
safe temporary place to live, where their special needs can be met and
the healing can begin.
On June 15th, CAPE will be holding a World Elder Abuse Awareness Day
event at the Jewish Home for the Elderly in Fairfield. I commend their
efforts to ensure that my constituents know how to spot the signs that
a friend or loved one may be the victim of abuse, and where they can go
for help. And I encourage my colleagues to contact me to learn more
about elder abuse and become part of the solution in their communities.
Again, I commend the work of The Center and CAPE. Ending elder abuse
begins by making every day World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEN'S CREW TEAM
______
HON. JIM McDERMOTT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following:
University of Washington Men's Rowing Team and Honored
Guests,
I write to give my hearty congratulations to the University
of Washington's men's rowing team for earning their 12th
varsity eight national championship, the 107th IRA Regatta,
and sweeping the eights on the way to a historic four golds
and five medals overall.
This astounding overall performance was capped by a
thrilling come-from-behind victory over arch-rival California
and I would like to take this time to commend the varsity
rowers on their fine performance. Heath Allen, Aljosa
Corovic, Will Crothers, Steve Full, Rob Gibson, Jesse
Johnson, Max Lang, Katelin Snyder, and David Worley have
earned my utmost admiration, as have all the members of the
University of Washington's rowing team, down to the last
rower in the boathouse.
What makes this victory so impressive is the volume of
dominance exhibited by this extremely deep team. The varsity
eight winning gold is an impressive feat in itself, but to
sweep the eights is the highest testament to the dedication
of the team and the culture of hard work and determination
established by Coach Bob Ernst.
Since 1903, when the University of Washington first
participated in intercollegiate rowing, our crews have
established themselves as the toughest and most determined
crews in the country. This year's crews have continued that
tradition by emphatically putting the ``gold'' back in the
purple and gold.
I am extremely proud to represent you in Congress and I
know that with the foundation of hard work instilled in these
young rowers by their coach and the University of Washington,
there are no limits to what they will go on to accomplish in
life.
____________________
MARIAH McCORMICK
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Mariah McCormick who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Mariah McCormick is a senior at Pomona
High School and received this award because her determination and hard
work have allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Mariah McCormick is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Mariah McCormick
for winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award.
I have no doubt she will exhibit the same dedication she has shown in
her academic career to her future accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING GRANT TUCEK FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
ACADEMY
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a
young man from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has
distinguished himself as an excellent student and leader and has
committed to serving his country. I am proud to announce that Grant
Tucek from Powder Springs, Georgia has received appointments to both
the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy
and will enter the Military Academy this year. Grant attends Harrison
High School where he has a 4.22 grade point average and is a member of
the National Honor Society and the National Beta Club. Grant is also in
the top 5% of all foreign language students. Despite Grant's heavy
focus on academics, he has remained very active in extracurricular
activities. During High School, Grant has participated in the Navy
JRROTC, where he has served as Company Executive Officer, Orienteering
Team Commander, and as a member of the Rifle Team. He was also honored
with the American Legion Military medal.
Grant has also contributed to the arts and athletics at Harrison High
School, playing trumpet in the Symphonic Band and running on Harrison's
track and field team. Grant Tucek is an incredibly well-rounded young
man, and I am honored to have the privilege to nominate him for an
appointment to the U.S. Military Academy. I want to take this time to
congratulate Grant as well as his parents, Wayne and Denise Tucek, for
his accomplishments. It is because of dedicated young people like Grant
that America has the finest military in the world. Our Nation is
fortunate to have his service.
____________________
HONORING NEWSWEEK RANKING OF THE SCHOOL FOR THE TALENTED AND GIFTED AND
THE SCHOOL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT YVONNE A. EWELL TOWNVIEW
CENTER
______
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the School for the Talented and Gifted and the School for
Science and Engineering at Yvonne A. Ewell Townview Center for
receiving the extraordinary honor of being ranked as the top two public
schools in the nation.
Each year, Newsweek ranks the top public high schools out of a
possible 27,000, placing these two schools as the top two out of the
1,500 schools listed. For 2009 the Magnet School for the Talented and
Gifted ranked number one, with the Magnet School for Engineering and
Science ranking number two. I am delighted that these two schools have
achieved such a distinction, placing them among the elite public
institutions in this country.
Additionally, I would like to recognize W. T. White High School which
ranked 171st and Woodrow Wilson High School which ranked 637th. These
rankings put all of these high schools in the top 6 percent of all
public secondary schools in the country.
Located in my district of Dallas, Texas, Townview Magnet is one of
the most diverse schools in the state, with minorities representing
over half of the student population. Given the diverse nature of the
City of Dallas
[[Page 14475]]
itself, and the increased globalization of most industries, the
students attending these two schools will have the opportunity not only
to impact the Dallas area, but on a global scale. This marks the third
time in 4 years that the School for the Talented and Gifted has been
ranked number one in the nation. This unveiling marks the second time
that the School of Engineering and Science has been ranked second
nationally, the other year being in 2007.
This honor shows the values of a good educational environment, as
many of the students attending these two schools will have
opportunities to be the future leaders of this country. This honor will
serve as an inspiration to the faculty, staff and students of Townview
Magnet School to maintain a high level of work. I extend my
appreciation for the hard work of everyone involved in achieving this
honor, and lend my support to the future success of Townview.
Madam Speaker, again, I congratulate the students, teachers,
principals and parents of Townview Magnet School for the Talented and
Gifted and the Magnet School for Science and Engineering on this honor.
____________________
A SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO VAN WERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
______
HON. ROBERT E. LATTA
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I
rise to pay a very special tribute to an outstanding school in my
district in Northwest Ohio. Van Wert Middle School in Van Wert, Ohio is
one of only 80 schools in the United States to be recognized as a
School to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades
Reform.
Madam Speaker, there is no question that education is the foundation
of our country. From the earliest days of our nation's history,
children have sought out the opportunity to learn subjects such as
math, science, and literature. Education has opened doors for America's
citizens and allowed our nation to be one of the most advanced in the
world.
Every year, the Schools to Watch program identifies schools across
the country that are well on their way to meeting the criteria for high
performance. These schools are known to be academically excellent,
developmentally responsive, and socially equitable.
In order for Van Wert Middle School to be selected for this
prestigious honor, this high-performing school established norms,
structures and organizational arrangements to support and sustain its
trajectory toward excellence. Van Wert Middle School has a sense of
purpose that drives every facet of their practice and decision-making.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying special
tribute to the Van Wert Middle School. Our communities are well served
by having dedicated educators who go above and beyond the norm to teach
the citizens of tomorrow. On behalf of the people of the Fifth District
of Ohio, I am proud to recognize this great achievement.
____________________
HONORING ANNETTE GODISSART
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments
of Ms. Annette Godissart, the recipient of the Bedford County Rotary
Club's 2009 Citizen of the Year Award. As this year's award winner,
Annette has shown exemplary service as a citizen of Bedford County.
In addition to her duties as a Laboratory and Cardio-Pulmonary
Manager at UPMCBedford Hospital, Annette has remained steadfast in her
service to the community as a volunteer, with an emphasis on the youth
of Bedford County. Whether serving the Bedford County School System as
a member of the Athletic or Technology Committee, or acting as umpire
for youth softball games, her efforts to aid in the positive
development of Bedford County youths have been constant.
Annette has been integral to the success of the Bedford County
``Reality Tour'' at the Bedford County Jail. Here, on a monthly basis,
she has spent the last five years working to convey the importance of
remaining drug-free to hundreds of local teenagers by showing them the
stark realities of drug abuse. This type of selfless volunteerism is
another way in which Annette seeks to mold the future leaders of
Bedford County.
The artistic and civic-minded aspects of Annette's community service
are shown in her involvement in community theatre as well as the Boy
Scouts of America. In the theatre Annette entertains Bedford County
residents through her stage talents, appearing in several shows each
year with the Bedford County Players, a local non-profit theater group
that promotes the involvement of youth in on stage productions. With
respect to scouting, after years of service to her two sons, and the
Boy Scouts, as a scout leader, Annette remains active as a merit badge
counselor, where she helps scouts to earn their Theatre Merit Badges.
Through her dedication to community service, and her enduring
commitment to the young men and women of Bedford County, Annette
Godissart is an exemplary citizen who embraces the Rotary Motto of
``Service above Self.'' She is deserving of this year's Citizen of the
Year Award, and I congratulate her for all her efforts.
____________________
EMILIO MARTINEZ
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Emilio Martinez who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Emilio Martinez is a senior at Arvada High
School and received this award because his determination and hard work
have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Emilio Martinez is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to
make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will
guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Emilio Martinez for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt he will exhibit the same dedication he has shown in his
academic career to his future accomplishments.
____________________
RECOGNIZING CONGREGATION TORAT EMET
______
HON. PATRICK J. TIBERI
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. TIBERI. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to
recognize Congregation Torat Emet. This synagogue is the product of the
hard work and dedication of many individuals in Central Ohio and their
commitment to the religious growth of their membership and the local
Jewish community.
Central Ohio is blessed with many houses of faith that can claim long
traditions of service to our community. The addition of Congregation
Torat Emet to Central Ohio will continue to make it a vibrant and
thriving spiritual center. The congregation will serve the community
well and is an inspiration to all.
Throughout our community's history those seeking a place to learn
more about their faith have found a home among our houses of worship.
The faithful dedication exhibited helps to make Columbus and Central
Ohio the kind of place where citizens of all religions and
nationalities desire to live, work and raise their families.
This congregation, of more than 150 families, began only five years
ago. The goal of securing and strengthening modern Orthodoxy in Central
Ohio has been driven by Jay and Jeanie Schottenstein along with Rabbi
Howard Zack. Rabbi Zack has been the Spiritual Leader of Congregation
Torat Emet since its inception in September 2001. Today, as they open
their second Synagogue in Columbus, Ohio may the local Jewish community
celebrate the reality of this vision.
I offer my congratulations to the Congregation Torat Emet and the
dedication of their new facility.
____________________
VETERANS NONPROFIT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CORPORATIONS ENHANCEMENT ACT
OF 2009
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the ``Veterans Nonprofit
Research and Education Corporations Enhancement Act of 2009''.
As the nation's largest healthcare provider network and the custodian
of our veterans'
[[Page 14476]]
health, the Department of Veterans Affairs has an important role to
play in the development of innovative new healthcare technologies,
medication, and practices.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs research program is
well respected within the research community. The program focuses on
research that concerns the special health care needs of veterans
especially war related injuries and illnesses.
Some recent successes of the program include neuromotor prosthesis
for paralyzed patients, development of an artificial retina for
veterans who have lost vision due to retinal damage, and the use of a
generic drug (prazosin) for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder.
Importantly, this research program does not just benefit veterans but
also American citizens as a whole. Years ago, this program was
responsible for bringing to the medical community the pacemaker.
Nonprofit Research Corporations were authorized by Congress in 1988.
The intent of these Corporations was to provide a flexible funding
mechanism to conduct research and education at VA medical centers.
Today, there are 82 independent, state-chartered corporations.
Nonprofit research corporations are a critical component of the
overall VA research program. In Fiscal Year 2007 alone, nonprofits were
responsible for securing $250 million from the private sector and non-
VA public funding to support over 4,000 research and education programs
at the VA. This includes providing nearly 2,500 without compensation
research employees who work side-by-side with VA-salaried employees.
This legislation authorizes the creation of multi-medical center
research corporations that would allow two or more VA medical centers
to share one Nonprofit Research Corporation. VA facilities with small
research programs may join with larger ones. Additionally, smaller ones
will be allowed to pool resources to support a Corporation.
It also clarifies the purpose of the corporation by enabling
Nonprofit Research Corporations to support functions related to the
conduct of research and education.
Additionally, this legislation will broaden the qualifications for
the two mandatory non-VA board members beyond familiarity with medical
research and education to acquire those with legal and financial
expertise for sound governance and financial management. This provision
would also remove the overly strict language prohibiting non-VA board
members from having any financial relationship, current or past with a
for-profit entity which funds VA research or education. This change
would be consistent with the rules applied to federal employees in
dealing with conflict of interest by allowing for means of recusal.
This legislation further clarifies the powers of corporations. Some
of the key authorities provided by this provision include allowing the
Corporations to charge registration fees for education and training
programs and to use such funds to offset program expenses or for future
educational purposes.
It will allow the VA to reimburse Nonprofit Research Corporations for
the salary and benefits of NPC employees loaned to VA under
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignments.
Finally this legislation will improve accountability and oversight of
corporations by requiring each Nonprofit Research Corporation to submit
an annual report to the Secretary of the VA on operations, activities,
and accomplishments. It would also require Nonprofit Research
Corporations with revenues in excess of $300,000 in any given year to
obtain an audit.
I urge your support.